Dynasty Rankings (6 Viewers)

Adam Harstad said:

renesauz said:

Very short-sighted philosophy. Bench players don't go DOWN in value just because a year passes, they go up or down based on the probability of them becoming fantasy starter worthy. If player X is going to break out in his 3rd year, his REAL (not projected or guessed) value is still RISING through his first 3 seasons, not falling. Your theory fails to account for opportunity cost- the value of the roster spot locked up by a player you can't yet utilize. Even if you had the perfect crystal ball and knew exactly what player X would do every season for the next 10 years, his max value would still be just before whatever season he becomes a fantasy starter to stay...NOT 2 or 3 years ahead of that date.

Your explanation here implies that a player with 10 years of mediocre production ahead of him ....ten years of bye week level (sub level) production...would hold more real value than a perennial all-pro with only a year or two of fantasy WR1-2 production and another season of bye week production left. I know you don't believe this (nobody does), but your logic here leads to this. We'd all take 2 years of a fantasy WR1/2 over 10 years of meh on our bench.

Click to expand...

Again, Value is not Points. Value is some ephemeral catch-all that means "whatever production you gain in excess of some baseline". If a guy is projected to score 5 points a year for the next 100 years, his value is not "500", it is zero. Actually, it is negative, because that production certainly falls *BELOW* whatever baseline you're using. If a guy is worse than a street free agent, then his value is negative. If a guy is not starter caliber, his value is zero or negative. This is the same reasoning behind the whole "if I can get 75% of Crabtree's production, then even if I lose him for his entire career I've only lost 25% of his value" fallacy.

I will agree that if we had an absolutely perfect crystal ball (or the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and we graphed a player's "true value" (as opposed to projected or estimated value) over time, it is possible a lot of guys would see their value rise slightly for their first few years before it finally started falling. Jimmy Smith is a good example- even with perfect hindsight, his value was higher when he joined the Jags than it was when he joined the Cowboys because there was less opportunity cost in terms of how long you had to tie up a roster spot. Still, this only matters for purposes of whether to roster him if there are street free agents with a higher value than Smith, which would depend a lot on league size and roster size, but which would be unlikely in most formats.

Either way, while adding the opportunity cost of a roster spot and creating a situation where "true value" can rise with respect to time might improve the accuracy of the thought experiment, I estimated that the accuracy gains were small enough as to be outweighed by the loss of simplicity. The thought experiment wasn't meant to be a deep metadiscussion on the concept of true inherent value, it was more meant to be an exercise demonstrating that the objective of most rankings is not going to be to track perfectly with true inherent value. In the thought experiment, it is inarguable that the hypothetical WR lost "true value", yet I suspect that the vast majority of fantasy players would not lower their "estimated value" of the player in response. And I'm not arguing that they should, either, I'm just pointing out the discrepancy.

Click to expand...

Adam Harstad said:

I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts clearly and concisely. In fact, I'm a pretty good speller, but "concise" often seems like a four letter word for me. I'm working on it, and having a chance to use you guys as a sounding board for my thoughts gives me a great opportunity to see which are worth cultivating, and which sound silly the second I say them out loud (metaphorically speaking, of course). I know that the stereotype is that football is all about drinking beers and watching games, (and I love drinking beers and watching games), but I've been consistently impressed by how smart and, most importantly, thoughtful the average poster around here is (a sentiment that goes double for the dynasty guys). I didn't sign up to the forums because I had something to say and was just looking for a platform; in fact, I never would have imagined 10+ years ago that anyone would be all that interested in my thoughts on the subject. The fact that some people are has left me appreciative and, honestly, still a little bit surprised. There are a lot of people around here who are a lot more experienced and, I do not hesitate to admit, simply better at this than I am, and at no point do I mean to claim that I hold all the answers or some sort of special insight into the truth. I'm here because I love this sport, I love this hobby, I love thinking about it and analyzing it and discussing it with other people who love it right back. And I love all of you guys for loving it back, and for giving me a place to think about it and analyze it out loud.

