fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Eifert essentially missed the last 2 games of the season. Reed is really the only one who outproduced among rookies.
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 (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
EBF
Footballguy
As hard as you're trying to make that happen, it's just not gonna happen. Nobody in their right mind should think that what he did last year in that situation qualifies as a disappointment. It was wrong when you said it and repeating it endlessly isn't going to make it true.
jurb26
Footballguy
Nope. Eiffert's points per game don't really help him. He still ranks as a clear 5th among rookies in that regard and actually drops to TE 36 overall, not 29.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
If you really think there's a significant statistical difference between 38 catches for 439 yards and 2 TDs in 14 games and 36 catches for 469 yards and 4 TDs in 16 games i don't know what to say. Ok cool, you don't like Eifert. Nobody cares.
jurb26
Footballguy
I like Eiffert fine and have said now several times he is a buy.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
He had more yards in his rookie season than most of the elite TEs of the past decade:
Hernandez - 563
Gronk - 546
Eifert - 445
Olsen - 391
Gates - 389
Graham - 356
Witten - 347
Clark - 340
V Davis - 256
Cameron - 33
J Thomas - 5
Let's also not forget that:
- He wasn't the outright starter (Gresham was).
- His QB kinda sucks (Dalton was slightly above average in YPA last season, but arguably only because of his weapons. He had been poor in previous seasons. AJ Green's YPT has been pitiful for years compared to the other unanimous elite WRs in the league).
So let's summarize here. Eifert had more yards as a rookie than most of the elite TEs in the past decade of the NFL and he did it in a situation that wasn't all that ideal. Yet you continue to insist that his rookie year was a disappointment. JFC.
Absolutely mind-numbing stuff.The fact that a few other rookie TEs produced similar numbers last year might be a decent argument for the idea that TE production is becoming inflated. I don't know how damning that is for Eifert considering that his rookie production is well above average even compared to successful guys like Gonzo, Witten, V Davis, and Cameron. Either way, it's not a direct indictment of Eifert himself. You don't seem to understand this.
If I said that Mike Evans was going to have a strong rookie year and he ended up posting 1000 yards and 5 TDs, I think you would agree that I was right. Now if we also knew that Lee, Beckham, Watkins, and Cooks were also going to have 1000 yards and 5 TDs, would that diminish what Evans accomplished? Showing that Reed, Ertz, and Wright had good rookie seasons doesn't do much of anything to show that Eifert didn't also have a good rookie season. Unintentionally, the argument that you're making is "lots of rookie TEs had historically solid seasons last year" rather than "these other rookie TEs had good seasons therefore Eifert was a disappointment." Again, the insane numbers put up by Josh Gordon and Alshon Jeffery last year don't somehow mean that Demaryius Thomas had a bad season. Arguing that other players were successful isn't a good way to argue that a different player wasn't successful.
There's an argument that TE production is on the rise as a whole and that we'll see more strong rookie TE seasons than in year's past, but again, Eifert had MORE yards as a rookie than the likes of Gates, Witten, Graham, Olsen, Pitta, Cameron, and Clark. Even if you apply an inflation adjustment to his rookie stats, he'll still probably come out looking pretty strong in relation to the typical TE who goes on to have an excellent career.
Last edited by a moderator:
jurb26
Footballguy
Well, it's the difference between being TE20 (a viable backup) vs. TE30 (a roster filler).
EBF
Footballguy
I didn't remember the specifics of Eifert's injury, but apparently he got a stinger in the first quarter of the 15th game of the season.
http://www.cincyjungle.com/bengals-vikings-2013/2013/12/22/5236068/tyler-eifert-out-against-the-vikings-with-a-neck-stinger
http://www.cincyjungle.com/bengals-vikings-2013/2013/12/22/5236068/tyler-eifert-out-against-the-vikings-with-a-neck-stinger
So he actually only played 14.25 games last season. If you prorate his numbers over a full season, you'd get ~ 44 catches for 500 yards. Still not quite on par with Hernandez and Gronk, but one of the best rookie TE seasons in recent memory. That doesn't guarantee stardom (look at Heath Miller and Jermaine Gresham), but it's a pretty strong condemnation of the idea that he had a disappointing rookie year. If anything, the strength of his rookie season might be underrated.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
This is my main problem with Eifert's rookie year (even though I by no means have given up on him). If he had 450 and 2 in a very hit and miss year with a few big games, you could point to those big games and see the possibility he could be more consistent. But instead he was just consistently blah. Never had more than 5 catches (not more than 3 after week 5). The targets were never high either, but there's just little to point to and say yeah he can still be great other than pedigree and what you saw pre-2013.
