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 (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Concept Coop
Footballguy
His advantage over his peers doesn't compare to Graham's or Gronk's advantage over theirs.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
If I told you that Rookie RBA and Rookie QBA would have 10 years of above basline production - who do you take, only knowing that?
In my example, ALL TEs last 10 years, and all RBs last 1 year. So, relative to their position, there is no advantage in longevity for either TE or RB.
However, by virtue of the top TE lasting 10 years and the top RB lasting 1 year, it is clear to me that the top TE will be more valuable than the top RB absent some extreme difference in VBD in one year between the top RB and top TE. Do you not agree? For example, would you prefer the TE that generates 100 VBD for 10 years or the RB that generates 150 VBD for one year? In these examples, it is irrelevant that all other TEs also last 10 years and all RBs also last 1 year. In effect, I am saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. When looking at longevity and relating that to value, the longevity of a QB relative to other QBs is irrelevant when comparing a QB to a RB.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Here is the VBD # for QBs from 2004-2012
2012
1 Drew Brees 107
2 Aaron Rodgers 90
3 Tom Brady 85
4 Cam Newton 69
5 Peyton Manning 60
6 Matt Ryan 58
7 Robert Griffin III 49
8 Tony Romo 38
9 Matthew Stafford 37
10 Andrew Luck 37
11 Russell Wilson 11
12 Andy Dalton 0
2011
1 Drew Brees 173
2 Aaron Rodgers 164
3 Tom Brady 149
4 Cam Newton 141
5 Matthew Stafford 122
6 Eli Manning 68
7 Tony Romo 48
8 Matt Ryan 48
9 Philip Rivers 43
10 Mark Sanchez 21
11 Michael Vick 3
12 Ryan Fitzpatrick 0
2010
1 Aaron Rodgers 71
2 Peyton Manning 66
3 Michael Vick 65
4 Philip Rivers 62
5 Tom Brady 59
6 Drew Brees 56
7 Eli Manning 21
8 Matt Schaub 20
9 Josh Freeman 17
10 Matt Ryan 15
11 Carson Palmer 2
12 Joe Flacco 0
2009
1 Aaron Rodgers 112
2 Drew Brees 76
3 Matt Schaub 63
4 Peyton Manning 57
5 Tony Romo 53
6 Brett Favre 53
7 Tom Brady 46
8 Ben Roethlisberger 46
9 Philip Rivers 44
10 Eli Manning 19
11 Jay Cutler 6
12 Kurt Warner 0
2008
1 Drew Brees 116
2 Aaron Rodgers 89
3 Jay Cutler 84
4 Kurt Warner 78
5 Philip Rivers 77
6 Peyton Manning 48
7 Donovan McNabb 47
8 Matt Cassel 40
9 David Garrard 15
10 Tony Romo 10
11 Chad Pennington 7
12 Tyler Thigpen 0
2007
1 Tom Brady 192
2 Tony Romo 98
3 Peyton Manning 67
4 Drew Brees 65
5 Derek Anderson 49
6 Ben Roethlisberger 45
7 Matt Hasselbeck 44
8 Brett Favre 44
9 Carson Palmer 29
10 Kurt Warner 7
11 Jay Cutler 5
12 Jon Kitna 0
2006
1 Peyton Manning 120
2 Drew Brees 75
3 Marc Bulger 65
4 Michael Vick 65
5 Carson Palmer 62
6 Jon Kitna 58
7 Tom Brady 28
8 Brett Favre 15
9 Philip Rivers 11
10 Ben Roethlisberger 4
11 Eli Manning 0
2005
1 Carson Palmer 58
2 Tom Brady 50
3 Peyton Manning 34
4 Eli Manning 21
5 Matt Hasselbeck 18
6 Drew Bledsoe 14
7 Drew Brees 11
8 Trent Green 7
9 Kerry Collins 6
10 Michael Vick 2
11 Jake Plummer 0
12 Jake Delhomme 0
2004
1 Daunte Culpepper 166
2 Peyton Manning 150
3 Donovan McNabb 82
4 Trent Green 61
5 Jake Plummer 51
6 Brett Favre 43
7 Jake Delhomme 41
8 Aaron Brooks 32
9 Marc Bulger 27
10 Tom Brady 18
11 Drew Brees 15
12 Michael Vick 0
These numbers are set at baseline QB 12. I think the baseline should perhaps be QB 15 for start 1 QB 12 team dynasty leagues, to account for some teams controlling more than one top 12 QB and the worst starter for teams being below QB 1 level in many years. But even adjusting for that it would not change the data very much.
The QB 1 are essentially going to give you a 50 VBD advantage as long as your QB is in the top 5-6 of the QB 1s. If your QB is in the bottom half of the top 12 the advantage gets pretty marginal and that advantage is only against half of the other teams except for a team or two who may be somewhat screwed at the position that season. If you have a top QB the advantage is huge and some seasons there have been a couple of QB ahead of the rest.
