Dynasty Rankings (7 Viewers)

I am sorry for the offhand remark about trusting Jordan Todman more week 15. Fantasy Pros aggregate shows the same preference. http://sportswunderkind.com/week-15-fantasy-football-rankings/ You can ALL CAPS any word you want, but he likely wouldn't have been the focal point of a game they were behind by 14+ points before halftime. You only have to look at the KC comeback game 2 weeks prior to see what the downside was. Kind of ridiculous to mock a lineup decision that was a push and backed up by group think, but I brought it on myself by mentioning it, I guess.

Adam Harstad said:

thriftyrocker said:

Instinctive said:

How is Mathews still lumped in with junk like this????

I need to go trade for him everywhere. He is way better than that tier. And if I could trade Ellington for Mathews, ESPECIALLY if I could get other stuff too, I absolutely would. 100% of the time.

Click to expand...

Because even in a RB2 year he got subbed out for Ronnie Brown too much to make you feel good about it. I think I traded him to a Fleaflicker team you used to own for Montee Ball about a month ago.

Click to expand...

From week 6-17 (10 games), Ronnie Brown played 72 snaps. Total.

Click to expand...

Great Point. If someone was a Mathews' owner and seriously did not notice by week 15 that he was becoming the focal point of the offense, they clearly were not paying attention.

Englishteacher said:

I think people are missing the boat somewhat on Ellington. He graded out as an elite type back in the NFL in just about every facet there is in a very appreciable and statistically significant amount of playing time his rookie season. To, me he is the epitome of a dynasty investment and possible cornerstone. There's one thing he has by himself, the talent.

Here are a few things holding him back, most of which can change can changer to rocket him up to FF stardom.

First, HIS limitations. He's light. Can he sustain being a workhorse 3 down, all situation, back? Well, his goal with his offseason regimen this year is to put on some bulk. Check, problem solved.

Second Ellington limitation, experience. Ellington contended with Mendenhall, who already knew Arians' system. Albeit, Ellington radically outperformed Mendenhall. Ellington is now the starter so he'll get all the time he needs to develop.

Third, Arians's system is more geared toward the pass and typically RB's don't put up outstanding receiving numbers in it. Carries might be OK but if you're looking for a PPR king maybe not.

Lastly, that offensive line is pourous. The first round guard from last year will play this year and maybe they can help themselves further on this front in the draft and free agency. Still, on talent alone, he averaged an astonishing 5.5 yards a carry. That's astounding.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty big gap between "setting a goal" and "check, problem solved". In 2008, Selvin Young set a public goal to rush for 2,000 yards. Needless to say, no check, no problem solved. EDIT: Not to mention that even if adding bulk does solve his workload problem, there's a huge chance it'll ruin what makes him special. NFL history is riddled with speedy undersized CoP backs who bulked up and turned into mediocre plodders. Everyone remember when Felix Jones bulked up after his first two seasons to try to make a play for the starter's job?

Arians said that he doesn't think Ellington can hold up to a full workload. Arians said that he overworked Willie Parker and wound up wrecking him, and he's not going to repeat the same mistake with Ellington. Maybe Ellington can change his mind, but at the moment, that's a pretty big strike against Andre.

thriftyrocker said:

I am sorry for the offhand remark about trusting Jordan Todman more week 15. Fantasy Pros aggregate shows the same preference. http://sportswunderkind.com/week-15-fantasy-football-rankings/ You can ALL CAPS any word you want, but he likely wouldn't have been the focal point of a game they were behind by 14+ points before halftime. You only have to look at the KC comeback game 2 weeks prior to see what the downside was. Kind of ridiculous to mock a lineup decision that was a push and backed up by group think, but I brought it on myself by mentioning it, I guess.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not trusting a running back in a game between one of the worst defenses in the NFL and one of the best offenses in NFL history... and not trusting that running back. I didn't trust Alfred Morris against the Broncos last year, either. That doesn't mean I don't trust Alfred Morris and am looking to unload him, that means he's a guy who doesn't catch passes, so his value takes a hit in games where the anticipated game script calls for a team to be passing 75% of the time.

Ryan Matthews had a bad game against KC. Find me another RB who scored comparably who didn't have any comparably bad games.

Adam Harstad said:

Englishteacher said:

I think people are missing the boat somewhat on Ellington. He graded out as an elite type back in the NFL in just about every facet there is in a very appreciable and statistically significant amount of playing time his rookie season. To, me he is the epitome of a dynasty investment and possible cornerstone. There's one thing he has by himself, the talent.

Here are a few things holding him back, most of which can change can changer to rocket him up to FF stardom.

First, HIS limitations. He's light. Can he sustain being a workhorse 3 down, all situation, back? Well, his goal with his offseason regimen this year is to put on some bulk. Check, problem solved.

Second Ellington limitation, experience. Ellington contended with Mendenhall, who already knew Arians' system. Albeit, Ellington radically outperformed Mendenhall. Ellington is now the starter so he'll get all the time he needs to develop.

Third, Arians's system is more geared toward the pass and typically RB's don't put up outstanding receiving numbers in it. Carries might be OK but if you're looking for a PPR king maybe not.

Lastly, that offensive line is pourous. The first round guard from last year will play this year and maybe they can help themselves further on this front in the draft and free agency. Still, on talent alone, he averaged an astonishing 5.5 yards a carry. That's astounding.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty big gap between "setting a goal" and "check, problem solved". In 2008, Selvin Young set a public goal to rush for 2,000 yards. Needless to say, no check, no problem solved. EDIT: Not to mention that even if adding bulk does solve his workload problem, there's a huge chance it'll ruin what makes him special. NFL history is riddled with speedy undersized CoP backs who bulked up and turned into mediocre plodders. Everyone remember when Felix Jones bulked up after his first two seasons to try to make a play for the starter's job?

Arians said that he doesn't think Ellington can hold up to a full workload. Arians said that he overworked Willie Parker and wound up wrecking him, and he's not going to repeat the same mistake with Ellington. Maybe Ellington can change his mind, but at the moment, that's a pretty big strike against Andre.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If every small guy who was dynamic on limited touches just needed to gain weight to be a stud workhorse, NFL history would look pretty different.