If "for a brief stretch" counts you could add Wright and Griffin in to the rookie producers. Griffin over week 15-17 had 6/62, 5/66, and 3/49. As good as any 3 games you can pick out of Eifert's year. Not that I would trade Griffin for Eifert, but that's two UDFA who could step in and catch the ball. Something Eifert didn't really do even when Gresham was out.
I drafted Gronk a lot his sophomore year not because I am that smart but just because you could look at the 2nd half of his season and project good numbers. Graham didn't have a great rookie year, but he did have 4 TDs over his last 3 games.
jurb26
Footballguy
This is just an awful argument. So you are cherry picking just a handful of rookie TE performances by past elite TEs to make a point. None of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about. I've never said Eiffert can't become great. I'm saying his rookie season wasn't. Just because other, past great TEs also didn't have great rookie seasons means nothing. What do rookie seasons of 15 or 10 years ago have to do with today? Not much. The game has changed and that was pointed out a couple of times. Rookie TEs are having greater impacts today. You haven't provided any context to last seasons performance at all. If you average the rookie stats of TEs over the past 3 years, then we would have something tangible to the topic. You say other rookie TEs had similar stats but the fact remains they were better stats. As were the stats of 9 other rookie TEs in the past 3 years.He had more yards in his rookie season than most of the elite TEs of the past decade:
Hernandez - 563
Gronk - 546
Eifert - 445
Olsen - 391
Gates - 389
Graham - 356
Witten - 347
Clark - 340
V Davis - 256
Cameron - 33
J Thomas - 5
Let's also not forget that:
- He wasn't the outright starter (Gresham was).
- His QB kinda sucks (Dalton was slightly above average in YPA last season, but arguably only because of his weapons. He has been poor in previous season. AJ Green's YPT has been pitiful for years compared to the other unanimous elite WRs in the league).
So let's summarize here. Eifert had more yards as a rookie than most of the elite TEs in the past decade of the NFL and he did it in a situation that wasn't all that ideal. Yet you continue to insist that his rookie year was a disappointment. JFC.
The fact that a few other rookie TEs produced similar numbers last year might be a decent argument for the idea that TE production is becoming inflated. I don't know how damning that is for Eifert considering that his rookie production is well above average even compared to successful guys like Gonzo, Witten, V Davis, and Cameron. Either way, it's not a direct indictment of Eifert himself. You don't seem to understand this.
If I said that Mike Evans was going to have a strong rookie year and he ended up posting 1000 yards and 5 TDs, I think you would agree that I was right. Now if we also knew that Lee, Beckham, Watkins, and Cooks were also going to have 1000 yards and 5 TDs, would that diminish what Evans accomplished? Showing that Reed, Ertz, and Wright had good rookie seasons doesn't do much of anything to show that Eifert didn't also have a good rookie season. Unintentionally, the argument that you're making is "lots of rookie TEs had historically solid seasons last year" rather than "these other rookie TEs had good seasons therefore Eifert was a disappointment." Again, the insane numbers put up by Josh Gordon and Alshon Jeffery last year don't somehow mean that Demaryius Thomas had a bad season. Arguing that other players were successful isn't a good way to argue that a different player wasn't successful.
There's an argument that TE production is on the rise as a whole and that we'll see more strong rookie TE seasons than in year's past, but again, Eifert had MORE yards as a rookie than the likes of Gates, Witten, Graham, Olsen, Pitta, Cameron, and Clark. Even if you apply an inflation adjustment to his rookie stats, he'll still probably come out looking pretty strong in relation to the typical TE who goes on to have an excellent career.
