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.
Also worth noting that Stafford set the record for attempts at 727 in 2012, so that's certainly an outlier. More realistically, Stafford will be around 600-650 and Dalton will be at or under 600. Point taken, but it isn't that extreme a difference if you ignore 2012. Also worth noting the Lions have a new coach.
I think he's going about where he should go in my drafts. Usually between 3-6.
Okay, I understand what you're talking about now. I did a regression on fantasy WR1/2/3/4/5/6 from 2006-2013 and found fantasy WR4-6 are increasing faster than WR1-3 (which echoes what you said about NFL WR2/3 production). However, fantasy WR1 are increasing slightly faster than fantasy WR3. It's okay for my general strategy if WR4-6 catch up to WR3 (the plateau is bigger, as I said earlier) as long as WR1 gap is solid. It is possible WR3 are catching up to WR2 (it didn't show last year, but prior WR2 production is pretty flat). FWIW, the linear regression slopes for WR1-WR6 PPG in PPR were .157, .117, .152, .223, .279, and .317.
But who are the players? Garcon, Brown, D. Jackson, Allen, Jeffrey, Gordon, Decker, Welker--these guys greatly outproduced their beggining of season dynasty values. Even beyond the numbers(FP)--the dynasty value at the WR spot is being flooded. Nobody who owns Brown or Garcon feels like they have a staple at their WR1 spot, despite getting WR1 value last season. Those who own Crabtree, Nelson, Cruz, Harvin, Cobb, and Fitz (among others) feel their guys have more than a puncher's chance to match the production of Brown and Garcon next season.
Looking at PPG, 10 of the top 12 are guys you feel comfortable being WR1 year in year out baring substance abuse issues. Regardless of the crude methodology it captured all the heavy hitters in WR1. And pretty much year in/year out. I think we both agree if the market is flooded then guys like Brown and Garcon drop and that AJ/Calvin/AJ lineage will maintain their advantage.
Somewhere around the 9th WR the curve flattens out. WR3s are catching up to WR2s, and WR4s and 5s are catching up to WR3s. Get as many elite WR as you can but after that it's a crapshoot.
Same analysis on RB and it is across the board flat. RBBC is not making lots of RB valuable. It's still lonely at the top. Swing for the fences at all positions.
The dynasty WR is less valuable because of the trend. Unfortunately, the dynasty RB is less talented than it has been in a long time, too. Hence the pickle.
The top guys will and should maintain their dynasty advantage. But they are hurt by a shrinking gap--in points and dynasty value. Just as Gronk and Graham will remain elite options who provide major advatage--their value is still affected by every Jordan Reed, Julius Thomas, and Jordan Cameron that comes along. Just as they got a boost when Hernandez was removed from the field.
I guess we really do disagree then. I see elite WR maintaining their gap. Yes Keenan Allen is taken one round after Demaryius Thomas in a startup but that is not indicative of the cost difference. Elite WR are Menudo.
I think we do disagree. I am not suggesting that there is no gap, just that it's shrinking.thriftyrocker said:
We're having two different conversations, I think. Fantasy points are a part of dynasty value, but not all of it. Witten and Gonzo are overly represented in those numbers, in relation to their dynasty value. Reed, Ebron, Green, Eifert, Ertz, and other are under represented.thriftyrocker said:
Your argument is that the size of the field leads to reduced dynasty value for elite players. My argument is that the field for TE is not changing. If the production of the field isn't adequate discussion for you contrast Wess's 2009 TE rankings from his blogspot (pre-once a millennia class) with the current status quo. There are always unproven prospects to tout. Eventually people learn Ertz or Zach Miller or Eifert or John Carlson or Rudolph or Scheffler are not elite and move on. If there is a change in the field it will be after people copy cat NE's 2 TE sets, but so far no one has been able to do that successfully; we'll see how Detroit does considering they have significant investment in both Pettigrew and Ebron. (Is NE even invested in that scheme at this point?) But this is all reading like boring minutiae and parsing at this point. Which is disappointing because I thought the actual trends were interesting.
