Spiller's body of work is large enough and over enough time to bring clarity to what he truly is: a decent rb2 whom, ideally you would like to pair with a consistent rb1. He is not the stand alone rb1 many thought he was, nor is he the dreck that others in the sp often call him. If he's your rb1, you should be prepared for the dings, inconsistent usage, and wide swings in week to week points. He likely will remain in some form of timeshare for the foreseeable future. Personally, I have him in my top 15 dynasty rbs, but that makes him a middling rb2 at this point..
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Dynasty Rankings (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
EBF
Footballguy
Including his four years at Clemson and his four years with the Bills, he has a season high of 216 carries.
His coaches don't seem to trust him to carry a huge workload. I thought this year might be different after last year's breakout season and all the talk about getting him the ball, but now it's looking like this is just who he is.
His coaches don't seem to trust him to carry a huge workload. I thought this year might be different after last year's breakout season and all the talk about getting him the ball, but now it's looking like this is just who he is.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Gottabesweet
Footballguy
Spillers next 5 games will tell a lot about his value. He's been 100 percent last couple weeks. If he doesn't get going vs Atl post bye and Jacksonville coming up in three weeks then I'd sell.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
JFS171
Footballguy
Maybe fair on both, but would you be paying top-7 dynasty RB prices to find out?
I guess my thought is this: Marrone came out and said that he's always been a 2-back system guy his entire career. What Spiller supporters seem to believe is that the vast majority of the Jackson workload transitions to CJ in a year or so. I'm questioning whether the Bills don't draft another guy to play the Jackson role and leave Spiller as a complimentary guy. IF that's the case... we've seen him produce elite numbers in that role once.
I'd be scared to own him, and I'm SUPER thankful a trade for him this past week fell through.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Ehhhhh... I wasn't sending out mass offers for the guy at those prices prior to trade deadlines, but I'd still pay RB1 prices for the guy without much hesitating. Who can realistically be ranked ahead of him at this point? McCoy, Charles, Martin sure, but it gets pretty dicey after that IMO. Anyone else is either older, way less proven, or carrying equally significant red flags. I can see preferring a Gio / Lacy, Morris, Peterson, and a few other dudes, but there has to be room for Spiller in pretty much everyone's top 10 - 12 IMO.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Seems like a lousy time to need/acquire a RB in general right now. There aren't a lot of Charles/Rice type prospects -- talented guys waiting for an opportunity -- flying under the radar right now IMO. Talented guys are either prohibitively expensive, old or both. Even the young talented guys like Gio and Lacy have done enough to get their price up as well. Wilson is a wildcard, but a lot of his owners paid so much to get him they probably won't sell cheap.
Best bet might be to buy an older RB with at least some doubt about age/situation for a year or two after the season ends (Gore, Sproles, Woodhead -- maybe Bush or Lynch) and then hope to hit with rookie picks. Might not pan out, but I like that option better than the alternatives at this point.
Best bet might be to buy an older RB with at least some doubt about age/situation for a year or two after the season ends (Gore, Sproles, Woodhead -- maybe Bush or Lynch) and then hope to hit with rookie picks. Might not pan out, but I like that option better than the alternatives at this point.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
100% agreed. It's a seller's market for RBs for sure. I own McCoy and / or Charles in every league I'm in, and they're going up on the block this offseason, just because the market looks like it will dictate that I'll get WAY more than any one player is worth...
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Interesting. I'm in the same boat, more or less. Charles is my #1 in most leagues with Bush and Lynch making up most of my #2s. But there's no way I'm selling. What could I get back that improves my chances of winning in 2014?
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Dez / AJ / Graham / etc. + another core asset is what I'll be gunning for, looking to extend the window without hurting the present too much. I'm a fan of selling pretty much anyone whenever the player in question is commanding #1 overall type value provided I can get another guy on my "untouchable" list plus significant other value.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
(Look at me!) Yeah, I realized after I posted that the reason I was looking at it like that was I'm already pretty strong at WR/TE. Unless I could get Calvin moving a RB for WR probably wouldn't improve my own situation all that much. I'm also not convinced you're going to get two of those pieces for Charles/McCoy.