Since we are bringing up things that shouldn't be forgotten though. Let's also not forget that Ertz was TE2 in his offense behind Celek. He only started 3 games. Let's also point out that Wright didn't play a snap in weeks 1 or 2 and only started 8 games. Talking up the challenges of Eiffert while omitting those of the other guys is disingenuous. BTW Eiffert started 15 games.
You seem intent on having an argument about something I'm not debating. That Eiffert's rookie season will not impede him from potentially becoming great. I agree and don't think it will. I simply think his rookie season fell bellow expectations. He was TE5 among rookies. TE29 overall. What were his rankings in the preseason? Ignore the stats for a minute and just look at the ADP. Well his ADP was TE19. Twist the stats anyway you want. He clearly didn't live up to his draft position.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
You're saying that a guy who had a historically good season at his position had...a disappointing season.
I'll let everyone decide for themselves who's making a terrible argument here.
If people were drafting Eifert at TE19 in redraft leagues as a rookie in a committee at a position where rookies rarely post startable numbers, I guess I'd have to say that his performance was disappointing relative to their (somewhat foolish) expectations. Even in the context of inflated TE production, a 500 yard pace isn't a bad season for a rookie TE. You can't let it go, so I'll just leave it at that and move on.
Last edited by a moderator:
jurb26
Footballguy
Let it go? You're trying to convince me a guy with an ADP of 19 (sometimes as low as 15) who finished 29, at best, it's actually worse if we use PPG wasn't a disappointment. And you're still clinging to this notion that he had a historically good season as a rookie at his position when 9 guys in the last 3 years, 4 this year alone had better?
Yeah, it's time to move on. The ADP speaks for itself.
bengalbuck
Footballguy
As a Bengals fan, I was never quite as high on Eifert's fantasy potential as some others. I think we saw why a bit last year. There's just a lot of mouths to feed in the Bengals passing game. AJ Green is always going to be "the man" and get 170 targets or so. Marvin Jones really emerged as a very productive #2 and had 10 TDs despite not getting a ton of targets. Gio was even more dynamic than expected out of the backfield and is likely to be a 50 or 60 catch a year guy. Sanu disappointed a little bit as the slot guy, but the Bengals still have high hopes for him. He'll end up getting 50 catches a year I'd guess.
Overall, even if you assume that Gresham leaves, it is hard to see Eifert getting enough targets to ever be an elite fantasy option. And I wouldn't necessarily assume that Gresham is going to leave. Bengals are doing pretty well in terms of cap space and like the idea of playing often with 2 TEs. I just don't see the Eifert statistical breakout coming anytime soon, but I could end up being wrong.
Overall, even if you assume that Gresham leaves, it is hard to see Eifert getting enough targets to ever be an elite fantasy option. And I wouldn't necessarily assume that Gresham is going to leave. Bengals are doing pretty well in terms of cap space and like the idea of playing often with 2 TEs. I just don't see the Eifert statistical breakout coming anytime soon, but I could end up being wrong.
bengalbuck
Footballguy
A series of trades in the last 4 days (12 team PPR, 1.5 for TE).
Trade 1
Cam Newton
Lesean McCoy
for
Drew Brees
Jamaal Charles
Trade 2
AJ Green
Brandon Marshall
for
Julio Jones
Randall Cobb
Trade 3
Darren McFadden
Dwayne Bowe
for
Ray Rice
Trade 4
Jimmy Graham
Teddy Bridgewater
1.09
for
Alshon Jeffery
1.04
1.05
1.07
Trade 1
Cam Newton
Lesean McCoy
for
Drew Brees
Jamaal Charles
Trade 2
AJ Green
Brandon Marshall
for
Julio Jones
Randall Cobb
Trade 3
Darren McFadden
Dwayne Bowe
for
Ray Rice
Trade 4
Jimmy Graham
Teddy Bridgewater
1.09
for
Alshon Jeffery
1.04
1.05
1.07
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I am 100% agreed with Jurb here. Eifert was almost unanimously ranked ahead of every other TE (besides Graham and Gronk) going into last season. I believe EBF ranked Eifert TE 4 overall a week or so ago for dynasty.
His numbers are not justifying that high of a ranking.