Like I said, I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts, so I'm hoping this doesn't come off as disingenuous or false. I don't mean for it to. I was just struck this morning by how much I appreciate all the give and take that's taken place around here over the years. I appreciate how much better of a player you all have made me. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been wrong and who has dragged me kicking and screaming back from the edge. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been muddled and forced me to crystalize and clarify and sharpen my points. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been right and who has forced me to re-evaluate without re-entrenching. Hell, I appreciate everyone who has ever disagreed with me for any reason, because as should be obvious, I love me some arguing. And I appreciate everyone who has agreed with me, too, letting me know I'm not miles off the beaten track, letting me know if I'm heading in the right direction, giving me some strength in my convictions when they seem silly or pointless.

So, bringing this train into the station, I was just thinking of the community that has been built here over the years, and I know I'm not very good at letting people know how much I appreciate them. So I wanted to tell everyone here, but especially you guys- especially the Dynasty Threaders (new and old), especially the hardcore deviants slumming around a fantasy football message board at the beginning of June, the taste-makers and the consensus-setters- that I really do appreciate you all. And I strongly suspect I'm not the only one who does.

Click to expand...

Andy Dufresne said:

Adam Harstad said:

Not quite. Jones-Drew is two years younger, has been substantially more productive that Gore over his career, and faces less competition. He's more likely to be a top-12 RB this year, and he's more likely to be able to sustain that for multiple years to come. He is a substantially more valuable dynasty asset (i.e. I think one Jones-Drew is worth several Gores- at least two, possibly three).

With that said, I'd be pretty happy to trade for Gore as my RB2 this season if the price was right. And in leagues where his owner is not counting on him as a starter, the price is almost always right.

Click to expand...

Substantially?

Career stats:

Gore

MJD

Click to expand...

renesauz said:

Adam Harstad said:

renesauz said:

Very short-sighted philosophy. Bench players don't go DOWN in value just because a year passes, they go up or down based on the probability of them becoming fantasy starter worthy. If player X is going to break out in his 3rd year, his REAL (not projected or guessed) value is still RISING through his first 3 seasons, not falling. Your theory fails to account for opportunity cost- the value of the roster spot locked up by a player you can't yet utilize. Even if you had the perfect crystal ball and knew exactly what player X would do every season for the next 10 years, his max value would still be just before whatever season he becomes a fantasy starter to stay...NOT 2 or 3 years ahead of that date.

Your explanation here implies that a player with 10 years of mediocre production ahead of him ....ten years of bye week level (sub level) production...would hold more real value than a perennial all-pro with only a year or two of fantasy WR1-2 production and another season of bye week production left. I know you don't believe this (nobody does), but your logic here leads to this. We'd all take 2 years of a fantasy WR1/2 over 10 years of meh on our bench.

Click to expand...

Again, Value is not Points. Value is some ephemeral catch-all that means "whatever production you gain in excess of some baseline". If a guy is projected to score 5 points a year for the next 100 years, his value is not "500", it is zero. Actually, it is negative, because that production certainly falls *BELOW* whatever baseline you're using. If a guy is worse than a street free agent, then his value is negative. If a guy is not starter caliber, his value is zero or negative. This is the same reasoning behind the whole "if I can get 75% of Crabtree's production, then even if I lose him for his entire career I've only lost 25% of his value" fallacy.

I will agree that if we had an absolutely perfect crystal ball (or the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and we graphed a player's "true value" (as opposed to projected or estimated value) over time, it is possible a lot of guys would see their value rise slightly for their first few years before it finally started falling. Jimmy Smith is a good example- even with perfect hindsight, his value was higher when he joined the Jags than it was when he joined the Cowboys because there was less opportunity cost in terms of how long you had to tie up a roster spot. Still, this only matters for purposes of whether to roster him if there are street free agents with a higher value than Smith, which would depend a lot on league size and roster size, but which would be unlikely in most formats.

Either way, while adding the opportunity cost of a roster spot and creating a situation where "true value" can rise with respect to time might improve the accuracy of the thought experiment, I estimated that the accuracy gains were small enough as to be outweighed by the loss of simplicity. The thought experiment wasn't meant to be a deep metadiscussion on the concept of true inherent value, it was more meant to be an exercise demonstrating that the objective of most rankings is not going to be to track perfectly with true inherent value. In the thought experiment, it is inarguable that the hypothetical WR lost "true value", yet I suspect that the vast majority of fantasy players would not lower their "estimated value" of the player in response. And I'm not arguing that they should, either, I'm just pointing out the discrepancy.

Click to expand...