I like Ellington as an NFL player much more than I like him as a FF asset. IMO he's in the wrong situation to get the most out of his abilities. Bruce Arians is allergic to throwing the ball to his RB, and Ellingon's efficiency numbers are very likely to regress. I have a hard time seeing him as a major red zone guy also.

Adam Harstad said:

That doesn't mean I don't trust Alfred Morris and am looking to unload him, that means he's a guy who doesn't catch passes, so his value takes a hit in games where the anticipated game script calls for a team to be passing 75% of the time.

Click to expand...

I don't trust Alfred Morris either and am thankful I traded high on him last offseason in similar deals.

Adam Harstad said:

Ryan Matthews had a bad game against KC. Find me another RB who scored comparably who didn't have any comparably bad games.

Click to expand...

He didn't have a bad game. He had low utilization. He also had low utilization Wks 9, 10, 12, and 13.

thriftyrocker said:

I am sorry for the offhand remark about trusting Jordan Todman more week 15. Fantasy Pros aggregate shows the same preference. http://sportswunderkind.com/week-15-fantasy-football-rankings/ You can ALL CAPS any word you want, but he likely wouldn't have been the focal point of a game they were behind by 14+ points before halftime. You only have to look at the KC comeback game 2 weeks prior to see what the downside was. Kind of ridiculous to mock a lineup decision that was a push and backed up by group think, but I brought it on myself by mentioning it, I guess.

Click to expand...

I don't think you were mocked, it just wasnt very relevant to the topic of Matthew's value, except for how it pertained to your particular team at the time - especially in light of how Todman did perform in that game. Starting a RB that had an opportunity and fresh legs down the stretch is generally not a bad idea.

The main point was that Matthews became a bigger part of SD's offense once he gained the trust of the coahcing staff and performed as a top 10 RB.

We all over-think it or make poor line-up decisions (and it didn't turn out to be a bad decision) from time to time. I just don't know why you hold it against Matthews, that you had options.

Snap count 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Ronnie Brown 5, 17, 5, 13, 1

Mathews 15, 26, 36, 24, 36

Englishteacher said:

I think people are missing the boat somewhat on Ellington. He graded out as an elite type back in the NFL in just about every facet there is in a very appreciable and statistically significant amount of playing time his rookie season. To, me he is the epitome of a dynasty investment and possible cornerstone. There's one thing he has by himself, the talent.

Here are a few things holding him back, most of which can change can changer to rocket him up to FF stardom.

First, HIS limitations. He's light. Can he sustain being a workhorse 3 down, all situation, back? Well, his goal with his offseason regimen this year is to put on some bulk. Check, problem solved.

Second Ellington limitation, experience. Ellington contended with Mendenhall, who already knew Arians' system. Albeit, Ellington radically outperformed Mendenhall. Ellington is now the starter so he'll get all the time he needs to develop.

Third, Arians's system is more geared toward the pass and typically RB's don't put up outstanding receiving numbers in it. Carries might be OK but if you're looking for a PPR king maybe not.

Lastly, that offensive line is pourous. The first round guard from last year will play this year and maybe they can help themselves further on this front in the draft and free agency. Still, on talent alone, he averaged an astonishing 5.5 yards a carry. That's astounding.

Click to expand...

Not picking on the grammar, per se, but the combination of the grammar faux pas and the user name of "Englishteacher".

Dr. Octopus said:

I don't think you were mocked, it just wasnt very relevant to the topic of Matthew's value,

Click to expand...

Maybe I framed it wrong, but the whole discussion is about being able to trust his utilization when making lineup decisions. Yes the coaching staff trusted him more but he still had modest games when game situation dictated they use other RB more. Yes all RB have games where they don't get carries or struggle against bad matchups, but Mathews ability to lose snaps to lesser players is more similar to Ridley's ability to lose snaps to Bolden/Blount than you're giving me credit for. I don't want to overstate it either, I am not saying he is garbage - clearly he is a dynasty RB2 - just frustrating to own, and perhaps I value Ball/Ellington more than most.

Spike said:

Englishteacher said:

I think people are missing the boat somewhat on Ellington. He graded out as an elite type back in the NFL in just about every facet there is in a very appreciable and statistically significant amount of playing time his rookie season. To, me he is the epitome of a dynasty investment and possible cornerstone. There's one thing he has by himself, the talent.

Here are a few things holding him back, most of which can change can changer to rocket him up to FF stardom.

First, HIS limitations. He's light. Can he sustain being a workhorse 3 down, all situation, back? Well, his goal with his offseason regimen this year is to put on some bulk. Check, problem solved.

Second Ellington limitation, experience. Ellington contended with Mendenhall, who already knew Arians' system. Albeit, Ellington radically outperformed Mendenhall. Ellington is now the starter so he'll get all the time he needs to develop.

Third, Arians's system is more geared toward the pass and typically RB's don't put up outstanding receiving numbers in it. Carries might be OK but if you're looking for a PPR king maybe not.

Lastly, that offensive line is pourous. The first round guard from last year will play this year and maybe they can help themselves further on this front in the draft and free agency. Still, on talent alone, he averaged an astonishing 5.5 yards a carry. That's astounding.

Click to expand...

Not picking on the grammar, per se, but the combination of the grammar faux pas and the user name of "Englishteacher".

Click to expand...

We are not in school so don't worry about the grammar. Im glad theres someone else who loves this guy. My brother just acquired him and gave up 2.04,2.10,Vernon Davis, and Frank Gore to get Ellington and the 2.06........Im warming to it but he definitely paid a decent price for his possible corner stone.

thriftyrocker said:

Dr. Octopus said:

I don't think you were mocked, it just wasnt very relevant to the topic of Matthew's value,

Click to expand...

Maybe I framed it wrong, but the whole discussion is about being able to trust his utilization when making lineup decisions. Yes the coaching staff trusted him more but he still had modest games when game situation dictated they use other RB more. Yes all RB have games where they don't get carries or struggle against bad matchups, but Mathews ability to lose snaps to lesser players is more similar to Ridley's ability to lose snaps to Bolden/Blount than you're giving me credit for. I don't want to overstate it either, I am not saying he is garbage - clearly he is a dynasty RB2 - just frustrating to own, and perhaps I value Ball/Ellington more than most.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would surely consider trading Matthews for Ball, but I'd likely pass on an offer of Ellington.

thriftyrocker said:

Adam Harstad said:

That doesn't mean I don't trust Alfred Morris and am looking to unload him, that means he's a guy who doesn't catch passes, so his value takes a hit in games where the anticipated game script calls for a team to be passing 75% of the time.