Now people have Graham, Gronk, Cameron, Thomas ahead of Eifert. Not much else. I will also remind you that people had Eifert ahead of Cameron and Thomas last season before they broke out.
I remember it pretty clearly because I considered it shocking that people would rank any rookie TE so high right away, before they had shown what they can do at this level. Not that I hadn't seen this before with KW2 and Vernon Davis.
Furthermore the ranking ignored that Gresham who is also a 1st round TE pick was ahead of Eifert on the depth chart and will continue to compete with him for targets.
The Bengals threw the ball 586 times in 2013 and with a OC change they have expressed that they will run the ball more frequently moving forward than they did last season.
2013 targets-
A.J. Green 180
Marvin Jones 80
Giovani Bernard 71
Jermaine Gresham 66
Mohamed Sanu 78
Tyler Eifert 59
Andrew Hawkins 18
So the main surprise I think was Marvin Jones. Will the Bengals play Eifert more now and will those targets be going to him?
They had a rookie RB last season also who should be seeing more targets in the passing game as well.
To justify the high ranking of Eifert at some point he is going to need to produce numbers that would justify it. That may not happen until Gresham leaves as a free agent. To be a top 3-5 TE I think he needs over 100 targets.When will that start happening? How many targets do people project for him in 2014?
His numbers are not justifying that high of a ranking.
Now people have Graham, Gronk, Cameron, Thomas ahead of Eifert. Not much else. I will also remind you that people had Eifert ahead of Cameron and Thomas last season before they broke out.
I remember it pretty clearly because I considered it shocking that people would rank any rookie TE so high right away, before they had shown what they can do at this level. Not that I hadn't seen this before with KW2 and Vernon Davis.
Furthermore the ranking ignored that Gresham who is also a 1st round TE pick was ahead of Eifert on the depth chart and will continue to compete with him for targets.
The Bengals threw the ball 586 times in 2013 and with a OC change they have expressed that they will run the ball more frequently moving forward than they did last season.
2013 targets-
A.J. Green 180
Marvin Jones 80
Giovani Bernard 71
Jermaine Gresham 66
Mohamed Sanu 78
Tyler Eifert 59
Andrew Hawkins 18
So the main surprise I think was Marvin Jones. Will the Bengals play Eifert more now and will those targets be going to him?
They had a rookie RB last season also who should be seeing more targets in the passing game as well.
To justify the high ranking of Eifert at some point he is going to need to produce numbers that would justify it. That may not happen until Gresham leaves as a free agent. To be a top 3-5 TE I think he needs over 100 targets.When will that start happening? How many targets do people project for him in 2014?
kutta
Footballguy
I agree with Jurb and the others here. EBF, do you think all the 9 guys who have had similar seasons to Eifert the past three years are all destined to become good/great TE's because they all had "historically good seasons?"
kutta
Footballguy
Wow. Some blockbusters there. I'll take the first, second, neither (seriously, I don't want any of those players on my team), and the first.
EBF
Footballguy
Not at all. I like him for a variety of reasons and his rookie statistics didn't change that much one way or the other. I don't think putting up 400-500 yards as a rookie TE qualifies you for automatic greatness. I also don't think it says anything in the other direction. It's a nice, solid rookie year. The idea that he needed to show more as a rookie to justify strong optimism doesn't really jive with me when most of the top players in the NFL at his position (V Davis, Gates, Graham, Witten, and Gonzo) showed less as rookies. On the other hand, if you thought he was mediocre, it's not such a strong season that you absolutely must change your mind. It's a lot of noise over nothing. I'd say he's right on track, but we'll know a lot more after year two. That's typically where you see the "real" TE emerge.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I am pretty bullish on Eifert. I'd start considering him as my TE option after Graham and Gronk are off the board. Like QBs, if I'm going after a not-already-elite-TE in a 12 team, start 1 league then I want the guy that's most likely to become one of those elite options.
That said, I'm not onboard with the "he had a historical rookie year" thing. Comparing his rookie year to rookie years from 5-10 years ago is pretty meaningless. The position and its usage has changed considerably since then. Eifert's rookie year was similar to Ryan Tannehill's. Great by historical standards, "meh" by current standards. Like QBs, we're likely going to see 2-5 TEs put up "historically good rookie years" every year from here on out until we get to the point where it's no longer considered historically good, which we may have already reached.