It was more important to have a top QB in 2011 because 5 of the teams had QB who scored much more than the rest when there typically is only one or two who do.
RB on the other hand offers many more players giving a 100 VBD advantage and players giving you more than 50 VBD which would still be more valuable than a QB 6 or lower. So greater volume of players who would provide that point advantage helping you win games are available at that position than there are at QB where only a couple of them will usually make a significant difference.
The WR position after the elite guys becomes a pretty flat distribution of VBD with most of them giving something between 0-50 VBD as well. You can go 60 deep at WR without much difference between WR 60 and WR 25 in terms of point advantage. What I mean is you can start a WR 60 without it hurting you as much as starting below baseline RB.
So unless it is an Elite QB who you think is capable of putting up a top100 VBD type season I think you have better odds of achieving the points advantage from other positions than QB.
I will take the 100 VBD for the next 2 seasons over 0-50 VBD for the next 8 seasons. The former improves my chances to win more now. I can make adjustments at QB with the pool being so deep and passing stats continuing to rise and enough turnover to provide new options frequently enough.
An exception to this would be players like Andrew Luck who may not ever be a top QB statistically but who I think can be if things work out in his favor. Similar to Tom Brady before the Patriots got Moss a star WR could push Luck to that type of level at some point while likely providing those 0-50 VBD in between. The QB who can run like Luck, Kaep, Cam Newton, Wilson add extra value in those early years that is worth considering, because that can lead to those top QB seasons also, but one has to consider also that the high rushing attempts may lead to more injuries and may not be sustainable as the QB gets older. (McNair, McNabb,Culpepper)
2012
1 Drew Brees 107
2 Aaron Rodgers 90
3 Tom Brady 85
4 Cam Newton 69
5 Peyton Manning 60
6 Matt Ryan 58
7 Robert Griffin III 49
8 Tony Romo 38
9 Matthew Stafford 37
10 Andrew Luck 37
11 Russell Wilson 11
12 Andy Dalton 0
2011
1 Drew Brees 173
2 Aaron Rodgers 164
3 Tom Brady 149
4 Cam Newton 141
5 Matthew Stafford 122
6 Eli Manning 68
7 Tony Romo 48
8 Matt Ryan 48
9 Philip Rivers 43
10 Mark Sanchez 21
11 Michael Vick 3
12 Ryan Fitzpatrick 0
2010
1 Aaron Rodgers 71
2 Peyton Manning 66
3 Michael Vick 65
4 Philip Rivers 62
5 Tom Brady 59
6 Drew Brees 56
7 Eli Manning 21
8 Matt Schaub 20
9 Josh Freeman 17
10 Matt Ryan 15
11 Carson Palmer 2
12 Joe Flacco 0
2009
1 Aaron Rodgers 112
2 Drew Brees 76
3 Matt Schaub 63
4 Peyton Manning 57
5 Tony Romo 53
6 Brett Favre 53
7 Tom Brady 46
8 Ben Roethlisberger 46
9 Philip Rivers 44
10 Eli Manning 19
11 Jay Cutler 6
12 Kurt Warner 0
2008
1 Drew Brees 116
2 Aaron Rodgers 89
3 Jay Cutler 84
4 Kurt Warner 78
5 Philip Rivers 77
6 Peyton Manning 48
7 Donovan McNabb 47
8 Matt Cassel 40
9 David Garrard 15
10 Tony Romo 10
11 Chad Pennington 7
12 Tyler Thigpen 0
2007
1 Tom Brady 192
2 Tony Romo 98
3 Peyton Manning 67
4 Drew Brees 65
5 Derek Anderson 49
6 Ben Roethlisberger 45
7 Matt Hasselbeck 44
8 Brett Favre 44
9 Carson Palmer 29
10 Kurt Warner 7
11 Jay Cutler 5
12 Jon Kitna 0
2006
1 Peyton Manning 120
2 Drew Brees 75
3 Marc Bulger 65
4 Michael Vick 65
5 Carson Palmer 62
6 Jon Kitna 58
7 Tom Brady 28
8 Brett Favre 15
9 Philip Rivers 11
10 Ben Roethlisberger 4
11 Eli Manning 0
2005
1 Carson Palmer 58
2 Tom Brady 50
3 Peyton Manning 34
4 Eli Manning 21
5 Matt Hasselbeck 18
6 Drew Bledsoe 14
7 Drew Brees 11
8 Trent Green 7
9 Kerry Collins 6
10 Michael Vick 2
11 Jake Plummer 0
12 Jake Delhomme 0
2004
1 Daunte Culpepper 166
2 Peyton Manning 150
3 Donovan McNabb 82
4 Trent Green 61
5 Jake Plummer 51
6 Brett Favre 43
7 Jake Delhomme 41
8 Aaron Brooks 32
9 Marc Bulger 27
10 Tom Brady 18
11 Drew Brees 15
12 Michael Vick 0
These numbers are set at baseline QB 12. I think the baseline should perhaps be QB 15 for start 1 QB 12 team dynasty leagues, to account for some teams controlling more than one top 12 QB and the worst starter for teams being below QB 1 level in many years. But even adjusting for that it would not change the data very much.