TE's are being used differently, above and beyond 2 TE sets; the production supports this; the prospects support this; the dynasty rankings support this. Perhaps the results don't match the pace of the claim you think I am making. Or, perhaps it's boring to you, as you suggested. But it's happening. If you wait for the numbers to catch up, you'll miss the train.
I agree they are being used differently. But disagree about how much it matters because it is different across the board. Fantasy TE4s are guys getting 40 receptions a year (Housler, Pettigrew, Rivera, Eifert). Last decade they were half that. Production is increasing greatly, but uniformly. Bogus no name TEs are performing like Chris Cooley and Owen Daniels in their prime. All TE are performing higher. I think you are not believing my discussion of what the shape of the curve is because it is more fun to reply in the contrary to every sentence you read, which is why I feigned boredom or exhaustion. I don't see any reason to think there are more TEs worth monitoring or we should approach TEs differently, until/unless the shape of the curve changes, like it has for WR. It's bogus to look at Reed and Cameron and say it's a great era for TE or there's too many good TE or boy the value of elite TE has to go down. Last decade had plenty of great TE to offset Gates and Gonzalez and they produced at corresponding levels for their era. Is Reed a better prospect than Cooley? Is Ertz better than Celek? Is Thomas better than Scheffler? Names change, values change, but landscape stays the same.
I think he does have that potential. I could even see Evan's being the best player (in FF) from this draft class. I prefer Watkins in leagues where you get points for kick returns. But in leagues that don't Evan's has the highest TD potential as a receiver. I also think they have 2 quality developmental QBs on their roster, I like the overall situation in TB better than BUF.
Harvin is the Swiss Army knife of players - a coach isn't doing his job if he's not using him everywhere.
It's a pretty easy choice for me - Take Sankey and get a WR in the second round.....The NFL just received a large shipment of athletic WRs.... There are many to go around...
I beg to differ. I will take Evans in the top 2, Sankey is not even close. Unless you're playing in a redraft league, I am talking about dynasty here.
I disagree. Evans is not a special player. I think you can pass on him, take the only RB who is going to be given a starting job in 2014, and get an equally good WR in the early second round. This WR class is deep but after Watkins, I think the WRs are amazingly comparable deep into the draft. I would be happy to have Sankey and Marquise Lee, Donte Moncrief, or Cody Latimer. That sounds better to me than Evans and West, Carey or Hill.
Could you please expand on how each draft produces less than 12 players who are really fantasy relevant?
It's true that only about dozen players become fantasy relevant but it's hilarious that he only ranks 24 because he knows exactly which 12 they are.
Well, that's not my link, but I can understand where he's coming from. Let me put it this way: I don't know who my 20th ranked rookie RB is. Moreover, I don't care.It's true that only about dozen players become fantasy relevant but it's hilarious that he only ranks 24 because he knows exactly which 12 they are.
So on how many teams do you have Gresham?
Right. It's like acquiring Mike Vick and telling him not to run. If you didn't want him to run, you shouldn't have gotten Vick, because that's what makes him who he is.
Unspecial players do not typically become consensus top-10 picks in talent-rich drafts.
It does happen though. Since 2000 these guys were all top 10 picks: Mike Williams, Roy Williams, DHB, Crabtree, Ginn, Braylon Edwards, Troy Williamson (as a Vikings fan I will never forget this one as we let Moss go to get this bum), Reggie Williams, Charles Rogers, David Terrell, KRob, Peter Warrick, Travis Taylor. We could argue over a few of these--as some of them have had a few decent years, but I would say none of these guys showed as special in the NFL.
Fair enough. If you could trade down and take Sankey, that's even better.
EBF said:
Ebron
Keeping picks is definitely important (although if you can make advantageous trades for quality 2nd/3rd year players with breakout potential, you should definitely consider it).
I think Julio is probably in the first tier of dynasty studs, with AJ, Calvin, Dez, DT. Jeffery is one notch below. Still great, but you'd have to make up a little to even it out.
I'm the other way, give me Jeffery. Julio's foot has been an issue twice now...remember Hakeem Nicks? I don't want that, so i'll favor the healthier guy. If both are 100% healthy with no injury concerns, Julio.