Was I disappointed in Eifert's rookie year? Eh, probably not. I kind of expected it to be a wash going in. In the back of my mind I suppose I hoped he'd unseat Gresham midway through the season and blow up, but it's not something I was expecting. That said, I'm not looking at it as a positive (historically good) either. It's a wash. Pretty much what I expected going in.
I also don't really care about his floor or the list of ex-1st rounders that posted at least one top 10 season. If he's the next Owen Daniels or Jermaine Gresham then that's of little value to me. It's easy to find a top 10 TE. Literally almost everyone in the league has one, and they're cheap to acquire. I want Eifert because I want a guy that might be Jimmy Graham. His floor is fairly negligible to me.
That said, I'm not onboard with the "he had a historical rookie year" thing. Comparing his rookie year to rookie years from 5-10 years ago is pretty meaningless. The position and its usage has changed considerably since then. Eifert's rookie year was similar to Ryan Tannehill's. Great by historical standards, "meh" by current standards. Like QBs, we're likely going to see 2-5 TEs put up "historically good rookie years" every year from here on out until we get to the point where it's no longer considered historically good, which we may have already reached.
Was I disappointed in Eifert's rookie year? Eh, probably not. I kind of expected it to be a wash going in. In the back of my mind I suppose I hoped he'd unseat Gresham midway through the season and blow up, but it's not something I was expecting. That said, I'm not looking at it as a positive (historically good) either. It's a wash. Pretty much what I expected going in.
I also don't really care about his floor or the list of ex-1st rounders that posted at least one top 10 season. If he's the next Owen Daniels or Jermaine Gresham then that's of little value to me. It's easy to find a top 10 TE. Literally almost everyone in the league has one, and they're cheap to acquire. I want Eifert because I want a guy that might be Jimmy Graham. His floor is fairly negligible to me.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Perhaps, but not my intention.
To answer your question: The elite QBs have questions after Rodgers. Neither of them are likely to provide an immediate advantage for their owners. The gap between "elite" and "good" isn't as wide at the QB spot--by any measure of value; not just fantasy points. The "good" options at QB are very safe, steady, and productive. Trade value comes into play, as does the RB/WR/TE's flex availability. You can wait on QB and still get a safe 5-7 years of QB1 production. You can't do that at other positions. If we can establish that elite RB/WR/TE production is more valuable--we have to decide how valuable a "maybe elite" at RB/WR is compared to an "elite" QB.
For me--maybe Luck and Newton are "elite" and RG3 isn't. But it's a thin line and the risk/reward his HIGHLY in RG3's favor. So much so that I'll pass on the top guys, even if it means taking 2nd tier players at other positions over tier 1 QBs.
I'm not saying Newton and Luck are bad picks in the 3rd round. Just that there are valid reasons to pass.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
That's a valid point. The histogram did change. From a VBD standpoint I think you have to value Peyton and Brees more than their current ADP because of the yearly point differential whereas Luck and Newton are about right. From an upside-chasing or market value standpoint, Luck and Newton provide a combination of floor (in market value and production) and possible upside that their ADP is too low and they become attractive picks in the mid/late 2nd. I am comfortable investing in Luck and believing the upside (of a generational passer on par with Peyton and Brees) will come. I have similar comfort with Newton and RG3 with some reservations or caveats.
For any position an active owner can cycle in short term production through cheap deals or waiver moves. There's a couple dozen startable players available in double digit rounds at RB/WR/TE. If the goal is to fill a hole with someone who gives a push at the position consider how late guys like Greg Jennings and Greg Olsen are available. Consider how late Tate and Sanders were available earlier this month (sure to change by April). Consider where most of the FA RBs were taken and how little anybody wants to trot out SJax, MJD, or even Rice or McFadden this year.
Yes the window is shorter at other positions, but from a pragmatic standpoint are you really going to say "just let me draft a low QB1 and not worry about it for 5 years." Of course you're going to worry about it. You're going to look at every Manziel or Winston that comes into the league and evaluate them. A longer window for mediocrity is little incentive over the Greg Jennings or Greg Olsens of the world. Their window is fine relative to their position.