Either way, it'd be easy to end up with a big hole at RB -- especially in start 24/28 leagues.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I think the fact that so many RBs have busted this year will swing CW the other way though. Yes Charles and McCoy have amazing production right now but I think a lot more people are going to take the mindset of why would I spend elite value on a RB. Granted there's gonna be some leagues with a guy willing to move in 2014 on 2013 production but I'm not convinced the market for Charles and McCoy will be that competitive, especially if you're talking about Dez and Graham types. I would expect multiple 1sts added to any RB to get those WR/TE at this point. The strategy for RB in 2014 will be moving back to acquire 2015 picks.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
LOL -- I'm deeper at RB in most leagues so that plays a role for sure. I doubt I get AJ + Dez or anything, but one of them plus a lesser but still valuable piece or a 1st will make me think long and hard.
You’ll be looking for an AJ Green or Dez type PLUS something significant for Charles or McCoy? I’d trade either (particularly Charles) plus a late 1st for AJ Green or Dez.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I wouldn't trade Charles away in a deal like that, but this is what I'd expect to find if I tested the market. Given the high current value of RB VBD I just don't see how you're going to get enough back to make it work. Especially in the short-run.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I tend to agree with you, in a vacuum, but given the lack of cornerstone RBs currently, I don't think it's a total pipe dream. Of course it's also based on league-specific conversations and situations (ie AJG owner deep as hell @ WR /thin @ RB in one, etc).
EBF
Footballguy
There will be a decent argument for taking Seastrunk ahead of Charles and McCoy based on his age if he looks good at the combine and goes in the first round of the NFL draft. That's one avenue to consider if you own one of the older guys and someone is willing to accept that deal. Also something for Gio Bernard.
lyon812
Footballguy
Concept Coop
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
It's the same old line of reasoning that you'd expect to hear. For 2014 purposes, Charles is 27 years old and McCoy is 26. They're about to hit the age range where other owners will no longer be willing to pay a massive price for them regardless of their ppg. Charles might already be there. More importantly, a huge chunk of their best years is already gone. The very thing that makes them such safe picks (their extensive track record) is also the reason why their long term value is limited (because they've already been in the league for 6 and 5 years respectively). There's a lot less longevity potential there than with a player like Bernard or Seastrunk who has basically his whole career in front of him. So if you think that Seastrunk has comparable ability to Charles and McCoy, then there's a pretty clear reason to favor him for dynasty purposes. The obvious risk there is that you make the wrong assessment and get stuck with a 22 year old mediocrity when you could've had 2-3 years of very good numbers from one of the veterans.Define "decent".
I'm not 100% sure that I like Seastrunk enough to make that kind of move, but it's possible that I will. Provided that he checks out okay at the combine and that someone uses a 1st round pick on him in the NFL draft, I think he's likely to be a top 5-6 dynasty RB out of the box (at minimum).
Sorry, didn't intent for it to sound like a pipe dream. I wouldn't be shocked if the price could get there in certain leagues. Every league is different. Its always good to get what you can. If I were faced though with an offer of AJG for McCoy straight up in my inbox, it would be difficult for me to pass on it even if a better offer was likely coming.