The QB 1 are essentially going to give you a 50 VBD advantage as long as your QB is in the top 5-6 of the QB 1s. If your QB is in the bottom half of the top 12 the advantage gets pretty marginal and that advantage is only against half of the other teams except for a team or two who may be somewhat screwed at the position that season. If you have a top QB the advantage is huge and some seasons there have been a couple of QB ahead of the rest.
It was more important to have a top QB in 2011 because 5 of the teams had QB who scored much more than the rest when there typically is only one or two who do.
RB on the other hand offers many more players giving a 100 VBD advantage and players giving you more than 50 VBD which would still be more valuable than a QB 6 or lower. So greater volume of players who would provide that point advantage helping you win games are available at that position than there are at QB where only a couple of them will usually make a significant difference.
The WR position after the elite guys becomes a pretty flat distribution of VBD with most of them giving something between 0-50 VBD as well. You can go 60 deep at WR without much difference between WR 60 and WR 25 in terms of point advantage. What I mean is you can start a WR 60 without it hurting you as much as starting below baseline RB.
So unless it is an Elite QB who you think is capable of putting up a top100 VBD type season I think you have better odds of achieving the points advantage from other positions than QB.
I will take the 100 VBD for the next 2 seasons over 0-50 VBD for the next 8 seasons. The former improves my chances to win more now. I can make adjustments at QB with the pool being so deep and passing stats continuing to rise and enough turnover to provide new options frequently enough.
An exception to this would be players like Andrew Luck who may not ever be a top QB statistically but who I think can be if things work out in his favor. Similar to Tom Brady before the Patriots got Moss a star WR could push Luck to that type of level at some point while likely providing those 0-50 VBD in between. The QB who can run like Luck, Kaep, Cam Newton, Wilson add extra value in those early years that is worth considering, because that can lead to those top QB seasons also, but one has to consider also that the high rushing attempts may lead to more injuries and may not be sustainable as the QB gets older. (McNair, McNabb,Culpepper)
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I think I understand what you're suggesting. To answer your question, if there is no advantage to measure--which is the case here--longevity has universal value. So yes; I'd take the TE, assuming he provide VBD on par with the RB.
However, while I understand your point--I think--I don't know how relevant it is, however. Removing inter-positional value negates my point; that we should measure inter-positional advantage only within position.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
A RB career length and productive career length is much shorter than that of other positions. So their longevity is not the same.
What I think Coop is saying, indirectly, is that Career VBD (which takes into account longevity) should be measured against some baseline within their position.
Thus, if ALL RBs lasted only one year except Adrian Peterson that lasts 5 years, Adrian Peterson would have a career VBD of 500 while all other RBs would have at most a career VBD of lets say 100.
On the other hand, Drew Brees will have a career VBD (going forward) of also 500, but there are other QBs that can also produce 500 career VBD or close to it. In that case, Adrian Peterson's 500 career VBD IS worth more than Brees' 500 VBD because you can generate more team career VBD by taking Peterson 1st over Drew Brees.
I think I am starting to understand yours as well, but I do believe that longevity is relevant regardless of inter-positional advantages. If a positional advantage exists (at RB for example), then that creates an additional advantage for that RB, but it does not necessarily negate the longevity advantage of a QB over a RB.
As another example, Drew Brees will generate 100 VBD for the next 5 years. All other QBs will last 5 years as well, so no longevity advantage within the QB position. Adrian Peterson will last 2 years of 100 VBD, but all other RBs will last only 1 year. In that case, 500 Career VBD at the QB position is still superior to 200 VBD at RB even though Adrian Peterson has a longevity advantage over his own position. I think the positional advantage must be taken into account in some way, but it offsets the total career VBD advantage only where the positional advantage is so much greater.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I would argue that there's a flip side to this. The brees owner is a year or two away from drafting youn g qbs in the hopes of hitting the lottery. The manning owner has been drafting qbs for a couple years now even though he's gotten awesome performances from peyton. If they haven't, they're risking being the last man without a chair when the music stops. Its true that breakout qbs don't have much trade value - except to the guy who doesn't have one, and then everyone tries to hold that guy over a barrel for tier two qbs and won't even consider moving their number one. Sure, if you have rodgers and pick up foles, he won't have as much trade value as a guy who has calvin and adds demaryius. And if you want to get max value for foles, you need to trade himsooner rather than later or else you hold all the risk that the eagles pick a new qb of the future. So it takes a perfect storm to get that true stud qb and actually find a trade partner who will give you full trade value for him during the window that you're willing to make the deal. And that's a very valid point.
