Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

ZWK's Dynasty Rankings (WR updated April 2021)


ZWK

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty comfortable saying that ASJ ranking will be adjusted significantly after a few months.

His play as a rookie didn't make me optimistic: 5.8 yards per target and 0.93 yards per route run are not good numbers. But I still have him rated right about where I did a year ago, because TE development usually takes time and his coaching staff does seem optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelvin Benjamin has relied on a high volume of targets in Carolina's barren receiving corps to get his numbers. His play has been uneven. He's going to need to improve as a receiver. Cooks has put up similar totals (with a couple fewer TDs) with better efficiency stats.

Of course Cooks has better efficiency stats. He plays in NO as a WR2/3 in a much better system, out of the slot a majority of the time and Brees at QB vs. Cam. Benjamin has 7 TDs to his 4 and a YPC of 15.3 to 10.4. Benjamin is playing the role of a WR1 on a significantly worse offense.

None of that is changing anytime soon.

Oh, the irony...
? Edited by Dr. Octopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're too low on Hill. Preseason will give us a better idea though.

There are more Zach Sudfelds than Julius Thomases. I wouldn't want to put Josh Hill ahead of someone like Fleener who has similar athleticism, a similarly great QB (but much younger), and was already a top 8 fantasy TE last year.

Actually, I'm probably underrating Fleener.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're too low on Hill. Preseason will give us a better idea though.

There are more Zach Sudfelds than Julius Thomases. I wouldn't want to put Josh Hill ahead of someone like Fleener who has similar athleticism, a similarly great QB (but much younger), and was already a top 8 fantasy TE last year.

Actually, I'm probably underrating Fleener.

Actually, I think I was underrating Fleener by a lot.

If I knew for a fact that Indy was going to re-sign Fleener long-term and let Allen go after this year, then I'd put Fleener on tier 5, with Cameron, Reed, Green, etc. Probably even at the top of that tier. Luck's TE, relatively tall & athletic, early 2nd rounder, with a 51/774/8 season in his 3rd year. Red zone threat on a team that scores a lot and apparently has a thing for tiny WRs.

If I knew that Fleener would leave Indy and sign elsewhere next year, then I think I'd have him on tier 7, near where he is now. In terms of talent, I think he's more like Rudolph than like Donnell or Housler. And I think I'd also have him on tier 7 if I knew that Fleener and Allen would both re-sign in Indy.

Combine those 3 scenarios, with appropriate weightings, and Fleener pretty clearly belongs a tier higher. Let's say Allen at 13 (with a slight increase in value based on similar reasoning), Fleener at 14, and Amaro down to 15.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Updated rankings with the season approaching. Assuming 0.5 ppr, start 1Q/2R/3W/1T, about 250 position players rostered. Age as of 9/1/15.

Previous rankings from May: WR, RB, QB, TE.

I have probably updated these less than I should have, especially at the bottom of the rankings.