ETA: I am talking PPR btw.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Below is a list of the RBs drafted in the first round in the last 6 years. I think Lache belongs right in the middle of this group, in terms of his standing as a prospect. I'm not trading McCoy or Charles for a dip in that pool. There are plenty of fantasy points to be found, and all of them had very solid market value at points, too. But I don't see much of an argument for treating the average 1st round RB prospect as equal to McCoy/Charles level players.It's the same old line of reasoning that you'd expect to hear. For 2014 purposes, Charles is 27 years old and McCoy is 26. They're about to hit the age range where other owners will no longer be willing to pay a massive price for them regardless of their ppg. Charles might already be there. More importantly, a huge chunk of their best years is already gone. The very thing that makes them such safe picks (their extensive track record) is also the reason why their long term value is limited (because they've already been in the league for 6 and 5 years respectively). There's a lot less longevity potential there than with a player like Bernard or Seastrunk who has basically his whole career in front of him. So if you think that Seastrunk has comparable ability to Charles and McCoy, then there's a pretty clear reason to favor him for dynasty purposes. The obvious risk there is that you make the wrong assessment and get stuck with a 22 year old mediocrity when you could've had 2-3 years of very good numbers from one of the veterans.Define "decent".
I'm not 100% sure that I like Seastrunk enough to make that kind of move, but it's possible that I will. Provided that he checks out okay at the combine and that someone uses a 1st round pick on him in the NFL draft, I think he's likely to be a top 5-6 dynasty RB out of the box (at minimum).
Richardson, Martin, Wilson, Ingram, Spiller, Mathews, Best, Moreno, Brown, Wells, DMC, Stewart, Felix, Mendy, CJ2k.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Yea, I think it's going to depend on whether you think he's a typical first round dice roll with the potential to break like Felix, Wilson, or D Brown, or whether you think he's more of a can't-miss guy. I actually don't have a totally concrete opinion there yet, but my early hunch is that I'll slide him more towards the can't-miss range. If I decide that he's right near the Charles/McCoy level as a talent then nothing will stop me from ranking him higher.
This is all stuff that I've said before, but the security of the proven production comes at a cost. Charles has played 75 NFL games already. McCoy has played 69. Those guys are probably 50-60% through their meaningful careers at this point. Think about that for a second. In terms of functional value, Jamaal Charles is worth maybe 40-65% what he was when he entered the NFL as a rookie. The fact that he's in an ideal situation and slated to potentially be a top 2-3 FF back for the next 2-3 seasons means these years are worth a lot more than his more middling early years, but all the same he's probably played more than 50% of the NFL games he'll ever play already. So what you're buying now is just a fraction of his full career value.
With Seastrunk or Bernard you're getting a much bigger chunk of the pie. In Seastrunk's case you're getting his entire NFL career, which could be 3-5 years longer than what's left of Charles's. If you always favor the rookie prospect in a situation like this, you could probably be dead wrong 30-50% of the time and still show a long term profit by picking the young player.
I don't know if really like Seastrunk THAT much to take him over McCoy, but it's likely that I'll have him ranked ahead of older guys like Peterson, Forte, and Lynch. The margin for error is a lot greater there and even if he's only a 35% chance to become a FF star, the numbers probably dictate taking him over those 28-29 year old guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
So we swap Charles or McCoy now in the midst of their top 2-3 FF seasons (for the next 2-3 years) for a RB that will be experiencing his "more middling early years"?
Should we then make sure to move Seastrunk once he finally reaches his potential after a few years in the league and is producing as a top 5 back, for Barry Sanders, Jr.?
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I think this is all hindsight, though. It's easy to pick out Felix, Wilson, Moreno, and Brown, and leave the guys like CJ, Martin, and Spiller who have produced top 5 numbers, at one point. But they were drafted in the same range, and plenty loved them, too.
How can one decide that Lache is a Charles/McCoy level talent, before seeing him in the NFL? That's a major variable. Show me someone that can make those calls at a decent rate, and I'll take note. But I've yet to see it.
EBF
Footballguy
Assuming that you kept the players for their whole career, a 21 year old Charles is obviously worth a lot more than a 27 year old Charles. What you decide to do with them is a different discussion.
It does seem like quite a few RBs don't hit their real peak until around 27-28 (Peterson, Tomlinson, Bush, Lynch, Charles, Westbrook, Barber), so that's an argument in favor of keeping the older guys. But of course Seastrunk himself will be 27 eventually, so trading for him doesn't necessarily eliminate the chance to get peak years. You'd get those peak years and also all the useful early seasons. Young RBs can be great too. The 2012-2013 seasons might give us four combined top 10 RB finishes from rookie backs before the dust settles (Richardson, Martin, Bernard, Lacy).