I understand...you did clarify somewhat. But 10 points of "value" per year for 5 years is NOT better than 13 points of value for 3 years...it just isn't. And this line of thinking really does neglect opportunity costs, falsely inflating the value of younger players who may not be fantasy starter worthy for a couple seasons.

I don't think we are as far apart as the posts might imply. I was simply pointing out the flaw in trying to over-simplify the equation. It's still a thought experiment either way until someone invents a crystal ball that actually works.

Click to expand...

Andy Dufresne said:

I see what you're getting at, but really the only thing that I see MJD having over Gore is age. Which is a consideration when we're talking about dynasty but when you compare the teams that they're playing for today I think you have to give the edge to Gore.

Plus, Gore appears over his injury history and MJD is still recovering from a lisfranc injury.

Anyway, I'm jumping into this conversation late so it's probably best for me to bow out while just throwing in $.02.

Click to expand...

Adam Harstad said:

renesauz said:

Adam Harstad said:

renesauz said:

Very short-sighted philosophy. Bench players don't go DOWN in value just because a year passes, they go up or down based on the probability of them becoming fantasy starter worthy. If player X is going to break out in his 3rd year, his REAL (not projected or guessed) value is still RISING through his first 3 seasons, not falling. Your theory fails to account for opportunity cost- the value of the roster spot locked up by a player you can't yet utilize. Even if you had the perfect crystal ball and knew exactly what player X would do every season for the next 10 years, his max value would still be just before whatever season he becomes a fantasy starter to stay...NOT 2 or 3 years ahead of that date.

Your explanation here implies that a player with 10 years of mediocre production ahead of him ....ten years of bye week level (sub level) production...would hold more real value than a perennial all-pro with only a year or two of fantasy WR1-2 production and another season of bye week production left. I know you don't believe this (nobody does), but your logic here leads to this. We'd all take 2 years of a fantasy WR1/2 over 10 years of meh on our bench.

Click to expand...

Again, Value is not Points. Value is some ephemeral catch-all that means "whatever production you gain in excess of some baseline". If a guy is projected to score 5 points a year for the next 100 years, his value is not "500", it is zero. Actually, it is negative, because that production certainly falls *BELOW* whatever baseline you're using. If a guy is worse than a street free agent, then his value is negative. If a guy is not starter caliber, his value is zero or negative. This is the same reasoning behind the whole "if I can get 75% of Crabtree's production, then even if I lose him for his entire career I've only lost 25% of his value" fallacy.

I will agree that if we had an absolutely perfect crystal ball (or the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and we graphed a player's "true value" (as opposed to projected or estimated value) over time, it is possible a lot of guys would see their value rise slightly for their first few years before it finally started falling. Jimmy Smith is a good example- even with perfect hindsight, his value was higher when he joined the Jags than it was when he joined the Cowboys because there was less opportunity cost in terms of how long you had to tie up a roster spot. Still, this only matters for purposes of whether to roster him if there are street free agents with a higher value than Smith, which would depend a lot on league size and roster size, but which would be unlikely in most formats.

Either way, while adding the opportunity cost of a roster spot and creating a situation where "true value" can rise with respect to time might improve the accuracy of the thought experiment, I estimated that the accuracy gains were small enough as to be outweighed by the loss of simplicity. The thought experiment wasn't meant to be a deep metadiscussion on the concept of true inherent value, it was more meant to be an exercise demonstrating that the objective of most rankings is not going to be to track perfectly with true inherent value. In the thought experiment, it is inarguable that the hypothetical WR lost "true value", yet I suspect that the vast majority of fantasy players would not lower their "estimated value" of the player in response. And I'm not arguing that they should, either, I'm just pointing out the discrepancy.

Click to expand...

I understand...you did clarify somewhat. But 10 points of "value" per year for 5 years is NOT better than 13 points of value for 3 years...it just isn't. And this line of thinking really does neglect opportunity costs, falsely inflating the value of younger players who may not be fantasy starter worthy for a couple seasons.

I don't think we are as far apart as the posts might imply. I was simply pointing out the flaw in trying to over-simplify the equation. It's still a thought experiment either way until someone invents a crystal ball that actually works.

Click to expand...