Click to expand...

I don't trust Alfred Morris either and am thankful I traded high on him last offseason in similar deals.

Adam Harstad said:

Ryan Matthews had a bad game against KC. Find me another RB who scored comparably who didn't have any comparably bad games.

Click to expand...

He didn't have a bad game. He had low utilization. He also had low utilization Wks 9, 10, 12, and 13.

Click to expand...

Again, though, find me a comparable back for whom this is not true.

I think even the most ardent Mathews supporters would concede that he's no Jamaal Charles, LeSean McCoy, or Adrian Peterson. Who are decent comps for what Ryan Mathews could be? Well, the 10 RBs who ranked between 10-20 in standard scoring (excluding Mathews himself, of course), were Fred Jackson (4), Reggie Bush (3), Frank Gore (4), Le'Veon Bell (0), Alfred Morris (4), Gio Bernard (7), Joique Bell (12), Zac Stacy (2), Danny Woodhead (12), and MJD (3). That number in parentheses after their name is the number of games the player failed to reach 15 offensive touches. Ryan Mathews, for the record, had two such games. That's T-W-O. In the four games you specifically singled out for Mathews having "low utilization", he averaged 14.25 touches, which would put him on pace for a 228-touch season. And these are the four games that you specifically cherry-picked as "low utilization!" At his absolute worst, Ryan Mathews was utilized as much as Gio Bernard on a typical day.

He's not LeSean McCoy or Adrian Peterson. No one is saying that he is. They're just saying that the only difference between Mathews and a lot of the other guys in the 10-20 range is the price tag.

Edit: You're concerned about Mathews' utilization, so you'd prefer Montee Ball? The same Montee Ball who played second fiddle to Knowshon Moreno? The same Montee Ball whose head coach is most famous in fantasy circles for platooning Stephen Davis with DeSean Foster, DeSean Foster with DeAngelo Williams, and DeAngelo Williams with Jonathan Stewart? I know that there are other factors at work (Ball is much younger and in a better offense), but to me, Ball is the poster child for "utilization concerns".

Adam Harstad said:

At his absolute worst, Ryan Mathews was utilized as much as Gio Bernard on a typical day.

Click to expand...

It's obvious what point producing touches he is missing by the staffs lack of faith of him in 2min offense and games they are behind.

Adam Harstad said:

They're just saying that the only difference between Mathews and a lot of the other guys in the 10-20 range is the price tag.

Click to expand...

I don't get your comment. There are cheaper players in the same tier of Clay's rankings.

Adam Harstad said:

so you'd prefer Montee Ball? The same Montee Ball who played second fiddle to Knowshon Moreno? The same Montee Ball whose head coach is most famous in fantasy circles for platooning Stephen Davis with DeSean Foster, DeSean Foster with DeAngelo Williams, and DeAngelo Williams with Jonathan Stewart? I know that there are other factors at work (Ball is much younger and in a better offense), but to me, Ball is the poster child for "utilization concerns".

Click to expand...

Yes that one. Not Lance Ball. Montee.

thriftyrocker said:

Adam Harstad said:

At his absolute worst, Ryan Mathews was utilized as much as Gio Bernard on a typical day.

Click to expand...

It's obvious what point producing touches he is missing by the staffs lack of faith of him in 2min offense and games they are behind.

Adam Harstad said:

They're just saying that the only difference between Mathews and a lot of the other guys in the 10-20 range is the price tag.

Click to expand...

I don't get your comment. There are cheaper players in the same tier of Clay's rankings.

Adam Harstad said:

so you'd prefer Montee Ball? The same Montee Ball who played second fiddle to Knowshon Moreno? The same Montee Ball whose head coach is most famous in fantasy circles for platooning Stephen Davis with DeSean Foster, DeSean Foster with DeAngelo Williams, and DeAngelo Williams with Jonathan Stewart? I know that there are other factors at work (Ball is much younger and in a better offense), but to me, Ball is the poster child for "utilization concerns".

Click to expand...

Yes that one. Not Lance Ball. Montee.

Click to expand...

New to the subject but thrifty you are getting seriously owned on this page. Mathews is a stud, had a great 2nd half and more 100 games than just about any RB out there and that was with sharing the Ball with Ronnie Brown. It was clear he had to earn the trust fro first half of the season to second but he did.

Now he's in a contract year and the team has seen when you feed Mathews you win. This guy is poised for a top 10 season barring injury.

Billy Ball Thorton said:

New to the subject but thrifty you are getting seriously owned on this page. Mathews is a stud, had a great 2nd half and more 100 games than just about any RB out there and that was with sharing the Ball with Ronnie Brown. It was clear he had to earn the trust fro first half of the season to second but he did.

Now he's in a contract year and the team has seen when you feed Mathews you win. This guy is poised for a top 10 season barring injury.

Click to expand...

Great insight. Thanks for contributing.

Alright to change the subject from Ryan Mathews.....what is the consensus about Terrance Williams?

I'm excited about his guy. Playing opposite Dez Bryant and in an offense run by Scott Linehan (who loves to throw the ball), I really feel like his value will continue to rise throughout the off-season. My question is, what type of ceiling are we looking at?

deadlyrange0321 said:

Alright to change the subject from Ryan Mathews.....what is the consensus about Terrance Williams?

I'm excited about his guy. Playing opposite Dez Bryant and in an offense run by Scott Linehan (who loves to throw the ball), I really feel like his value will continue to rise throughout the off-season. My question is, what type of ceiling are we looking at?

Click to expand...

I'd rather stay on Mathews more:

What players in the same range, as Adam mentioned, are we honestly saying cost less? And do ANY of them (if they even do cost less) have the same or less concerns?

Mathews has been in the league what, 4 years? Solid but unspectacular as a rookie, beast year 2, collarbone injuries year 3, and beast year 4. High pedigree. Seems kinda like he's turning out to be exactly what he was projected to be doesn't it?