Ideally, you'd be able to get something like Seastrunk + draft pick for McCoy. McCoy was moved in one of my leagues in March for Bernard, J Gordon, and a late 1st (which in a dev league is more like a 2nd round rookie pick). In hindsight that's pretty great value for the Bernard side even with McCoy going bonkers. I traded Ray Rice in that same league back in late 2011 for Trent Richardson and a late 1st. That 1st helped me get Rueben Randle, who in turn helped me get Tyler Eifert, who could be a great starter for years in this format (1.5 PPR for TE). The "extras" that you can get thrown into a deal like this can make a big long-term difference. If Seastrunk for McCoy straight up is a bad deal, remember that you might not even need to pay that price. If most people are likely to rate McCoy >> Seastrunk this offseason (which seems likely), you could potentially get Seastrunk + extras for your McCoy. That would further increase your profit margin.
Similar discussions have popped up numerous times over the year and it is mostly the same points being rehashed. The risk-averse side emphasizes the chance of getting a lemon like Beanie Wells or (maybe) Trent Richardson. The gambler side emphasizes the potentially huge profit margins. As always, it's going to be a case-by-case thing where making the right assessments will be critical. If you replace Gio Bernard with LeVeon Bell and Josh Gordon with Chris Givens, that McCoy deal above looks like a total trainwreck. Nobody is ignoring the risk. However, there might be cases where the profit margin is so huge that you're getting the right price to take a huge risk.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I'm sure it's not exactly breaking news, but I agree with this 100%. There really isn't such a thing as a "can't miss" prospect, even from a purely talent perspective. When you factor in the fluidity of situation and its effect on fantasy value, it really gets tough to value any incoming rookie on par with the established difference makers.
EBF
Footballguy
We've had this discussion before many times. You don't need to be 100% right when trading a proven veteran for the next big thing because the youth offsets some of the risk, as do whatever extras you might get thrown into the deal. I still think you need to be really discriminating with that kind of trade because it's really easy to outsmart yourself and give up your 26-27 year old Adrian Peterson for Beanie Wells or some other crap, but saying you need to bat 100% (or even close) isn't accurate. Assuming that the age gap is wide enough, you could be wrong quite often and still show a long-term profit on this kind of transaction.
I didn't really mean to drag the conversation towards the general principle though. I'm more interested in this specific case. If I decide that Seastrunk or Bernard is likely to produce at a comparable level to McCoy or Charles for the next 2-3 years, there's a pretty clear incentive for going with the younger players. Whether or not those guys are really that good is debatable. IF they are, they're certainly more valuable than the vets. I think they might be, so that's why I brought it up.
I didn't really mean to drag the conversation towards the general principle though. I'm more interested in this specific case. If I decide that Seastrunk or Bernard is likely to produce at a comparable level to McCoy or Charles for the next 2-3 years, there's a pretty clear incentive for going with the younger players. Whether or not those guys are really that good is debatable. IF they are, they're certainly more valuable than the vets. I think they might be, so that's why I brought it up.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Part of the problem with saying you can be dead wrong 50% of the time and still come out ahead is that you're assuming that you're dead right the other 50% of the time. The reality is that the "dead wrong" number is probably fairly accurate at around 50% for most people, but the "dead right" side is probably much lower. A big chunk of that other 50% is going to be made up of guys that you were kind of right on and guys that did OK but you weren't completely off on.
Part of it may lie in how much you value true stud running backs, which I put a high premium on. I'd take the rest of Jamaal Charles' career over the entire career of two Rashard Menenhalls without blinking. Or, more accurately, over the entire career of Felix Jones and Rashard Mendenhall, which I think is the most likely scenario to come out of it.