There's value plays in every strategy.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
That's not the claim. Nobody walks away from a startup with a roster they can set and forget for 5 years; you have to pick your spots. In waiting to draft a QB and settling on Matt Ryan--It's only after establishing a core and advantage at other positions.
In a hypothetical draft where you take Rodgers and I select Ryan--your advantage is X/PPG and will be until they both retire around the same time. Your advantage can really only be measured in fantasy points. At the other positions, the advantage is much more; the security that comes from having the better football player is least significant at the QB spot. The league is consistantly shuffling through average to good players at the skill spots. Would anyone be surprised if Zac Stacy is a 3rd string running back next season? Or if TY Hilton never finishes top 30 again? No. Yet Jay Cutler will have a starting job until he decides to quit.
I absolutely agree that many strategies can work and all provide their own pros and cons. Including QB early. But I think the duration advantage is often misunderstood. 5 years of Adrian Peterson is worth more than 10 years of Peyton Manning, based on career averages. Aaron Rodgers will last longer than LeSean McCoy. But McCoy's duration provides an advantage over his position, while Rodgers' is baseline for his. Anyone drafting Rodgers over McCoy due to duration is misguided on the matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I agree with that. Not to fall down the rabbit hole, at what point do you know the RB has achieved the duration advantage? Probably not until he's more than half way through it. You were right to buy into McCoy as 1.1 2 years ago but that view was not commonplace. It was not as incontrovertible as "Rodgers is an elite QB and will be so for 8 more years" is today. There have been plenty of RBs people have bought into with high 1st round startup picks who went on to deliver nothing. Like literally 0 VBD.
Rodgers' window is sacrosanct. His eliteness is more guaranteed than Ryan, Rivers, Eli, Ben, or Cutler's QB1ness as all have fallen in and out for various reasons. There is no RB equivalent unless you have great foresight or Biff's sports almanac.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
The advantages you point out for Rodgers apply to his entire position; duration, stability, and projectablity (if that's a word). Where is the value over replacement, then?
Dumbing it down to a single term--"hit rate"--it must be measured within position first, just like we do for fantasy points. When I made the call on McCoy, it was clear to me that he was one of the better RBs in the league (at 22 YO). That's all I needed to conclude that he had a major "hit rate" advantage over his position. If we were to quantify it, it woud have looked something like this:
Hit Rate:
QB1: 70%
Aaron Rodgers: 95%
RB1: 40%
LeSean McCoy: 65%
McCoy's advantage over his position was greater, despite him being a less stable asset than ARod. I'm more likely to swing and miss, but a hit is much more valuable than hitting on any QB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Another analogy:
Preferring $1 over a 50/50 chance at $2 is fine. But owners are taking the $1 over 50/50 chances at $3--because they misunderstand value in the dynasty format. They get burned on Rashard Mendenhall or Jonathan Stewart and damn the process with the outcome. They're so worried about their assets turning to dust that they willingly hover around mediocrity to avoid it, hoping to "outlast" their league. But that doesn't work. The VBD is simply shuffled between teams; it doesn't dry up.
Not claiming you're one of them. Not claiming that drafting in any order is right or wrong. I haven't drafted RB first in 2 years*, FTR. But, again, draft Aaron Rodgers because he's the best asset at the pick and not because he lasts longer than the RB you're considering.
ETA:*Drafted trent at 1.08 last year, but traded him during the draft (Cam/1.01(Lacy)).
Preferring $1 over a 50/50 chance at $2 is fine. But owners are taking the $1 over 50/50 chances at $3--because they misunderstand value in the dynasty format. They get burned on Rashard Mendenhall or Jonathan Stewart and damn the process with the outcome. They're so worried about their assets turning to dust that they willingly hover around mediocrity to avoid it, hoping to "outlast" their league. But that doesn't work. The VBD is simply shuffled between teams; it doesn't dry up.
Not claiming you're one of them. Not claiming that drafting in any order is right or wrong. I haven't drafted RB first in 2 years*, FTR. But, again, draft Aaron Rodgers because he's the best asset at the pick and not because he lasts longer than the RB you're considering.