But if you have rodgers, what are you doing drafting foles? Part of the value of a young stud qb in his prime is that he allows you to draft deeper at the higher priority positions for the next ten years while the other owners are mining for qb talent. If you never hit a draft pick on foles, you also never waste a fairly early pick on gabbert or ponder or freeman. That is a large advantage when you hit on a guy like demarco murray, or zac stacy, or aaron hernandez, or some of the other guys who've slid into the late first/second round territory the last several years and become uber studs.
I think the only one qb problem is much larger in redrafts, where you can pick up the 25th ranked qb off waivers when he has a big week. In most dynasty leagues, its rare for any qb to show up on waivers - maybe foles made it to waivers, but he didn't in my 14 team league. Before that I think vick was the last relevant waiver qb. The low opportunity cost of qb mining in smaller dynasties or redrafts devalues qbs, because it keeps early qb drafters from being able to get lucky in as many ways as late qb drafters.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I'm going to give this one some thought. I'm certainly open to the idea that my thoughts on the matter are incomplete.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
But you're measuring the RB and WR based on the value they provide at the RB1 and WR1 spots. Unless it's a start one (RB/WR) league with no flex spots--we have adjust the baseline.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
An interesting article on the subject of longevity-
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1683775-when-does-age-catch-up-to-nfl-players
FBG thread on this from 2006 http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241286
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1683775-when-does-age-catch-up-to-nfl-players
FBG thread on this from 2006 http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241286
ZWK update in 2012 http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=639987
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
Career vbd can't be a single number. Peyton manning might have a remaining career vbd of 300, same as eli manning. But peyton is way more valuable than eli because he will earn his in the next two years while eli will earn it over the next eight. Two years of peyton gives you six more years to acquire a qb better than replacement value. Marhall faulk won more leagues for people from 1999 to 2001 than curtis martin from 1996 to 2005 or whatever. And faulk won more leagues for people than eli ever has. And while qbs have more longevity, you can't guarantee that any specific qb will - as shown by daunte culpepper, michael vick, kordell stewart, kurt warner, jay cutler, jake plummer... lots of guys who have flashed elite qb talent then dropped way off. Just some more food for thought. Really interesting discussion here.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
This isn't the case in my experience at all. There's really no need to draft rookie QBs at all in most of my leagues (truly elite prospects like Luck and RGIII excepted). Sure, people will throw late 2nd / 3rd round darts at QBs, but no one worries about getting stuck without a chair when the music stops, because serviceable options are so easily available via trade. Just off of the top of my head, in one league last year: I got Rivers for Emmanuel Sanders after Rodgers went down. The guy that opened the year with Vick grabbed Andy Dalton for a 2nd. Cutler and a 2nd were traded for Greg Jennings. Those were all someone's QB2 and available for peanuts. No need to invest years of draft picks to find a replacement at all.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I don't disagree, which is why I have him ranked behind both Gronk and Graham. Still, you said it's not a safe bet that Rodgers' advantage over the field will match Brees/Peyton's advantage over the field. And that's where I disagree. What Brees and Peyton did last year? That's what Rodgers has been doing for six straight years.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Well, "above-baseline production" for an RB is typically higher than "above-baseline production" for a QB, so if that was literally all you told me, I would take the RB. If you told me that RBA and QBA would have 10 years of equivalently above-baseline production, and assuming the baseline we are referring to was equivalent for both positions (i.e. the cost of acquisition for a baseline QB was equivalent to the cost of acquisition for a baseline RB, e.g. baseline = "best player on waivers"), then I would be indifferent to which I received.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Rodgers has never seperated himself from QB3+ the way Peyton did last year. He's never been one of two in the way that Gronk and Graham are every year, and Brees/Peyton were in 2013.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
This is the fundamental tension of dynasty leagues. RBs generate more value per season, but have the shortest careers. WRs generate slightly less value per season, but have longer careers. QBs generate the least value per season, but have the longest careers. In this way, the three positions are balanced against each other.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I think you'd be making a big mistake. Not having to worry about your RB1 spot for 10 years would be a major seperator; much more so than at QB.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Arbitrary baselines. In 2011, Aaron Rodgers averaged 29.99 points per game. The average of all QBs from 2-12 was 22.97, giving Rodgers a 7.02 ppg advantage. In 2013, Peyton Manning averaged 30.42 points per game. The average of all QBs from 2-12 was 21.90 points per game, giving Manning an 8.51 point per game advantage. Manning's season was more valuable, but we're not talking about orders of magnitude, here. Aaron Rodgers led all players at all positions in VBD in 2011 with 171 despite sitting a game.