Part of it may lie in how much you value true stud running backs, which I put a high premium on. I'd take the rest of Jamaal Charles' career over the entire career of two Rashard Menenhalls without blinking. Or, more accurately, over the entire career of Felix Jones and Rashard Mendenhall, which I think is the most likely scenario to come out of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Yeah, there's definitely some truth to that. There is a huge spectrum of potential career outcomes for any highly-touted rookie RB. Outright useless bust (Irons, Shelton, Pead). Mediocre spot starter (Felix). Mediocre 2-3 year starter (Greene, Mendenhall, Ridley). Outright star (McCoy, Peterson, Rice, MJD). Even if you successfully identify Seastrunk as a quality talent, he may end up being more Spiller/Mathews for FF purposes than McCoy/Peterson. However, I think there's another variable your post overlooks. And that's the opportunity to cash out for significant value.
Even if Seastrunk ends up being more of a tease than a reliable every week FF starter, his draft background as an (I'm guessing) 1st round pick will provide a pretty big cushion to his perceived value. If he shows any flashes of talent when given the opportunity to start, almost everyone will rate him as a top 10 dynasty RB. Look at Richardson, Martin, and Wilson last year. Even Miller got a lot of hype and he was a 4th round NFL pick. Same story this year with Bell, Lacy, and Bernard. Are all of these guys long term rocks? No, but at one point many of them were valued on that level. Ditto with Mendenhall, Spiller, Mathews, Stewart, McFadden, etc. There's not a perennial star in that group, but each one of those players was valued accordingly at one point.
It isn't reasonable to expect owners to always separate the frauds from the legit talents and act accordingly. I was able to get away from Mark Ingram before his value imploded, but I got stuck with Mendenhall, Mathews, and Kevin Jones in some leagues because I bought the hype rather than cashing out for top value when I had a chance. So I'm not going to suggest that it's realistic to think owners are always going to be able to take advantage of the escape hatch, but it's a legitimate variable. If you draft rookie X, he shows moderate flashes as a rookie but you decide that he's not legit long term, you have the opportunity to get out for a decent return before his value collapses. I mean, I think LeVeon Bell is a plodding tub of goo, but that perception isn't unanimous right now. If you own him, you have the opportunity to act right now. Even if he's a fraud long term, there's a sell window.
I think the reason why this argument is never resolved either way is because the viability of the general principle is going to vary wildly depending on the specific case. For example, if you traded Adrian Peterson for Beanie Wells and a 2nd round rookie pick, you look like an idiot in hindsight. If you traded Larry Fitzgerald for Dez Bryant and a 2nd round rookie pick, you look pretty good. So inevitably what happens in these discussions is the risk-averse side constantly harps on the dangers of buying junky players and the upside folks emphasize the potential to reap big profits by taking advantage of a frightened wait-and-see market. Neither side is totally right or wrong. It's about spotting the right opportunities and acting accordingly when they present themselves.
That doesn't resolve the argument either because there's a lot of disagreement in the ability of owners to make good spots. If you don't think anyone can identify talent much better than random chance alone, the idea of trading established commodities for what you believe to be lottery tickets obviously won't carry much appeal. If you think that it's possible to eliminate some of the bust risk through subjective analysis, you're probably going to be more intrigued by the idea of trading a proven star for an untested player who you feel has a very good chance to hit. I fall more in the second group and so I'm more open to this kind of idea, although more cautious than I was in previous years. Players like Demaryius, Marshall, and Calvin who fill up the box score every week are super rare, so I don't think you can look at very many prospects and reasonably expect them to hit that level. Sometimes a player like that will come along. What's probably more common is to see a prospect who has a likely range between pretty good---great. I feel that way about Tyler Eifert. I don't know if he's just going to be pretty good (i.e. Todd Heap and Greg Olsen) or great (i.e. Jason Witten and Tony Gonzalez), but I'm pretty sure that he's not going to be a bust. With that being the case, I feel comfortable assigning a high value to him.