ETA:*Drafted trent at 1.08 last year, but traded him during the draft (Cam/1.01(Lacy)).
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
It would be if it were equally true for all players at the position. If the best fantasy QBs played 4 years longer than the best fantasy RBs, and the worst starter-caliber QBs played 4 years longer than the worst starter-caliber RBs, it would be an irrelevant consideration. If the best fantasy QBs played twice as long as the best fantasy RBs, and the worst starter-caliber QBs played twice as long as the worst starter-caliber RBs, then it's a very, very relevant consideration. If RB careers range from 2-6 years, then it's the difference between QB careers ranging from 6-10 years (i.e. investing in a top QB gets you an extra 4 seasons), or QB careers ranging from 4-12 years (i.e. investing in a top QB gets you an extra 8 seasons).
Besides, the idea that career length is irrelevant because everyone at the position has the same inherent positional advantage, so all advantage offsets is a screwy idea. Building around WRs is in vogue right now. Why? Because top WRs last longer, so you'll have your core in place for a longer time freeing you to devote resources to short-term solutions at RB. Why does the same reasoning not apply to QBs, only more so?
Adam Harstad
Moderator
But my point is the fact that those staples are available in rounds 6-8 is a misvaluation by the market. I could just as easily have said "why on earth should I invest in Gronk or Graham in the 1st round when the market is valuing them as 2nd round picks in startups?" in recent years. Yeah, the market was saying the top TEs weren't worth as much as the top WRs, but that's because the market was behaving irrationally, and a perfectly rational market would have valued them equal or higher.\
Likewise, I contend that in a perfectly rational market, there's absolutely no way in hell Aaron Rodgers would be going in the late 3rd round.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Because Aaron Rodgers outscores Tony Romo by a crushing, crushing amount? Since 2008, the difference between Aaron Rodgers and Tony Romo is 3.8 points per game, or 61 points per full season. For comparison, 3.8 points per game was the difference last year between A.J Green and Julian Edelman... in non-PPR. Why take A.J. Green in the 1st when you can get Julian Edelman in the 12th?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
The same reason you draft LeSean McCoy over Aaron Rodgers in redraft, despite Aaron Rodgers scoring more points--is the same reason you draft LeSean McCoy over Aaron Rodgers despite Aaron Rodgers lasting longer.
You're comparing Aaron Rodgers vs. LeSean McCoy. You should be comparing Rodgers' value over his position vs. McCoy's over his.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Becuase the elite RBs will be 26+ YO next year.
ETA: We wouldn't be drafting Julio Jones or Demaryius Thomas over a 23 YO Adrian Peterson.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Because Green can be played at WR2 and double his value to your team on a weekly basis. Or WR3 and triple it. Or at a flex spot. Because Green's advantages go beyond fantasy points in a way that Rodgers' don't. 3 years from now, Philip Rivers, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, and Ben Reothlisberger will be starting NFL QBs producing close to their career averages. Are you comfortable saying the same about Julian Edelman? Or Toby Gerhardt? Or Ben Tate? Or TY Hilton?
The Fantasy Chef
Footballguy
whens the last time this thread talked about dynasty rankings just curious?
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I specifically didn't mention Luck for a reason- I mentioned Rodgers, Brees, and Newton.
Come up with a list of guys you think will get 200+ VBD over the next 3-4 years. How many names are on that list? Because I think Rodgers, Brees, and Newton are all locks for it, so unless your list is 60 names long, not having Brees among the top 60 picks is absurd.
Replacement level for QB has risen dramatically in recent years, but it doesn't matter, because elite production has risen JUST AS DRAMATICALLY, if not more so. QB12 today is outscoring the historical QB12 average by ridiculous margins... but QBs1-3 are outscoring the historical QBs1-3 by equally ridiculous margins, rendering this whole "rising replacement level" conversation moot. Guys like Dalton might be scoring a lot more fantasy points than Eli Manning did a decade ago, but they're just as far behind their peers and, therefore, just as useless for fantasy purposes.