Thrifty - why the massive blind spot? It's tough to say you've got utilization concerns when the guy, even in the "low utilization" games YOU picked, has above average usage...

deadlyrange0321 said:

Alright to change the subject from Ryan Mathews.....what is the consensus about Terrance Williams?

I'm excited about his guy. Playing opposite Dez Bryant and in an offense run by Scott Linehan (who loves to throw the ball), I really feel like his value will continue to rise throughout the off-season. My question is, what type of ceiling are we looking at?

Click to expand...

Young receiver with upside. They're the most common resource in all of fantasy football. If I was in a league with a Williams believer, I'd trade him in a heartbeat, because that's what I do- grab a bunch of young receivers with upside and then peddle them off to make room to grab more receivers with upside and repeat the process.

Now, if no one else in my league was eying him and making offers, I'd be content to hold him. Like you said, he'll have good opportunity this year, and he looked pretty good over the first half of last season. We'll probably gain a lot of new information about him early in the season, so he scores well on the "urgency" scale compared to a lot of his "young WR with upside" peers. In my last rankings update, I had Williams at 51, which I recognize is too low and which I'll be bumping up in my next update. I think he's probably somewhere in the 40-50 range for me, once I add in the rookies. It's good to have guys like Terrance Williams, but I generally don't much care which of those guys I get- whichever ones are cheapest. I don't see a ton of difference between Williams and, say, Randle, Dobson, Woods, Stills, Cooper, Marvin Jones, Mike Williams, etc.

My two rules of thumb with WRs in that range are:

1) Don't fall in love with any of these guys

2) Trade these guys to anyone in your league who violates rule #1.

Instinctive said:

What players in the same range, as Adam mentioned, are we honestly saying cost less? And do ANY of them (if they even do cost less) have the same or less concerns?

Click to expand...

Ostensibly Ellington, Michael, Foster, Rice, Tate, Ridley, Moreno, CJohnson, Pierce, Wilson etc. are all cheaper because their ADP is lower. Perhaps my view on Mathews is no different than any older RB in that series - I would sell at or near market value for a player I liked better.

Instinctive said:

Thrifty - why the massive blind spot? It's tough to say you've got utilization concerns when the guy, even in the "low utilization" games YOU picked, has above average usage...

Click to expand...

It's easy to question why you would sell high on a player who has seemed to hit his stride, but the answer is equally easy, because you don't trust him to continue. I don't trust his role in the offense to continue the Nov/Dec pace, I don't trust him to stay healthy. You're right his low utilization games would be average games for Gio or Ellington. But that is beside the point when Gio and Ellington produce more points per touch. You mentioned entering a contract year as a reason for hope, but one can also view it as reason for risk. His marketability will only go down, both in dynasty and in the NFL. I have no fear in selling "too early" on Mathews. I would consider following a 4 game streak of 25+ carries as a good sell high point for any 27+ yo RB.

Young receivers with upside are common, but young receivers with upside who actually pan out are rare and valuable. If I had some particular reason to believe that Williams was the latter and not just the former then I'd be a big fan at his current cost. That's just the thing though. I don't think he's all that great. Mediocre player in a good situation. Talent-wise, there might be 10+ rookie receivers this year who I like more. So maybe being the #2 in Dallas will lead to a decent FF season, but I'm not interested in paying for a guy who's basically Brandon LaFell in Dallas to me.

EBF said:

So maybe being the #2 in Dallas will lead to [one] decent FF season, but I'm not interested in paying for a guy who's basically Brandon LaFell in Dallas to me.

Click to expand...

Change Brandon LaFell to Laurent Robinson, then change one to 3.

Even if Williams' talent isn't worth his ADP--he should still be a target. If you're not sold, sell him after week 5 when he's sitting on 20/350/3, on pace for 80/1100/9.

Adam Harstad said:

If I was in a league with a Williams believer, I'd trade him in a heartbeat,

Click to expand...

Selling at his current ADP is a big mistake. Look at the numbers of the WR2 spot in Dallas since Dez broke out. It doesn't matter who it is, they put up numbers. That lists includes Williams who had a solid stretch of top 15 production before Austin came back.

There is nothing to gain by selling now, and a lot to gain for waiting.

Adam Harstad said:

My two rules of thumb with WRs in that range are:

1) Don't fall in love with any of these guys

2) Trade these guys to anyone in your league who violates rule #1.

Click to expand...

3) Don't sell before year 2, especially if the utilization arrow is pointing up.

Floyd

Jeffery

Hill

Randle

Wright

Gordon

Jenkins

If you sold this group at their 2013 ADP--you took it on the chin, despite getting something for Jenkings and Hill.

Concept Coop said:

Adam Harstad said:

If I was in a league with a Williams believer, I'd trade him in a heartbeat,

Click to expand...

Selling at his current ADP is a big mistake. Look at the numbers of the WR2 spot in Dallas since Dez broke out. It doesn't matter who it is, they put up numbers. That lists includes Williams who had a solid stretch of top 15 production before Austin came back.

There is nothing to gain by selling now, and a lot to gain for waiting.

Click to expand...

A "Williams believer" is defined as someone willing to pay more than current market price for him. I agree that I'm not selling if all I'm getting back is another guy with a similar ADP- that's a lateral move and doesn't do anything for me. In my experience, with those young receivers, there are often guys who fall in love with one particular one and are willing to overpay.

Concept Coop said:

Adam Harstad said:

My two rules of thumb with WRs in that range are:

1) Don't fall in love with any of these guys

2) Trade these guys to anyone in your league who violates rule #1.

Click to expand...

3) Don't sell before year 2, especially if the utilization arrow is pointing up.

Floyd

Jeffery

Hill

Randle

Wright

Gordon

Jenkins

If you sold this group at their 2013 ADP--you took it on the chin, despite getting something for Jenkings and Hill.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you got back.