That's kind of how I see Bernard and probably Seastrunk. I don't know that they're going to be perennial rocks like Frank Gore and LeSean McCoy. However, I'm pretty sure that they're at least "tease" level talents like Ryan Mathews and CJ Spiller. If that's the floor and stardom is the ceiling then I think you might be getting the right odds to take one of those guys over a much older, much more established player. If you switch out Bernard for someone that I'm a lot less confident in (like Bell or Ball), I'm more on board with your take. Those guys probably won't be great long term players and have a pretty high chance of busting outright, so I'm not interested in giving up a proven talent for them.
squistion
Footballguy
No there isn't. Look at those who said Trent Richardson was a "mortal lock" to succeed before he played a down in the NFL. That is why you rarely see anyone who has credibility as a draft scout or rookie analyst make silly predictions that a player is a "can't miss" prospect - it is because they know better, that no one has shown that they can consistently predict the future and those who think they can usually find that it comes back to bite them.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
But then the double reverse flip-side of that is that you could end up selling off someone at modest value who was actually destined to become that stud you were hoping for. Many people (myself included, can't remember if you were onboard as well) thought LeSean McCoy didn't look the part after his rookie year and sent him packing while he still had value. In that case you (universal "you") actually DID hit on your prospect, but sold him off before you reaped the rewards, even further reducing the chance of a "dead right" scenario because there are scenarios where you may have been dead right and not ended up keeping the player to see it out.EBF said:
This is even more prevalent in guys that you often cite as slow starters like Marshawn Lynch. In hindsight, trading a 26/27 year old stud for a full career of Marshawn Lynch would have been a good trade. Problem is, how many people that made that trade actually got the full career of Marshawn Lynch? How many people that own Lynch now are the ones that originally drafted him? I don't think Lynch's original owner still has him in any of my leagues and I would think that's pretty common. At some point he was moved after a value spike or as a throw-in, etc.
In the end, all of the "extra" stuff (getting good trade value out of a guy you properly recognized as not as good as you thought, improperly judging someone too early and giving him up before his value hit the level you originally drafted him for, etc) probably cancels out, and my best guess is when all these crazy variables are factored in the odds in the long run are going to come out in favor of the side keeping the 26/27 year old uber-stud. It's certainly possible I'm wrong about that.
It's interesting that this paragraph came up because I consider myself a "swing for the fences" type of dynasty owner yet this paragraph places me on the "play it safe" side of things.EBF said:
I always go after upside vs safety, but my ultimate goal is the uber-studs. I heavily buy into the "studs win championships" approach, and I think that's actually what puts me on what you describe as the "safe" side of this argument. In this case, I already have the uber stud that I wanted and my stud-driven approach means that if I get a guy back that's just OK or even "good", I consider that a massive loss. I'd take 2-3 years of stud over 7 years of solid RB2 or even fringe RB1 any time. Lots of the guys that you commonly cite as good fantasy players I consider 'meh' in the scenarios they're being discussed in. If I'm giving up a Charles-like stud in a trade like we're discussing here then the ONLY way I'm happy with the deal is if I get a guy that ends up being a Charles-like stud in return, but is younger. I'd put those odds well below the 50% we discussed earlier. If I get a guy that ends up being a "solid" player with a long career left I don't really care, I write that off as a major loss while I watch someone smash me with Charles for the next 3 years even if, at the end of those 3 years, I'm left with a "solid" guy while he's left with nothing.
I guess what we can take from all of this, as usual, is that there are many ways to approach dynasty and to mold it to your own personality. That's why it's such a great format.
EBF
Footballguy
I'm with you on all that. A mistake I made in my earlier days was getting younger for the sake of getting younger. The quality has to match up for the deal to make sense. You don't want to give up Calvin Johnson for Cordarrelle Patterson just because he's younger if he's nowhere near the same kind of talent. I've talked about being saddled with guys like Fitzgerald and Marshall in some of my leagues. A big part of the reason why I still have those players is because I was never able to get a deal done for the replacements I wanted (Dez, Blackmon) and was not willing to make a trade solely for the sake of making a trade.