Seriously, Cam Newton owns one of the five most productive 2-year and 3-year fantasy stretches in NFL history, and he hasn't yet hit his 25th birthday. And some people don't want to take him in the 3rd round of startup drafts. You mean to tell me that isn't a glaring market inefficiency?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
VBD isn't the only measurement we should be considering. Otherwise, we'd be drafting a QB each of the first 5 rounds.
We are looking at team VBD when drafting each player. 200 VBD in the first is more or less valuable depending on what VBD is available at QB in later rounds.
Again, it's not Rodgers vs. McCoy. It's Rodgers and Stacy vs. McCoy and Brees. Or Rodgers and D.Jax vs. Julio and Stafford.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I'm not comparing McCoy to Rodgers. I never suggested drafting Rodgers over McCoy. I'm saying, once you're past the elite, blue-chip RBs and WRs with long careers ahead of them, why not draft an elite, blue-chip QB with a long career ahead of him? I like McCoy over Rodgers because both are established studs with a long career left relative to their peers. I prefer Rodgers to Jamaal Charles or Adrian Peterson because, while both are established studs, Rodgers has a longer career left relative to his peers than Charles/Peterson do. And I prefer Aaron Rodgers to Zac Stacy because Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest players to ever play football and Zac Stacy is, by comparison, complete garbage.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
You know, every single one of these arguments could have been used in 2006 to say "Why draft Peyton Manning in the first 3 rounds when you can get Eli Manning in the 10th?" And every one of these arguments would have been just as screwy.
Aaron Rodgers averages over 100 VBD per season. AVERAGES. Over ONE HUNDRED VBD. EVERY SEASON. And some people are convinced he's not one of the top THIRTY dynasty assets.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I'd take that bet, in the case of Charles. But even if we both agreed that Rodgers has a duration advantage--it's only one measurement of player value. Taking Rodgers over Charles is a solid mistep in most formats.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I get that. Draft markets are irrational, so it makes sense to take advantage of those market irrationalities. Even if Aaron Rodgers should be a 1st round pick on his merits, if I'm playing in a league where he won't get drafted until the late 3rd, I'm not targeting him until the early 3rd. Why pay more for him than I have to?
None of this negates the fact that quality QBs being available that late is irrational.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Unless you passed on him for AP, LT, McCoy, Charles, or one of the many other non-QBs to have healthy productive careers.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
And I think that's a reasonable position. I don't think it's at all crazy when someone thinks Jamaal Charles is more valuable than Aaron Rodgers. That's a totally defensible position, even if it's one I don't share. If the draft in question had Aaron Rodgers going in the mid-2nd, I would never have batted an eye, even if that's later than I have him rated.
When people think that ZAC STACY is more valuable than Aaron Rodgers, though? When people seriously suggest that Aaron Rodgers is not worth a pick in the first 3 rounds of a startup draft? Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. Crazy.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
AP, McCoy, and Charles weren't in the league in 2006. Since 2006, there are maybe a half-dozen players who have provided a bigger advantage than Peyton Manning. If that.
And again, I'm not saying "draft Rodgers at #1 overall!", I'm saying "hey, perhaps we might want to consider taking Aaron Rodgers in the first 30 picks...". Unless you can name 30 non-QBs more valuable than Peyton Manning since 2006 (good luck with that, by the way), I don't see how cherry-picking anecdotes is very useful. Peyton Manning in the late 1st or early 2nd in 2006 might not have been the very best pick in the history of startup drafts, but it'd be solidly in the upper quartile.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
It's not. It's supply and demand. We need water to live and diamonds are functionally worthless (most common use). Is the cost of each irrational?
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Quarterbacks are available late because quarterbacks are available late, so everyone waits on quarterbacks because they know quarterbacks will be available late, because quarterbacks are available late, which leads to quarterbacks being available late. That's a tautology rather than a sound rational foundation.
A player is as valuable as the positional advantage he provides. And the top QBs provide a positional advantage on par with top players at any other position.
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I do think we're getting a little bit of a discount on Rodgers because he missed so much of 2013. The bigger questions are Luck/Newton and Peyton/Brees and both require a little more hope and foresight. If Rodgers was healthy all 2013 and finished top 3 he'd go a round earlier and wouldn't offer as much of a discount.