I've made a lot of trades in my oldest dynasty league that look terrible in hindsight. I traded Matt Schaub, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, and Miles Austin for Vincent Jackson and Josh Freeman. That looks like a terrible trade... but with the additional roster spots, I added Mike Wallace and Mike Sims-Walker. I traded Mike Sims-Walker for Jermichael Finley, then packaged Mike Wallace and Knowshon Moreno for Brandon Marshall. With the extra room, I added Legadu Naanee, who got packaged with VJax for Drew Brees. I got Stevie Johnson on the cheap, then packaged him with Ben Tate and Lee Evans to the Foster owner for a pair of firsts, then traded James Jones for another first. I traded Demaryius, Greg Little, and A.J. Green for MJD and a first, which would have really hurt, but I turned MJD into Rob Gronkowski and the first netted me Robert Griffin, who I traded for Matt Stafford and two more firsts, and then Stafford, DeAngelo Williams, and Lance Moore got me Demaryius Thomas back. A lot of these trades look brutal in hindsight, as I sold low on young prospects with upside who wound up later being worth SIGNIFICANTLY more... but if I hadn't been constantly churning off those young prospects with upside, I wouldn't have had the roster room to add the NEXT batch of young prospects with upside. By constantly turning over those spots to whoever was willing to pay above-market rates, I've been able to turn those roster spots into cash cows that just constantly trickle in extra value over time. If I could sell Terrance Williams for a profit right now, I feel confident enough in my ability to find another guy who will be worth approximately what Terrance Williams is worth and sell him again, later. And the bad trades are partially offset by the deals where I'm able to get solid returns for guys like Sims-Walker and Naanee before the bottom falls out.

Williams is not without value, and I'm not looking to just get rid of him. If no one's willing to overpay, then I'll hold him and let him appreciate on my roster. I did that with Randall Cobb, who I believed in and who no one was willing to overpay for. But with a lot of these WR4+ types, there are often guys who are higher on them than the consensus and will overpay to acquire them. I'm typically happy to let them do so. You gave that list of year 2 WRs who appreciated in value, and that's a great example. I want guys on that list, but I'm not typically choosy about which ones. Before the season, Stephen Hill was actually one of the hottest names on that list. I could have fallen in love with him, but if the Alshon Jeffery or Reuben Randle owner approached me and was willing to swap assets and give me a little bit extra, that would have been a great move for me. Or, alternately, if I'd had Floyd and traded him for Hill and extra, that would have been terrible. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, but as long as you're always getting that little extra thrown in the mix, you'll come out ahead in the long run.

New ADP came out and Williams bumped up from about 87 to about 72. I think at 72 ADP he ceases to be a buy. It would mean you have to trade a mid 1st for him, a QB like Ryan, a RB like Tate, or a TE like Reed. He's ahead of both Austin and Hunter. In fact he went 87 or later in none of the drafts. (Not adverse to trading Tate for him but it's a data point to consider.)

ETA: Williams vs. Austin or Hunter is interesting. He is more guaranteed of WR3ness short term, so it becomes more of a gamble on Austin or Hunter being more likely to reach eliteness. And both are huge gambles at this point.

[SIZE=medium]I view Williams as one of the few sophomore receivers we can target at a reasonable price; along with Dobson, Patton, and Tavon, off the top of my head. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]There was major value in the 2013 sophomore class, and as a rule—I like investing in soph WRs. But, like anything else, the market has responded in a blink. I don’t see the same value in Patterson, Hopkins, and Hunter. You’re going to pay a lot more because the market caught on. And it’s not just sophomore WRs; it also applies to WRs with an established WR1 on their NFL teams. Another reason Jeffery, Floyd, and Randle provided value at this time last year. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In this way, I very much agree with you. The market has “fallen in love” with Patterson; give me Tavon. They love Hopkins; give me Twill. They love Hunter, give me Dobson. [/SIZE]

thriftyrocker said:

New ADP came out and Williams bumped up from about 87 to about 72. I think at 72 ADP he ceases to be a buy. It would mean you have to trade a mid 1st for him, a QB like Ryan, a RB like Tate, or a TE like Reed. He's ahead of both Austin and Hunter. In fact he went 87 or later in none of the drafts. (Not adverse to trading Tate for him but it's a data point to consider.)

ETA: Williams vs. Austin or Hunter is interesting. He is more guaranteed of WR3ness short term, so it becomes more of a gamble on Austin or Hunter being more likely to reach eliteness. And both are huge gambles at this point.

Click to expand...

It's hard to measure his value by comparing him to QBs, and TEs in that range. You're not moving Ryan or Reed for Williams if you're relying on them as starters, but Williams is a solid haul if you have the luxury of trading your backup QB/TE.

That said, I agree that 72 is a fair range for him. I still like him more than some WRs ahead of him, but he no longer sticks out.

Concept Coop said:

In this way, I very much agree with you. The market has “fallen in love” with Patterson; give me Tavon. They love Hopkins; give me Twill. They love Hunter, give me Dobson.

Click to expand...

A huge black hole in being contrarian by dogma is if your league mates identify you as someone willing to pull off these deals, you become the league bicycle. The better the league, the worse this strategy is, IMO. Granted no one can guess right all the time. But this strategy relies on your league mates to guess wrong at a significant rate. And then you run out of roster space due to all the Riley Coopers and 3rd round picks you got for your "downgrades."

In searching for market shortcomings to exploit, the "youth bug" has to top the list right now, right? The market is not accounting for the fact that great, good, and baseline players age very differently, for FF purposes. Thrifty illustrated it well, when comparing the value of Foles and Brees.

Another example I like is Zac Stacy and Reggie Bush. It seems to me, one is being treated as a long-term solution (RB2) and the other as a 1 year rental. How likely is it that Zac Stacy matters in 3 years? How likely would it have to be to pass up the PPG advantage that Reggie offers? How likely would it have to be to pass up the talent advantage that Reggie has, which makes his role safer in the meantime? TY Hilton is another glaring example of this to me.

DeSean Jackson is a counter example. Who has more career VBD left; DJax or C.Patterson? Jackson has to the favorite, right? Yet the market dictates Patterson is worth more than twice what Jackson is. That's a glaring inefficiency, to my eyes.

The idea of treating prospects as generic commodities vs. specific commodities is interesting to me. We know that rookies chosen in round X have Y value based on historical odds. That gives you a nice starting point to work from, but the problem is that the generic estimate isn't necessarily a great valuation in every specific case. Football isn't random like cards or dice. There are reasons why Keenan Allen, Vincent Jackson, and Anquan Boldin succeeded. Likewise, there are reasons why players like AJ Jenkins, Jon Baldwin, and Buster Davis flopped. If you don't make any attempt to get specific with your assessment of prospects, I think you're definitely putting yourself at risk of being outcompeted by people who make that effort and are even marginally better than random chance at it.