As far as all the other stuff, I think a lot of it hinges on the owner's ability to know what he's looking at. If you're good at distinguishing legitimate players from frauds (which I think is possible), you can get away with things that other owners might not be able to. So I don't buy that the times when you mistakenly sell off a great player have to cancel out the times when you recognize a dud early and get rid of him. I think it's possible to make more right decisions than wrong ones. Easy? Maybe not, but certainly possible. There are owners in my leagues who seem to do well at it pretty consistently.
To answer your question, I was cautiously optimistic about McCoy after his rookie season. Here's a fun thread on that from the vault. Actually managed to trade Knowshon for him straight up in one league after their rookie year. That worked out nicely. I had a reasonably good take on him given that he was far from a sure thing at the time, but I've had other times where I got it totally wrong, like trading Aaron Hernandez for Jon Baldwin a couple years back. I wouldn't say that I've been great at making these calls, but I think it's something to strive for and I've probably gotten a little better at it over the years.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
How long do we expect Andre Johnson to keep this level of play up, if he stays healthy and playing with a QB who will chuck it up to him? I might have an opportunity to trade Murray straight up for Johnson and I'm kind of thinking they have the same amount of fantasy relevance left, in terms of effective startable years.
Which is an interesting topic. Trading a non-special, but young RB1 producer for an aging WR1 producer who probably won't hold his value throughout the length of their careers--but his production could be better.
Which is an interesting topic. Trading a non-special, but young RB1 producer for an aging WR1 producer who probably won't hold his value throughout the length of their careers--but his production could be better.
Here’s where I go RB instead of a comparably valued WR. When it comes to choosing between the elite RBs vs the elite WRs, I go WR every time. When the investment is big, WR is the safer position in which to invest. When the investment is smaller, fill the need, which in most cases would be RB. Trade value would tend to lean towards Murray anyway, so its Murray all the way around.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Interesting. Thanks for the input Ernal, always respect your thoughts on this type of stuff.
I guess the way I look at it is, I'd be surprised if Murray racked up 3 relatively healthy RB1 seasons in a row starting next year. I would not be surprised if Andre had a late-career renaissance and did rack up 3 relatively healthy WR 1 seasons starting next year. I think he's one of this generations underrated freak talents at his position, so I wouldn't be surprised. Murray, talent-wise relative to his peers, I would be kinda surprised if he had such sustained success.
I guess the way I look at it is, I'd be surprised if Murray racked up 3 relatively healthy RB1 seasons in a row starting next year. I would not be surprised if Andre had a late-career renaissance and did rack up 3 relatively healthy WR 1 seasons starting next year. I think he's one of this generations underrated freak talents at his position, so I wouldn't be surprised. Murray, talent-wise relative to his peers, I would be kinda surprised if he had such sustained success.
I would tend to agree with you in terms of production, Johnson will beat Murray. But any non-QB over 30 is dead to me on my teams
(not true, I acquired during the offseason Reggie Wayne on several teams due to his cheap production).If you have a need at WR and are set at RB anyway, Andre Johnson is a good fill in for a few years. But, if you have a stud RB like McCoy or Charles (or Martin), I’d rather trade one of those instead for a top 5 WR to fill the WR need and keep Murray. I feel more comfortable being able to exit Murray at a decent value in the next year than I would Andre Johnson.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Yeah, this is where I'm coming from. Andre is special, I could totally buy this resurgence lasting a few years.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Those guys are good comps for AJ IMO, who is 32. Moss' last year as a fantasy difference maker came at 32, Harrison's at 34, and TO's at 37(!) -- IMO it's pretty likely that Johnson has a year or three left as a FF starter.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Beat me to it. And keep in mind that Moss's last year coming at 32 had more to do with him being a headcase. I think AJ's got a pretty good shot at 2 more years at WR1 and a falloff year of WR2/3 before he's done.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I'm moving Murray where I own him, pretty aggressively. I was a fan of his to this point, but he's not the same guy. It takes him longer to reach top speed, and his top speed isn't the same. His footwork is sluggish and he's going down easier.