When I discuss value, I'm speaking of some mythical number that has opportunity cost already baked in. Sort of like VBD, only without VBD's flaws or biases. In theory, this mythical "true value" concept would already account for the fact that each subsequent point of VBD is worth more than the previous point (i.e. one 200 VBD season is not equal in value to two 100 VBD seasons). "Value" to me is sort of like what "Utility" is an economist- it's this magical word that somehow manages to encompass all of the thousands of different variables into one neat little figure so that we can compare otherwise impossibly disparate values. It doesn't exist in the real world, it's just a tool that allows us to move about in the world of theory.

As I said, too, at some point ease is more important than accuracy. Sometimes I'm in favor of using a "close-but-not-quite" analogy in a thought experiment if any gains from improving the accuracy are offset by greater costs to ease. This discussion of "value" is very fascinating, but it's thus far encompassed a half dozen posts and thousands of words. If I had included the discussion as a side-bar in the original thought experiment, the thought experiment would have been marginally more accurate (although I would argue irrelevantly so), but it would have been so hard to follow that no one would have bothered.

Edit: I do sometimes envision us all as economists, developing our models and crunching our numbers and then all shouting "well, that's great in practice, but does it work in theory?!"

Click to expand...

Andy Dufresne said:

I see what you're getting at, but really the only thing that I see MJD having over Gore is age. Which is a consideration when we're talking about dynasty but when you compare the teams that they're playing for today I think you have to give the edge to Gore.

Plus, Gore appears over his injury history and MJD is still recovering from a lisfranc injury.

Anyway, I'm jumping into this conversation late so it's probably best for me to bow out while just throwing in $.02.

Click to expand...

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ConnSKINS26 said:

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

Click to expand...

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

Click to expand...

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Click to expand...

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Click to expand...

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

Click to expand...

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ConnSKINS26 said:

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

Click to expand...

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

Click to expand...

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Click to expand...

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Click to expand...

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

Click to expand...

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Click to expand...

DoubleG said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ConnSKINS26 said:

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

Click to expand...

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

Click to expand...

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Click to expand...

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Click to expand...

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

Click to expand...

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

Click to expand...

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

DoubleG said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ConnSKINS26 said:

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

Click to expand...

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

Click to expand...

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Click to expand...

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Click to expand...

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

Click to expand...

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

Click to expand...

I didn't elaborate because getting into an argument over semantics such as "He's not a world class athlete" usually just ends in a silly pissing match. If you choose to believe that a guy that starts at a position such as WR in the NFL, has a first round draft pedigree and statistics to back it up isn't a world class athlete then we just have to agree to disagree. Furthering the ignorance is to bring up a kicker which would be a comical comparison if he wasn't so serious about it.

The point I was making was that I've seen people write off any Thomas comparison as "he's just physically more gifted so he was able to over come it". This just seems inherently wrong to me. He overcame it, he's one of the best wide outs in the game. This should be a positive for those hoping Crabtree can recover.

Bringing up Thomas' height and size doesn't really mean much to me. Plenty of guys his size have failed in the NFL. To be where he's at you have to be able to do a lot of things really well that require two healthy legs. No one is arguing Crabtree was or ever will be at Thomas' level, I'm just saying if Thomas can get back to what appears to be full strength then we should have confidence Crabtree can get back to where he was at.

Click to expand...

Coeur de Lion said:

There are differing levels of athleticism within the NFL itself, but saying NFL players are merely good athletes is really dumb. Every single non-kicker drawing an NFL paycheck is a spectacularly gifted athlete.Crabtree isn't DT, but not many are. Thomas is a physical freak of nature second only to Calvin Johnsob. Crabtree is "just" a good NFL WR1 -- which probably puts him in the 99.999999th percentile as far as human athletic ability -- absolutely world class.

Click to expand...

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

DoubleG said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

tdmills said:

ConnSKINS26 said:

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

Click to expand...

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

Click to expand...

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Click to expand...

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Click to expand...

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

Click to expand...

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

Click to expand...

I didn't elaborate because getting into an argument over semantics such as "He's not a world class athlete" usually just ends in a silly pissing match. If you choose to believe that a guy that starts at a position such as WR in the NFL, has a first round draft pedigree and statistics to back it up isn't a world class athlete then we just have to agree to disagree. Furthering the ignorance is to bring up a kicker which would be a comical comparison if he wasn't so serious about it.

The point I was making was that I've seen people write off any Thomas comparison as "he's just physically more gifted so he was able to over come it". This just seems inherently wrong to me. He overcame it, he's one of the best wide outs in the game. This should be a positive for those hoping Crabtree can recover.