So for me the question isn't just "What generic bucket does Terrance Williams fit into and what is the value of the average player from that bucket?" I think you need to answer that question and then also ask, "What specific reasons are there for believing that Terrance Williams is a better or worse proposition than the typical generic player from that bucket?" For me, he doesn't pass the eyeball test, he has shoddy overall workout numbers. On the other hand, he had excellent college production and he has a potentially favorable short-term situation. While he's almost certainly not athletic enough to ever be a #1 (a difference between him and Jeffery/Gordon/Floyd), he might be athletic enough to be a decent #2 ala Decker.

Since I favor individual talent over situation in most cases, he comes up as a "pass" for me. That's not because generic young receivers can't be worth investing in. It's only because I have no reason to believe that Williams in particular is worth the investment. IMO last year's rookie WR class sucked outside of the guys with first round rookie ADP, so I probably won't be investing heavily in any of those guys. With a different set of players, I might be a lot more aggressive.

thriftyrocker said:

Concept Coop said:

In this way, I very much agree with you. The market has fallen in love with Patterson; give me Tavon. They love Hopkins; give me Twill. They love Hunter, give me Dobson.

Click to expand...

A huge black hole in being contrarian by dogma is if your league mates identify you as someone willing to pull off these deals, you become the league bicycle. The better the league, the worse this strategy is, IMO. Granted no one can guess right all the time. But this strategy relies on your league mates to guess wrong at a significant rate. And then you run out of roster space due to all the Riley Coopers and 3rd round picks you got for your "downgrades."

Click to expand...

The idea behind this methodology is that no one can reliably separate the wheat from the chaff more reliably than anyone else over a significant sample size.

thriftyrocker said:

A huge black hole in being contrarian by dogma is if your league mates identify you as someone willing to pull off these deals, you become the league bicycle. The better the league, the worse this strategy is, IMO. Granted no one can guess right all the time. But this strategy relies on your league mates to guess wrong at a significant rate. And then you run out of roster space due to all the Riley Coopers and 3rd round picks you got for your "downgrades."

Click to expand...

It's hard to counter without you presenting an actual example. But the ADP difference between Tavon and Patterson is not Riley Coopers and 3rd round picks. That's not really the kind of deal I am advocating.

I know it's easy to make the claim now, but I made it at the time too, and can dig it up if needed; last year the play was Gio+ over Wilson. Wilson did nothing to jump from a 5th round startup pick to a 2nd round startup pick, and there was value to be gained by understanding that.

Who did more to help Patterson's current value; Patterson or Gordon? If Josh Gordon looked like Tavon Austin--Austin would be the riser and Patterson the value play.

Concept Coop said:

It's hard to counter without you presenting an actual example. But the ADP difference between Tavon and Patterson is not Riley Coopers and 3rd round picks. That's not really the kind of deal I am advocating.

Click to expand...

I was also replying to SSOG's initial comment. Although I think calling out Dobber as a target is also misguided, or going from Hopkins to Williams.

Concept Coop said:

last year the play was Gio+ over Wilson.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing against there being a couple plays per year. I am arguing about pursuing the strategy as dogma.

EBF said:

The idea of treating prospects as generic commodities vs. specific commodities is interesting to me. We know that rookies chosen in round X have Y value based on historical odds. That gives you a nice starting point to work from, but the problem is that the generic estimate isn't necessarily a great valuation in every specific case. Football isn't random like cards or dice. There are reasons why Keenan Allen, Vincent Jackson, and Anquan Boldin succeeded. Likewise, there are reasons why players like AJ Jenkins, Jon Baldwin, and Buster Davis flopped. If you don't make any attempt to get specific with your assessment of prospects, I think you're definitely putting yourself at risk of being outcompeted by people who make that effort and are even marginally better than random chance at it.

So for me the question isn't just "What generic bucket does Terrance Williams fit into and what is the value of the average player from that bucket?" I think you need to answer that question and then also ask, "What specific reasons are there for believing that Terrance Williams is a better or worse proposition than the typical generic player from that bucket?" For me, he doesn't pass the eyeball test, he has shoddy overall workout numbers. On the other hand, he had excellent college production and he has a potentially favorable short-term situation. While he's almost certainly not athletic enough to ever be a #1 (a difference between him and Jeffery/Gordon/Floyd), he might be athletic enough to be a decent #2 ala Decker.

Since I favor individual talent over situation in most cases, he comes up as a "pass" for me. That's not because generic young receivers can't be worth investing in. It's only because I have no reason to believe that Williams in particular is worth the investment. IMO last year's rookie WR class sucked outside of the guys with first round rookie ADP, so I probably won't be investing heavily in any of those guys. With a different set of players, I might be a lot more aggressive.

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on how much extra you're getting.

Let's say someone approaches me every year to buy one of my "young WR with upside" guys for twice his current market value. Even if the other owner is really good and winds up hitting 60% of the time, I'm still coming out ahead in the long run. He'd need to outguess the market better than 66% of the time for that to be a losing proposition for me, and I have little faith in any of my leaguemates to be able to outperform the market at a 2:1 rate. The more he's willing to pay me over market value, the bigger his hit rate is going to have to be for me to wind up coming out behind in the long run.

In a vacuum, I like my ability to outperform the market consensus, but if someone is offering me way over the market consensus, he's essentially betting on his own ability to outperform the market. If that guy's certainty in his ability to beat the market is greater than my certainty in my ability to beat the market, then I trade the player to him for the profit he offers. I'm not saying we should just treat everyone as generics and not try to beat the market, I'm saying we should retain a healthy uncertainty in our ability to outperform the market consensus, and if someone approaches us without that healthy uncertainty, we should be adaptable and willing to take advantage of their overconfidence.