I've heard rumors that the Cowboys won't go into another season relying as heaily on Murray. Troy Aikmen hinted at it during a broadcast this year, saying something like: "There is growing concern about Murray's ability to carry the load and still be a playmaker. He's not breaking runs like he did as a rookie."
I wouldn't be surprised if the Cowboys used a 2nd or 3rd round pick on a RB to split time with, and eventually replace Murray. If and when that happens, his value is going to take a major hit.
If I could deal Murray for anywhere near where he went in startups this year (or a round or two later), I would. My impression, however, is that Murray’s trade value in particular is way down right now. In the one league that I own him, I am taking the chance that Murray’s value will spike again at some point. Until then, when in the lineup, he has at least been consistently decent (not going below double digits in PPR at any time this year and averaging almost 5 yards a carry). You would think that would carry some trade value in a RB-starved fantasy landscape, but it hasn’t worked out that way (probably for good reason).
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Having yet another injury this year really wrecked Murray's trade value completely. He was on pace to wind up with pretty good end of season numbers, which are now going to be much lower, and on top of that it's another injury out of a guy already viewed as injury prone.
Had he not gotten hurt I think the worries about his injuries would be fading to the back and people would be more focused on his productive season. As it is, missing those 2 and a half games made an enormous difference in his perceived trade value.
Had he not gotten hurt I think the worries about his injuries would be fading to the back and people would be more focused on his productive season. As it is, missing those 2 and a half games made an enormous difference in his perceived trade value.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Le'Veon Bell still seems to be pretty cheap, but I've got him in my top 10. I also think some people are slow to warm to the idea in PPR that a back can be a star even with garbage rushing numbers (see: Sproles, Woodhead), which means there's value to be had with guys like Ellington, Vereen, and a guy who I think is flying way under the radar in Joique Bell. I think there are a lot of cheap RB2 types available out there right now.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I'm just going to quote a very smart guy from up-thread and say "Define "decent".
"In theory, a 27-year-old Jamaal Charles has used up 50% of his career VBD, so a young prospect only needs to have a 50% chance of being the next Jamaal Charles in order to be an even bet, in the long run. Tweak the percentages if you'd like, but the point stands that as Charles ages, the required hit rate becomes lower and lower.
I tweak EBF all the time about his strategy of selling "old" players that aren't even close to being old just because they're starting to get close to being close to being old... but at some point, players are legitimately old, and it becomes a decent +EV play to start selling them for gambles with longer and longer odds. For me, Jamaal Charles is right on the cusp of that point. If he were 28, I don't think we'd have much of a problem with anyone saying they'd rather have the generic "best incoming rookie RB" over him. At 27... it's a harder call. I don't follow college anymore, so it's a call I'm not equipped to make until I start getting a look at what, exactly, "best incoming rookie RB" looks like this year. As much as I love Charles, it would take a pretty stellar prospect to get him away from me.
EBF was on me last year for having Rice ranked above Richardson, which I thought was pretty extreme considering Rice was still just 25. But, like I said, at age 27 I think the argument is at least worth having.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
This is why EV was invented, to settle situations like this without relying on anecdotes. We can estimated the EV remaining of an aging vet on the downside of his career. We can estimate the EV of a rookie prospect coming in. We can compare the two numbers, giving us an actual solid foundation rather than just platitudes about "needing to pick your spots" or "making the right gambles". I don't think owners are going to be able to reliably separate the Felix Jones from the Chris Johnsons ahead of time, but I do think we can figure out whether it's worth trading for a pick in the Jones/Johnson grab bag and hoping you get lucky.