Bringing up Thomas' height and size doesn't really mean much to me. Plenty of guys his size have failed in the NFL. To be where he's at you have to be able to do a lot of things really well that require two healthy legs. No one is arguing Crabtree was or ever will be at Thomas' level, I'm just saying if Thomas can get back to what appears to be full strength then we should have confidence Crabtree can get back to where he was at.

Click to expand...

Again, YOU brought up Thomas. Lets switch it to say Anquan Boldin, who's lost a step(like potentially Crabtree could) he survives due to his elite strength/toughness. However he hasn't been FF WR1/2 for years, which shows what losing a little physical skill can do at that level.

Click to expand...

Sabertooth said:

Robert Turbin or Christine Michael? Who do you prefer and why? To be honest I was surprised when Seattle selected Michael in the draft. They seemed fairly settled on a quality backup in Turbin. And to spend a pick like they did when guys like Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, Glennon, Barkley, Nassib, and Wilson were still on the board spoke to their esteem of Michael. So why make the pick unless it was one of those situation where the value was just so high, you couldn't pass it up? Seems like that's what the situation was here. They passed up some very good players at need positions to select this kid at a position where they were already deep.

I don't know much about Michael. On the Audible this week I think Waldman said as a runner he was a first round talent. It is more maturity, blocking, and professionalism that allowed him to slide. Turbin sure looked the part last season though and suddenly Seattle has perhaps the deepest group of RBs in the NFL.

So who is going to have the value as a handcuff here? If I had to pick I'd go with Turbin right now. But Michael could beat him out.

Click to expand...

Instinctive said:

Ernol said:

Instinctive said:

Ernol said:

Instinctive said:

Let's say he's got 7 more years. 1 year of 0, and 6 years with an average of 150 each. That's 900 points if my math is correct.I get that 1 year of a replacement guy with only 100 points. So injured Crabtree means my "WR3" slot (or WR2, whatever) gets 1000 points over the next 7 years. Uninjured Crabtree would have netted me 7 years of 150 points, or 1050 points total for that starting spot in my roster. That's what, roughly a 5% difference spread out over the course of 7 years? I would call that insignificant.

Click to expand...

You're calculation using percentage of Crab's value lost is suffering from the same mistake that Warrior is making above. By your calculation, if Crabtree were out for his entire career, he would have only suffered a roughly 33% loss in value spread out over 7 years (when in reality, you lost 100% of his value).

Click to expand...

My team didn't lose the value though. If you're worried about playing FF like the stock market, then yeah it matters. But if you're worried about points in your starting lineup...

I suppose a better way to look at it would be Crabtree's value as 50 over 6 years vs 50 over 7 years. Looking at his incremental value over that replacement player (150 per year vs the 100 I get from a replacement).

In which case you've lost 50/350 points, or roughly what, 14% over 7 years? 2% per year...again, not significant enough for me to change my valuation of him. It doesn't materially affect my ability to win each year for 7 years, such that I would value him less.

Click to expand...

Your team did lose value, and the stock market concept had nothing to do with it. It lost all of the value that Crabtree was providing (in your example, the 50 extra points which is the value that Crabtree was providing in production).

Your “better way” of looking at it is simply the same formula that some others have indicated, and that is the percentage of the time lost divided by the total career – that is 1 year divided by 7 years or 14%. You can substitute any number for the replacement value and you’ll still come up with a 14% loss. You lost essentially 1 year out of 7 (1/7=14%).

Quantifying that loss on a per year basis (2% per year), while sounding less impactful, does not change that there was a 14% overall loss. For example, you can say that the loss is really just .005% per day which makes it sound even smaller, but that doesn’t change the total loss of 14%.

In all of this, I am not saying that is the best way to quantify the loss, or really getting into the crux of your original argument, but only that your use of percentages was not accurate and did not support your original argument (actually goes against it).

I think you were really saying that you value Crabtree at some value. After the injury, sure you miss the time he is out, but his true dynasty value from a practical sense (which is not just the aggregate of his production value for his entire career) is still very very close to what it was. This is not quantifiable by production numbers and percentages from what I can tell (although SSOG and others probably can figure some formula out).

Click to expand...

Yes. And my use of that 14% (or 2% per year) of lost points was to show that I don't lose a lot of point production, which is why I feel like his value should be unchanged. I'm looking at value as his worth, as what I'd pay for him. I derive that (mostly) from expected production over a replacement. Because I don't expect to lose a ton of production over a replacement, his value to me is unchanged.