On the other hand, there are some players that I firmly believe that the market is undervaluing. Injured players would be the most obvious example of an asset class that is being underpriced. I'm certain enough in my own evaluations that I'm willing to pay a premium above market value to acquire players from that class- essentially, I'm betting on my own ability to outguess the market. The more certain I am that I can outguess the market (say, Gronkowski, Harvin, and Crabtree), the more of a premium I'm willing to pay.

Really, trades make a lot more sense when we view them in terms of "price above or below market value", and we view that gap as a reflection of an owner's subjective sense of certainty in his own evaluations.

EBF said:

The idea of treating prospects as generic commodities vs. specific commodities is interesting to me. We know that rookies chosen in round X have Y value based on historical odds. That gives you a nice starting point to work from, but the problem is that the generic estimate isn't necessarily a great valuation in every specific case. Football isn't random like cards or dice. There are reasons why Keenan Allen, Vincent Jackson, and Anquan Boldin succeeded. Likewise, there are reasons why players like AJ Jenkins, Jon Baldwin, and Buster Davis flopped. If you don't make any attempt to get specific with your assessment of prospects, I think you're definitely putting yourself at risk of being outcompeted by people who make that effort and are even marginally better than random chance at it.

So for me the question isn't just "What generic bucket does Terrance Williams fit into and what is the value of the average player from that bucket?" I think you need to answer that question and then also ask, "What specific reasons are there for believing that Terrance Williams is a better or worse proposition than the typical generic player from that bucket?" For me, he doesn't pass the eyeball test, he has shoddy overall workout numbers. On the other hand, he had excellent college production and he has a potentially favorable short-term situation. While he's almost certainly not athletic enough to ever be a #1 (a difference between him and Jeffery/Gordon/Floyd), he might be athletic enough to be a decent #2 ala Decker.

Since I favor individual talent over situation in most cases, he comes up as a "pass" for me. That's not because generic young receivers can't be worth investing in. It's only because I have no reason to believe that Williams in particular is worth the investment. IMO last year's rookie WR class sucked outside of the guys with first round rookie ADP, so I probably won't be investing heavily in any of those guys. With a different set of players, I might be a lot more aggressive.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, though. I'll concede that you can possibly gain a marginal advantage by being really good at scouting. The issue is that the resulting adjustments to the players' FF values are anything but marginal. If you are preferring certain guys within a tier based on your personal scouting or eyeball test, that's one thing. Completely falling in love and making massive adjustments is quite another, and far more common in my experience. Patterson / Austin is a perfect example of taking this too far. Patterson over Austin is reasonable. Patterson 25+ spots over Austin is not, IMO.

thriftyrocker said:

Concept Coop said:

It's hard to counter without you presenting an actual example. But the ADP difference between Tavon and Patterson is not Riley Coopers and 3rd round picks. That's not really the kind of deal I am advocating.

Click to expand...

I was also replying to SSOG's initial comment. Although I think calling out Dobber as a target is also misguided, or going from Hopkins to Williams.

Concept Coop said:

last year the play was Gio+ over Wilson.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing against there being a couple plays per year. I am arguing about pursuing the strategy as dogma.

Click to expand...

If you were replying to my strategy, then you're jousting with a strawman. I view anything roughly comparable to a street free agent as a non-asset, and that includes rookie 3rds and guys like Riley Cooper (before this season). I wouldn't "downgrade" (i.e. make a roughly lateral move) for a non-asset. I'm usually looking to make moves like trading one young WR with upside for another and a rookie 2nd, or trading a pair of young WRs with upside for an established player to clear roster room. I don't think I've ever traded for a rookie 3rd or later in my entire dynasty history, though I've traded plenty away.

Also, no strategy should ever be pursued as dogma, and nobody has advocated as such. That's why my two rules are "rules of thumb" and not ironclad laws of fantasy football. As a rule of thumb, avoid falling in love with young WRs with upside, and if someone else does, gouge them.

Adam Harstad said:

guys like Riley Cooper (before this season).

Click to expand...

Even if we are talking Riley Cooper the day after the GB game, if you accept Randle for Cooper + 2nd then that is not good.

thriftyrocker said:

I was also replying to SSOG's initial comment. Although I think calling out Dobber as a target is also misguided, or going from Hopkins to Williams.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can make these comments without a potential deal, unless you think Dobson is WW material. I simply ID'ed him as a sophmore WR whose price isn't overinflated due to Gordon, Jeffery, and Floyd.

As for Hopkins to Williams; I don't like Hopkins at his ADP and I do like Williams at his. It doesn't require anything more than that for me to model a potential deal around the 2. That in itsdelf is not me taking a strong stand on either player.

Concept Coop said:

I don't know how you can make these comments without a potential deal, unless you think Dobson is WW material.

Click to expand...

I am extrapolating based on what I would view a standard "downgrade" trade to be, assuming Dobson to be the centerpiece. If the centerpiece is a 1st or another player or even a 2nd Dobson, then you're right I have no basis.

thriftyrocker said:

Adam Harstad said:

guys like Riley Cooper (before this season).

Click to expand...

Even if we are talking Riley Cooper the day after the GB game, if you accept Randle for Cooper + 2nd then that is not good.

Click to expand...

Seriously? I would gladly give Reuben Randle for Riley Cooper and a rookie 2nd, even today. Especially today. In my last update, I had Randle at 38 and Cooper at 49, but that was before Cooper signed a 5-year extension with the Philadelphia Chip Kellys. Today, they're probably a half dozen spots away from each other, and if you want to give me a 2nd to make that move, I'm happy to do so.

Adam Harstad said:

Seriously? I would gladly give Reuben Randle for Riley Cooper and a rookie 2nd, even today. Especially today. In my last update, I had Randle at 38 and Cooper at 49, but that was before Cooper signed a 5-year extension with the Philadelphia Chip Kellys. Today, they're probably a half dozen spots away from each other, and if you want to give me a 2nd to make that move, I'm happy to do so.

Click to expand...

We've seen Cooper's ceiling though; haven't we? He was a streaky WR3, after an injury landed him a starting spot in an ideal situation.

I don't know what Randle is long term, but I'd much rather hold and find out in 2014, than sell for a baseline flex option and a 2nd round pick.

Adam Harstad said:

thriftyrocker said:

Adam Harstad said:

guys like Riley Cooper (before this season).

Click to expand...