By the way, Jimmy Graham outscored TE2-12 last year by an average of 5.42 points per game. So yeah, Aaron Rodgers has had seasons where he was as far above his peers as Jimmy Graham was above his. Maybe not in terms of a percentage of total points (7 points represents a 33% increase at QB, while 5.5 points represents a 66% increase at TE), but in terms of total value differential, yes.
bostonfred
Footballguy
In my 14 teamer with 24 man rosters and qb friendly scoring, there are well over 40 qbs rostered right now. I've never seen an nfl starter traded for less than a second round pick, and a legit ff starter wouldn't go for less than a first. I gave up a mid first for romo last year and feel like I got a steal. I later traded terrelle pryor and garret graham to the qbless vick owner and got t.y. hilton and fred jackson, and I got a 2nd rounder in the deal. Obviously that was just awesome timing, but it really does depend on the league.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
If that's how you measure it. Any baseline below QB3 and TE3 is slanted in Rodgers' favor; it doesn't account for the added advantage Graham gives you over each and every other team in the league, save the Gronk owner.
In Rodgers' biggest year, he was 49 points higher than QB3. Graham was 100 higher than TE3 in 2011. Gronk was 140 over TE3.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Let's assume for the sake of ease of calculation that the average QB career is twice as long as the average RB career.
If you lock up that 100-Val-a-year QB for 5 years, that gives you 5 years to try to get a +Val RB to pair with him. If you lock up that 100-Val-a-year RB for 5 years, that gives you 5 years to try to get a +Val QB to pair with him. Now, it might sound better to lock up the RB and try to get a QB to pair with him, because if you do manage to hit on a QB, he'll last twice as long. On the other hand, since QBs have twice the usable career length, that means they suffer from half the turnover... so the other side of the coin is that it's advantageous to lock up the QB for 5 years, because you're twice as likely to hit on a +Val RB.
If QB has twice the career length of RB, you're half as likely to find a good one, but when you do, he'll last twice as long, so the total EV is the same either way. In that case, 100 Val is 100 Val.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Umm, actually, it does account for exactly that. Here's the math from 2011:
((Rodgers - QB2) + (Rodgers - QB3) + (Rodgers - QB4) + (Rodgers - QB5) + (Rodgers - QB6) + (Rodgers - QB7) + (Rodgers - QB8) + (Rodgers - QB9) + (Rodgers - QB10) + (Rodgers - QB11) + (Rodgers - QB12))/11 = 7.02
In other words, on average, Rodgers gave you a 7.02 point per game advantage over every other quarterback in fantasy in 2011. Repeating that same calculation for Jimmy Graham in 2013 gives you 5.43 points per game over average (non-PPR, because that's the data the HDD spits out). I didn't calculate it for Jimmy Graham in 2011, but I can easily do so now: Jimmy Graham averaged 12.31 PPG in 2011 (again, non-PPR, because that's what the Historical Data Dominator spits out). The other 11 TEs in the top 12 averaged 8.52 PPG in 2011. The difference between Jimmy Graham and the other 11 owners in 2011 was 3.79 points per game- or about half the advantage that Rodgers provided. Partly, that's because Gronkowski was so far ahead of Graham. Removing Gronkowski from the comparison drops the average from the other 10 TEs to 7.87 and increases Graham's advantage to 4.44 PPG, but Rodgers still blows him out of the water- and giving Rodgers a comparable treatment (i.e. dropping Brees or Brady out of his list of comps) makes the disparity even bigger.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
It being a 14 teamer changes things, as does QB friendly scoring.
In a 12 teamer with typical QB scoring my experience has been in line with Coeur De Lion's, that there is virtually no market for tier 2/3 QBs. Even in the rare scenario that you find someone that desperately needs a QB there are inevitably 4 or 5 teams that have an extra they'd love to get something for. In that sense you can't really even hold the QB needy team over a barrel because they can just go elsewhere.
For a fun little anecdote outside of trade value, in my contract league we have open bidding on restricted free agents each offseason. This works out as an easy way to see how the league values positions. It's a 12 team league, here is what some of the notables went for last offseason.
QB:
Ben Roethlisberger: $2
Michael Vick: $3
Philip Rivers: $3
Joe Flacco: $3
WR:
Dwayne Bowe: $16
Greg Jennings: $11
RB:
BJGE: $9
Ahmad Bradshaw: $5 (prior to him signing with Indy)
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Hard to say without recalculating everything by hand, but Graham averaged 5.38 receptions per game in 2013, and the 2nd-12th TEs (in receptions, not fantasy points) averaged 4.6 receptions per game, which means Graham is guaranteed to gain at least 0.78 extra ppg over average in 2013 (taking him to somewhere north of 6.21 PPG). Closer to Rodgers' 2011, but still not quite there. In 2011, Graham averaged 6.19 and all other top-12 TEs (in receptions per game, not fantasy points per game) averaged 4.83, which means Graham is guaranteed to gain at least 1.36 PPG over average, bringing him up to somewhere north of 5.15 PPG over average. Again, well behind Aaron Rodgers.