All of this is separate from the fact that he's a risk not to return to full production (I also happen to believe this is practically nil, and the market hasn't yet adjusted for improved medical technology and recoveries), which is a separate factor in his value (risk profile).

It's like a stock: A) expected dividends and B) stock appreciation

Just because a stock I own has decided not to declare dividends this year does not mean I dramatically decrease its value to me.

Although it isn't a perfect analogy (because dividends work against appreciation in a vacuum, and stocks conceivably exist forever) it is close enough that, as a Finance major, it helps me value players with less of a bias from fandom.

Click to expand...

ratbast said:

I bought Leshore at the end of the season. I am not really worried that Bush will hurt Ms value beyond the now. Frankly, as a keeper, isn't it better than if Detroit drafted Lacy etc?I still think Leshore could be a decent RB2 and if Bush gets older or hurt then it might be time to shine, RB1!Am I crazy?

Click to expand...

DoubleG said:

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

Click to expand...

DoubleG said:

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

Click to expand...

ItsOnlytheRiver said:

Thomas' injury may have knocked him down from what he could have been, but considering where he is now and where his expectations were when he was drafted I feel like he is playing up to the potential designated to him pre-injury. To me, it's a safer bet assuming he's fully recovered rather than thinking he would have been Calvin Johnson 2.0 if only he didn't have the injury.

Click to expand...

Sabertooth said:

Robert Turbin or Christine Michael? Who do you prefer and why? To be honest I was surprised when Seattle selected Michael in the draft. They seemed fairly settled on a quality backup in Turbin. And to spend a pick like they did when guys like Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, Glennon, Barkley, Nassib, and Wilson were still on the board spoke to their esteem of Michael. So why make the pick unless it was one of those situation where the value was just so high, you couldn't pass it up? Seems like that's what the situation was here. They passed up some very good players at need positions to select this kid at a position where they were already deep.

I don't know much about Michael. On the Audible this week I think Waldman said as a runner he was a first round talent. It is more maturity, blocking, and professionalism that allowed him to slide. Turbin sure looked the part last season though and suddenly Seattle has perhaps the deepest group of RBs in the NFL.

So who is going to have the value as a handcuff here? If I had to pick I'd go with Turbin right now. But Michael could beat him out.

Click to expand...

DoubleG said:

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

Click to expand...

Adam Harstad said:

I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts clearly and concisely. In fact, I'm a pretty good speller, but "concise" often seems like a four letter word for me. I'm working on it, and having a chance to use you guys as a sounding board for my thoughts gives me a great opportunity to see which are worth cultivating, and which sound silly the second I say them out loud (metaphorically speaking, of course). I know that the stereotype is that football is all about drinking beers and watching games, (and I love drinking beers and watching games), but I've been consistently impressed by how smart and, most importantly, thoughtful the average poster around here is (a sentiment that goes double for the dynasty guys). I didn't sign up to the forums because I had something to say and was just looking for a platform; in fact, I never would have imagined 10+ years ago that anyone would be all that interested in my thoughts on the subject. The fact that some people are has left me appreciative and, honestly, still a little bit surprised. There are a lot of people around here who are a lot more experienced and, I do not hesitate to admit, simply better at this than I am, and at no point do I mean to claim that I hold all the answers or some sort of special insight into the truth. I'm here because I love this sport, I love this hobby, I love thinking about it and analyzing it and discussing it with other people who love it right back. And I love all of you guys for loving it back, and for giving me a place to think about it and analyze it out loud.

Like I said, I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts, so I'm hoping this doesn't come off as disingenuous or false. I don't mean for it to. I was just struck this morning by how much I appreciate all the give and take that's taken place around here over the years. I appreciate how much better of a player you all have made me. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been wrong and who has dragged me kicking and screaming back from the edge. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been muddled and forced me to crystalize and clarify and sharpen my points. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been right and who has forced me to re-evaluate without re-entrenching. Hell, I appreciate everyone who has ever disagreed with me for any reason, because as should be obvious, I love me some arguing. And I appreciate everyone who has agreed with me, too, letting me know I'm not miles off the beaten track, letting me know if I'm heading in the right direction, giving me some strength in my convictions when they seem silly or pointless.