Even if we are talking Riley Cooper the day after the GB game, if you accept Randle for Cooper + 2nd then that is not good.

Click to expand...

Seriously? I would gladly give Reuben Randle for Riley Cooper and a rookie 2nd, even today. Especially today. In my last update, I had Randle at 38 and Cooper at 49, but that was before Cooper signed a 5-year extension with the Philadelphia Chip Kellys. Today, they're probably a half dozen spots away from each other, and if you want to give me a 2nd to make that move, I'm happy to do so.

Click to expand...

IMO you are reading the information on Cooper 100% wrong. You gave up 50 spots in ADP for a 2nd. There is a reason for this gap in value.

Adam Harstad said:

Well, that depends on how much extra you're getting.

Let's say someone approaches me every year to buy one of my "young WR with upside" guys for twice his current market value. Even if the other owner is really good and winds up hitting 60% of the time, I'm still coming out ahead in the long run. He'd need to outguess the market better than 66% of the time for that to be a losing proposition for me, and I have little faith in any of my leaguemates to be able to outperform the market at a 2:1 rate. The more he's willing to pay me over market value, the bigger his hit rate is going to have to be for me to wind up coming out behind in the long run.

Click to expand...

I think if you sell any player for twice market value then you're usually going to do well. I don't think it's easy to reliably find a buyer who will pay that.

I don't think there's any disagreement about the fundamental principles behind what you're saying. If someone is 15% better at identifying/gauging player values than the market and he's constantly fielding offers that are 25-50% better than market value then he should be accepting all of those trades. If you indiscriminately take the strategy of selling all of your "generic prospect with upside" players at inflated prices then you're going to turn a profit because the Brandon LaFells/Brandon Tates that you unload will make up for the Josh Gordons that you squander.

Of course, you're going to turn a long-term profit selling ANY kind of player at inflated prices, so I don't know if there's anything particularly illuminating about saying that you should be willing to sell rookies when someone wants to horribly overpay. It basically equates to, "Selling players at inflated prices is a safe and profitable trading strategy." I don't think anyone would dispute that. There are guys in my leagues who are absolute misers. Every offer they ever send is attempted larceny. As irritating as these owners are, they tend to fare okay in trades over the long haul because they simply never make a move unless they're ripping someone off. And if they send out 100 ridiculous offers, a couple of them will inevitably be accepted.

Once again though, you're talking about a general strategy when FF is more specific. I can't speak for other owners, but strategy is generally to pay approximately or slightly above market value for the very small population of players that I value far above market value. If there's an owner in my league who values all of his players 15% above the market and will happily release any of them if I meet that price, he's going to be totally exploitable if I can consistently identify specific players who are worth 25%+ more than market value and if I limit my offers to the few players on that list.

What the debate usually comes down to is whether or not it's really possible to consistently make those spots. I'm on the "yes" side of that question. For someone on the "no" side, the less flexible and more rigid rule-based "never trade unless you're getting X% above market value and always trade if you're getting X% above market value" is likely to be more appealing as a catch-all philosophy that frees them from the responsibility of having to actually form a specific opinion.

What are the odds that _________ provides more career VBD than Jason Witten, starting today?

Eifert

Ebron

Amaro

L.Green

Ertz

I'd give up Randle for a mid-2nd in this year's (deep WR) draft without Cooper.

Randle's QB is kaput, his GM just gave him a big vote of "maybe he'll be OK someday" after seeing him up close and personal for two years, and he's at best the 2nd best WR on his team even after Nicks leaves.

Concept Coop said:

Adam Harstad said:

Seriously? I would gladly give Reuben Randle for Riley Cooper and a rookie 2nd, even today. Especially today. In my last update, I had Randle at 38 and Cooper at 49, but that was before Cooper signed a 5-year extension with the Philadelphia Chip Kellys. Today, they're probably a half dozen spots away from each other, and if you want to give me a 2nd to make that move, I'm happy to do so.

Click to expand...

We've seen Cooper's ceiling though; haven't we? He was a streaky WR3, after an injury landed him a starting spot in an ideal situation.

I don't know what Randle is long term, but I'd much rather hold and find out in 2014, than sell for a baseline flex option and a 2nd round pick.

Click to expand...

73 yards and 0.7 TDs per game with Nick Foles starting, or about 1150/11 over a full season. For a 26-year-old first year starter. I would be more wary of Cooper, but Philly's willingness to give him a 5-year deal suggests to me they see him continuing to play a solid role going forward. Honestly, I think Randle, Cooper, and Williams are all pretty similar- young guys in great situations who could provide strong WR3 or even acceptable WR2 production in the short term.

Concept Coop said:

What are the odds that _________ provides more career VBD than Jason Witten, starting today?

Eifert

Ebron

Amaro

L.Green

Ertz

Click to expand...

0%

0%

0%

10% (if he stays listed as a TE)

0%

Wait. You mean that they have more career VBD than Witten does from 2013 forward? Or that those players will end up with more than Witten's 2004-201? total?

Coeur de Lion said:

Here's the thing, though. I'll concede that you can possibly gain a marginal advantage by being really good at scouting. The issue is that the resulting adjustments to the players' FF values are anything but marginal. If you are preferring certain guys within a tier based on your personal scouting or eyeball test, that's one thing. Completely falling in love and making massive adjustments is quite another, and far more common in my experience. Patterson / Austin is a perfect example of taking this too far. Patterson over Austin is reasonable. Patterson 25+ spots over Austin is not, IMO.

Click to expand...

The market isn't consistent in that regard. Sometimes players become horribly overvalued and sometimes they don't. Patterson is a good example of a guy who is already exorbitantly expensive. Go back a year though. What was Alshon Jeffery's price? I don't actually know, but my hunch is that it wasn't THAT much higher than your typical "next big thing" maybe prospect of the moment. So if you were an Alshon fan at that time and you were willing to pay a little over the odds, you turned a massive profit. Not every young player with upside is ridiculously overrated. Some tend to fly under the radar until they blow up.

I generally don't buy players once their hype has gone off the rails. I'm a bargain shopper, so for me I'm more interested in the incoming rookies who haven't really built huge hype yet or the sophomores that aren't rated massively higher than their generic characteristics warrant (i.e. Hunter, Patton, Boyce).