Now, these gains are the bare minimum Graham would get, assuming that TEs 2-12 in fantasy points are exactly the same as TEs 2-12 in receptions. If the guys ranked 2-12 in fantasy points ranked lower on the receptions leaderboard, then that would increase Graham's advantage in PPR leagues, but this quick-and-dirty estimate should get us into the right ballpark, at least.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
From after Gresham's 2012 season (in 2013 he missed by four receptions amassing 50+ in the first four seasons of his career).Concept Coop said:
"Gresham was named to his second consecutive Pro Bowl and joins Mike Ditka and fellow Sooner Keith Jackson as the only tight ends in NFL history to have over 50 receptions in the first three years of their career."
Underestimating Gresham may have been part of the equation for some in overestimating Eifert's rookie potential and causing expectations to be out of whack.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Eifert was the clear consensus top graded prospect at his position, which is more than we can say about Sankey (where there is no consensus, because there are no blue chip, elite prospects this season).Brewtown said:
Not everybody plays in leagues and scoring systems where RBs are the first half dozen picks.
People appreciate EBF's contributions in the thread for his measured tone (i.e., non-shrill) as much as his insightful reasoning.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I really like Travis Kelce as a guy who could come in an just "Arrive" this year. Talk from Reid last year was that he was "Shockey-like" which I think is high praise. Unfortunately he got hurt like Shockey was wont to do. Late in the year last season I snagged him off the wire after an owner was forced to cut him. I think he's got a ton of upside and the price is practically nothing.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I was/am a buyer of Gresham at low or throw-in value, figuring he might get a bump after 2015 FA. I think there was some perception that Eifert would look better than Gresham, but most figured Gresham would cap Eifert's stats. In the end did he look better than Gresham? Probably not but hard to say. In the end Marvin Jones looked better, yet his upside still remains limited.
Microfracture surgery has killed a lot of mediocre talents. We don't know how good he is, and he's definitely young enough to overcome it, but it's enough to make me willing to let him go for something minor like an OTC pick upgrade. Which perhaps proves your point.
jurb26
Footballguy
A couple of things about this. First, while Eifert may have been the consensus top player at his position this time last year (heading into the draft), I'm not sure we can say that any more. Ertz and Reed have clearly closed the gap. We have a full season of real NFL action under our belts and the consensus has changed. In many rankings, Reed is going before Eifert. Actually more often than not Reed is ranked hire. Sometimes Ertz is. It seems we are clinging to an outdated consensus when talking about Eifert.
Second, we may not see Sankey as a clear top guy at his position but the draft hasn't even happened yet. If Sankey goes a round before any ther RB will you change your view on him? The consensus certainly will.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
You could have simply said "mean", but I appreciate the refresher.Adam Harstad said:
I play PPR, which makes a huge difference.Adam Harstad said:
QB12 is not a functional baseline, when discussing "advantages". The average, or baseline, is not QB12 or TE12. In 2011, 5 QBs scored within 2.62 PPG of ARod. Nearly half the league had a guy whom wasn't at a major disadvantage while lining up across from Rodgers. That same season, Graham outscored TE3 (Aaron Hernandez) by 60 points, or 3.75 PPG.
And a lot changed since then. Vick, Fitzpatrick, and Mark Sanchez were included in your calc. They have been replaced by Foles, RG3, Luck, and Peyton Manning.
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I assume he's looking at PPG so TEBOW is definitely in there, and actual NFL starting QBs Ben and Schaub are ahead of Joe Harvard. Sanchez had an abnormal number of rushing TDs that year; making a pisstake of the 2011 QB landscape based on that doesn't add much. Things are less different than you want to make them seem.
karmarooster
Footballguy
I have enjoyed the discussion on QBs vs. TEs and QBs/TEs vs. RBs/WRs, but in the abstract, really it comes down to arguing philosophies or principals. I hear points on both sides, but I think it can be simplified by doing a "sanity check" in a dynasty start-up by stepping back and saying, "wait a minute, am I really going to draft Mike Evans or D.Hopkins before ARod? Or Kendall Wright before Andrew Luck?"
So, how about some specifics - particularly on the start-up value for elite QBs:
So, how about some specifics - particularly on the start-up value for elite QBs:
- Rodgers - he goes #1 because he's the best mix of age and production, but as pointed out, he isn't any more valuable on a per game basis than other top of the PPG QBs (Brees, Manning), and he's only slightly more valuable than the next rather large group/cluster (Stafford, RG3, Cam, Luck). I like the idea of locking him up for the next 5+ years, but it's easy to understand buyers remorse when he won't command a huge premium in the trade market, and is only a slight bump over the guys below him, and no bump at all on the other elite-but-old options. I tend to favor the "don't draft the first QB" approach. But he's tempting, especially in the 3rd round of a startup, or if there is no clear stud at RB/WR. I'm as high on Patterson as the next guy, but can you really take him over Rodgers?