So, bringing this train into the station, I was just thinking of the community that has been built here over the years, and I know I'm not very good at letting people know how much I appreciate them. So I wanted to tell everyone here, but especially you guys- especially the Dynasty Threaders (new and old), especially the hardcore deviants slumming around a fantasy football message board at the beginning of June, the taste-makers and the consensus-setters- that I really do appreciate you all. And I strongly suspect I'm not the only one who does.

Click to expand...

Concept Coop said:

wdcrob said:

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date.

Click to expand...

Agree. How can a player's upside be less than something they've done in their only attempt to do so?

Click to expand...

Lash said:

Concept Coop said:

wdcrob said:

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date.

Click to expand...

Agree. How can a player's upside be less than something they've done in their only attempt to do so?

Click to expand...

two words why

Blaine. Gabbert.

of course you just have to wait it out til another QB can get in there

Click to expand...

Biabreakable said:

The main thing missing from this thread is Fear and Loathing.

Click to expand...

Adam Harstad said:

Biabreakable said:

The main thing missing from this thread is Fear and Loathing.

Click to expand...

He's MIA from Twitter, too. He's too big-time for us plebes now that he's an employee of the NFL. :(

Click to expand...

Instinctive said:

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

And also, Ryan Mathews. Am I the only one who still believes? Blaming OLine and Rivers and lack of receivers for last year.

Click to expand...

ratbast said:

Kellar, Wallace, Tannerhill and Miller will all be overrated and terrible value for this year because of all the free agency and draft hype.

They also lost Jake Long and have switched JMartin from RT to LT.

In dynasty i would let the disappointment set in before I buy later in the year or next year.

Hartline might be decent value.

Click to expand...

Instinctive said:

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

And also, Ryan Mathews. Am I the only one who still believes? Blaming OLine and Rivers and lack of receivers for last year.

Click to expand...

Instinctive said:

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

Click to expand...

EBF said:

Instinctive said:

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

Click to expand...

I think he makes as much sense as anyone else once you get past Martin and Richardson.

I think it's a big step down from those two though. Spiller isn't as young as you might think. He played four years in college and took a little while to get rolling in the NFL. He turns 26 in two months. He's about the same age as Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall even though he came into the league 2 years later. I think he can have 3-4 peak years before his career is over, but his game is predicated on speed and that's usually the first trait to disappear. You don't see too many 30 year old sprinters winning Olympic gold. I also have some doubts about his ability to be a high volume back since he has a slight, almost WR-like body type. I don't quite rank him on my list of untouchable dynasty assets, but he's in the next group below with guys like Victor Cruz and LeSean McCoy.

As for Mathews, I look at him the way a lot of people look at Murray and McFadden. You know he's probably going to miss time every season, but when he plays he can be a solid starter for you. He's only a year removed from a top 10 RB finish. He can catch the ball. He's got a rare size/speed combo. He has some warts, but he's not without value either. I have grabbed him this offseason in a couple leagues where I needed a startable RB and couldn't afford to get a truly top level player.

Click to expand...

JPeso said:

Spiller vs. Mathews was another one you were quite comfortable that Mathews was the better RB.

Have you taken some time to watch CJ Spiller play? He is far from a WR-like body type, and far from simply a sprinter. You said he was like Reggie Bush coming out, is Reggie WR-like body type?

Sure, Spiller has elite athleticism, but just as importantly, he is damn instinctive.

You mention that he won't be the same guy at 30, but what running back is? Oh well, at least you've got him in the second group of dynasty assets now instead of outside of top 25 backs.

Click to expand...

thriftyrocker said:

A speed back still can be a RB1 late. Tiki, Dunn, Westbrook, etc. Injury is the death knell not loss in speed. We're talking about careers ending at 30 not 35 - big difference. You don't have to be D. Green to be fast at 30. Old adage was speed backs lived forever because they could avoid getting crushed and could find 2nd life as passing down specialists. SJax's swansong is the exception not the rule.

Click to expand...

thriftyrocker said:

A speed back still can be a RB1 late. Tiki, Dunn, Westbrook, etc. Injury is the death knell not loss in speed. We're talking about careers ending at 30 not 35 - big difference. You don't have to be D. Green to be fast at 30.

Old adage was speed backs lived forever because they could avoid getting crushed and could find 2nd life as passing down specialists. SJax's swansong is the exception not the rule.

Click to expand...