- Luck - probably solidified his #2 position this offseason by adding Nicks, and Cam not getting any new options, plus the ankle. But if he doesn't develop into Manning/Rodgers/Brees uber-stud category, really you're just paying the premium for his age. Again, nice to have, but doesn't provide any tangible per-game advantage over many other options. At least, not yet.
- Cam - the ankle (probably not a big issue) and the WRs (probably a big issue), in combination with declining rushing totals (both TDs and Yards) over the last few seasons has me worried, at least when it comes to putting him in the top 3. If he becomes a 4,500 yard passer (unlikely with that defense and those "WRs"), he'll be worth it, but otherwise, little to no tangible per-game advantage. Plus the elite defense and conservative nature of the game plan leads to some big ups and downs in his production (both of the last two years have had segments where he's top 3, and stretches where he's outside the top 10ish on PPG basis).
- Brees - I'd probably slot him here, and could be the best play, because he does provide the PPG advantage, and has at least another 2-3 years. Won't retain much if any premium trade value due to his age, but you can ride those extra 2-3 PPG until he retires.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I agree that your order / tiering is likely the way things will happen, but I want absolutely no part of Andrew Luck at that price. I'm hugely confident that he is / will be an elite NFL QB, but elite FF status requires the right system / weapons, and that might or might not happen. There's not a person with half a brain that would say that Matthew Stafford is a better NFL QB than is Ben Roethlisberger -- and the reverse is equally true for FF. if the people buying Luck end up paying a massive premium for the tail of a run of meh QB1 production -- ooooooooofffff.
Last edited by a moderator:
karmarooster
Footballguy
I feel like that's true for Luck, but even more so for Wislon. He's been pegged in that 5-8 range of QBs, it seems due to his real-life talent at QB rather than his fantasy value.
Although in regard to luck, it does look like the system is shifting to be one more favorable to him: Hilton, Nicks, possibly Wayne, Brazil, and Rodgers, plus D.Allen back, no Donald Brown and hopefully not feeding to 3YPC T-Rich... it could represent a shift towards a more aggressive passing attack, ideally learned from the mistake of last year in forcing the offense to flow through the pedestrian ground game. He really only needs a slight bump in passing output, combined with his running ability, to vault into the elite. But I take you point - drafting him that high is really over-valuing his age and ignoring the 'meh' fantasy value he might still represent.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
It's only my perception; YMMV. I had Cam as my number one overall player after his rookie season. The following year he graded out as a late 2nd round startup pick, despite me liking him just as much. Wilson, Kaepernick, Luck, and RG3, added 4 top 5-8 (at the time) options to the field, on top of Manning coming back and Ryan making strides. That changed QB value in my opinion. A lot. If my reaction doesn't match yours--I can respect that.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I don't like either at their current ADP, but with a gun to my head, I'd take Wilson in the 7th over Luck in the 3rd. IMO the real value is in the older guys -- I think Manning, Brees, and Brady (probably Rodgers too) will literally be able to play almost as long as they want to. Defenses really aren't allowed to hit them anymore, and their greatness is 90% above the neck and not subject to age related decline.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'd much rather buy Rivers at his current price (QB18) than pay for Manning/Brees. Brady I wouldn't touch today. Maybe it was 100% lack of weapons last year, but an off year at 36 years old might also be an early sign of decay.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Yeah I like Rivers too -- and Romo and Cutler in that same vicinity. I personally definitely attribute Brady's off year to lack of talent around him, obviously.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
The only thing I trust more than Brady's ability to figure it out is Belichick's ability to figure it out.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
IMO they're off to a rocky start if they consider Brandon LaFell a part of 'figuring it out'.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
They added garbage WR last year just to have camp bodies and give them a chance - Donald Jones, Michael Jenkins. There's articles on the web about "Michael Jenkins takes over for Brandon Lloyd." Yeah, that didn't happen. LaFell may not make the roster. He may be the new Tiquan Underwood (if he can grow a good enough high top fade). They will possibly add another veteran. They are likely to add either TE or WR in the draft. Interested if they draft like Dobson is a bust or not.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I was comparing Eifert last year to Sankey this year, as prospects. This was in response to the outburst that it was foolish to think Sankey isn't better than Eifert.
I thought Eifert would do better, but in retrospect (perhaps many look back after the year is over to see what they did right and wrong, and what lessons can be learned), I did underestimate Gresham, I expected him to be used as an in-line blocker more. I don't have Eifert or Ertz in any leagues, Reed in one. Nothing changed my view that Eifert was graded higher than Ertz due to being a more natural and talented WR. We also have to remember that Kelly's scheme in PHI and how well it would translate to the NFL (let alone Foles breaking out) was an unknown this time last year, so I understand why Ertz would get a relative boost in the rankings. Presumably people are better accounting for Gresham's presence this time around. But this could be his last year, I could see him getting more money elsewhere unless they franchise him (but they may not want to pay top 5 average for the position, even though it is relatively cheap compared to the WR designation?). A lot of people missed on Reed because of the pedigree disparity. He is a gifted TE as a receiver and RAC skills, and improving as a blocker (I realize sometimes people like TEs that can't block, but it can be an obstacle to getting on the field - that didn't prove to be the case with him as a rookie). At this point, Reed looks closer to breaching the elite, blue chip tier than the others, thought the 6 week concussion is troubling. If he has another serious concussion, that could put a serious damper on his dynasty value, not to mention cause his NFL future to be in doubt. There is variance in the amount of risk tolerance/aversion in dynasty when it comes to concussions. I'm concerned. If not for that, I would rank Reed above Eifert.
As it is, I have it Eifert, Reed, Ertz. I wouldn't hesitate to trade Ertz for Eifert, but that is based on my observations, not ADP data. Only because of the concussion issue with Reed, I would offload that risk for Eifert. As a disclosure, I may have a longer forward time frame when I factor trades than others (at least three years).
To your last point, the post I was responding to didn't qualify it like you have here. PRIOR to the draft, IMO it is definitely not foolish to think Eifert might be better than Sankey. To flip your point around, he could go in the third or fourth round after Hyde, Hill, Mason, Seastrunk, etc. (he could also go to a place like MIN or KC where his value would be instantly snuffed out). Sankey is not the consensus top RB where we stand today, because as noted, there isn't one. That in itself is suggestive to me about his relative stature to Eifert AS A PROSPECT at a comparable stage of their respective careers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
First off, PPR doesn't make a huge difference. I just ran the numbers including a point per reception, and Aaron Rodgers still came out ahead.You could have simply said "mean", but I appreciate the refresher.Adam Harstad said:
I play PPR, which makes a huge difference.Adam Harstad said:
QB12 is not a functional baseline, when discussing "advantages". The average, or baseline, is not QB12 or TE12. In 2011, 5 QBs scored within 2.62 PPG of ARod. Nearly half the league had a guy whom wasn't at a major disadvantage while lining up across from Rodgers. That same season, Graham outscored TE3 (Aaron Hernandez) by 60 points, or 3.75 PPG.
And a lot changed since then. Vick, Fitzpatrick, and Mark Sanchez were included in your calc. They have been replaced by Foles, RG3, Luck, and Peyton Manning.
Second off, I'm not using QB12 as a baseline. I'm using EVERY STARTING QUARTERBACK IN FANTASY as a baseline. It's true that this baseline includes QB12. It also includes QB2, and QB5, and QB7, and QB11, but not QB16. Basically, I'm saying that "on any given week in 2011, the Aaron Rodgers owner should expect to outscore his opponent by an average of X points". When his opponent is starting Drew Brees, he will underperform that average. When his opponent is starting Mark Sanchez, he will overperform that average. But over the course of the entire season, all of those ups and downs will even out and he will outscore his opponent by an average of X every week. I can then perform the same calculation for Jimmy Graham and find that he will outscore his opponent by an average of Y points every week. The week he plays Rob Gronkowski, he'll actually likely get outscored. The week he plays Kyle Rudolph, he's going to facestomp. Over the course of the season, all of those weekly differences will average out to an advantage of Y points every week. And then we can compare X (the amount by which Aaron Rodgers outscored an average QB every week) to Y (the amount by which Jimmy Graham outscored an average TE every week). And we find that X for Aaron Rodgers in 2011 was higher than any Y Jimmy Graham has ever produced in his entire career. Meaning Jimmy Graham has never given as much of a positional advantage in any year as Aaron Rodgers gave in 2011.
Third off, are you familiar with the concept of "multiple endpoints" in statistics?
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Really strongly disagreed with the bolded. Aaron Rodgers (and Peyton and Brees) provide a huge advantage over the 2nd-tier producers. Unless Stafford, Griffin, Cam, or Luck make a big jump up to the elite production level (Stafford flirted with it in 2011, and Cam has been the next rung down his entire career), Aaron Rodgers is going to represent a couple PPG advantage over even those guys, and a huge PPG advantage over the rest of the pack.
Like I said, VBD is a flawed tool, but if we're using it as a benchmark... I don't think there's another player in the league (with the exception of Brees and Manning, i.e. the remainder of that elite QB tier) who is a safer bet for 90 VBD in 2014. And I definitely don't think there's another player in the league who is a safer bet for 90 VBD in 2018.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Really agreed with this. Andrew Luck has crazy upside (if he does manage to reach that elite tier, he's going to have so much career value ahead of him...), but I think people overestimate his chances of hitting that upside. In my mind, Rodgers is clearly out ahead of everyone else, all alone in Tier 1. I had Cam by himself in a Tier1a, but I might rethink that with as bad as his offseason has been. Then I had a bunch of guys tightly clustered in tier 2 (Luck, Brees, Wilson, Griffin, Foles, in one order or another). Luck might be at or near the top of that tier, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not a 1B to Rodgers (or 1C to Rodgers and Newton), he's a clear full tier behind.