WIDE RECEIVER

Tr Rk Player Team Age Prev
1 1 Odell Beckham Jr. NYG 22.8 (1)
1 2 Julio Jones ATL 26.6 (2)
1 3 Dez Bryant DAL 26.8 (4)
1 4 A.J. Green CIN 27.1 (3)
1 5 Demaryius Thomas DEN 27.7 (5)
1 6 Antonio Brown PIT 27.1 (7)
1 7 Calvin Johnson DET 29.9 (6)
2 8 Randall Cobb GB 25.0 (8)
2 9 T.Y. Hilton IND 25.8 (15)
2 10 Mike Evans TB 22.0 (9)
2 11 Alshon Jeffery CHI 25.5 (10)
2 12 DeAndre Hopkins HOU 23.2 (11)
2 13 Sammy Watkins BUF 22.2 (13)
2 14 Amari Cooper OAK 21.2 (14)
3 15 Brandin Cooks NO 21.9 (18)
3 16 Kevin White CHI 22.2 (16)
3 17 Devante Parker MIA 22.6 (17)
4 18 Jordan Matthews PHI 23.1 (28)
4 19 Kelvin Benjamin CAR 24.6 (19)
4 20 Nelson Agholor PHI 22.3 (23)
4 21 Davante Adams GB 22.7 (29)
4 22 Jordy Nelson GB 30.3 (12)
4 23 Breshad Perriman BAL 22.0 (24)
4 24 Golden Tate DET 27.1 (21)
4 25 Phillip Dorsett IND 22.7 (26)
4 26 Keenan Allen SD 23.3 (27)
5 27 DeSean Jackson WAS 28.7 (25)
5 28 Emmanuel Sanders DEN 28.4 (20)
5 29 Allen Robinson JAX 22.0 (34)
5 30 Percy Harvin BUF 27.3 (22)
5 31 Dorial Green-Beckham TEN 22.4 (30)
5 32 Julian Edelman NE 29.3 (33)
5 33 Martavis Bryant PIT 23.7 (32)
5 34 Michael Floyd ARI 25.8 (31)
6 35 Devin Funchess CAR 21.3 (40)
6 36 Donte Moncrief IND 22.1 (36)
6 37 Cody Latimer DEN 22.9 (39)
6 38 Kendall Wright TEN 25.8 (38)
6 39 Andre Johnson IND 34.1 (44)
6 40 Brandon Marshall NYJ 31.4 (37)
6 41 Pierre Garcon WAS 29.1 (35)
6 42 Jeremy Maclin KC 27.3 (41)
6 43 Charles Johnson MIN 26.5 (52)
6 44 Devin Smith NYJ 23.5 (42)
6 45 Torrey Smith SF 26.6 (43)
7 46 Brian Quick STL 26.2 (49)
7 47 John Brown ARI 25.4 (58)
7 48 Justin Blackmon JAX 25.6 (53)
7 49 Josh Gordon CLE 24.4 (55)
7 50 Mike Wallace MIN 29.1 (45)
7 51 Tyler Lockett SEA 22.9 (47)
7 52 Jarvis Landry MIA 22.8 (56)
7 53 Larry Fitzgerald ARI 32.0 (50)
7 54 Brandon LaFell NE 28.8 (51)
7 55 Victor Cruz NYG 28.8 (57)
7 56 Jaelen Strong HOU 21.6 (48)
7 57 Marqise Lee JAX 23.8 (46)
7 58 Vincent Jackson TB 32.6 (59)
7 59 Kenny Stills MIA 23.4 (60)
7 60 Brandon Coleman NO 23.2 unr
7 61 Sammie Coates PIT 22.4 (54)
7 62 Roddy White ATL 33.8 (61)
7 63 Eric Decker NYJ 28.5 (63)
8 64 Cordarrelle Patterson MIN 24.5 (62)
8 65 Stedman Bailey STL 24.8 (64)
8 66 Tavon Austin STL 24.5 (66)
8 67 Ty Montgomery GB 22.6 (90)
8 68 Paul Richardson SEA 23.4 (65)
8 69 Steve Johnson SD 29.1 (67)
8 70 Marvin Jones CIN 25.5 (69)
8 71 Albert Wilson KC 23.1 unr
8 72 Marques Colston NO 32.2 (71)
8 73 Michael Crabtree OAK 28.0 (68)
8 74 Justin Hunter TEN 24.3 (70)
8 75 Terrance Williams DAL 26.0 (72)
8 76 Dwayne Bowe CLE 30.9 (74)
8 77 Steve Smith BAL 36.4 (73)
8 78 Anquan Boldin SF 34.9 (78)
9 79 Doug Baldwin SEA 27.9 (75)
9 80 Rueben Randle NYG 24.3 (79)
9 81 Chris Conley KC 22.9 (76)
9 82 DeAndre Smelter SF 23.7 (77)
9 83 Kenny Britt STL 26.9 (82)
9 84 Danny Amendola NE 29.8 (81)
9 85 Markus Wheaton PIT 24.6 (85)
9 86 Josh Huff PHI 23.9 (80)
9 87 Jeff Janis GB 24.2 (88)
9 88 Eddie Royal CHI 29.3 unr
9 89 Robert Woods BUF 23.4 (82)
9 90 Andrew Hawkins CLE 29.5 (83)
9 91 Jermaine Kearse SEA 25.6 (84)
9 92 Cecil Shorts HOU 27.7 (86)
9 93 Mohamed Sanu CIN 26.0 unr
9 94 Quinton Patton SF 25.1 unr
9 95 Allen Hurns JAX 23.8 unr
9 96 Marquess Wilson CHI 23.0 unr
9 97 Leonard Hankerson ATL 28.3 unr
9 98 Malcom Floyd SD 34.0 (91)
9 99 Brian Hartline CLE 28.8 unr
9 100 Greg Jennings MIA 31.9 unr
10 101 Duron Carter IND 24.4 unr
10 102 Jared Abbrederis GB 24.7 unr
10 103 Terrelle Pryor CLE 26.2 unr
10 104 Reggie Wayne NE 36.8 unr
10 105 Aaron Dobson NE 24.2 (89)
10 106 Nick Toon NO 26.8 unr
10 107 Stefon Diggs MIN 21.8 (92)
10 108 Vince Mayle CLE 24.2 (93)
10 109 Hakeem Nicks TEN 27.6 unr
10 110 Darren Waller BAL 23.0 unr
10 111 Kamar Aiken BAL 26.3 unr
10 112 Andre Holmes OAK 27.2 unr

RUNNING BACK

Tr Rk Player Team Age Prev
1 1 LeVeon Bell PIT 23.5 (1)
2 2 Eddie Lacy GB 25.2 (3)
2 3 Todd Gurley STL 21.1 (2)
3 4 Jeremy Hill CIN 22.9 (6)
3 5 DeMarco Murray PHI 27.5 (4)
3 6 Jamaal Charles KC 28.7 (5)
4 7 Melvin Gordon SD 22.4 (7)
4 8 C.J. Anderson DEN 24.6 (8)
5 9 Lamar Miller MIA 24.4 (15)
5 10 LeSean McCoy BUF 27.1 (9)
5 11 Ameer Abdullah DET 22.2 (17)
5 12 Marshawn Lynch SEA 29.4 (10)
5 13 Adrian Peterson MIN 30.4 (12)
5 14 Matt Forte CHI 29.7 (13)
5 15 Mark Ingram NO 25.7 (18)
5 16 Giovani Bernard CIN 23.8 (11)
5 17 Carlos Hyde SF 23.9 (16)
5 18 Arian Foster HOU 29.0 (14)
5 19 T.J. Yeldon JAX 21.9 (19)
5 20 C.J. Spiller NO 28.1 (20)
5 21 Justin Forsett BAL 29.9 (33)

6 22 Alfred Morris WAS 26.7 (21)
6 23 Andre Ellington ARI 26.6 (22)
6 24 Doug Martin TB 26.6 (25)
6 25 Christine Michael SEA 24.8 (26)
6 26 Duke Johnson CLE 21.9 (28)
6 27 Jerick McKinnon MIN 23.3 (24)
6 28 Latavius Murray OAK 24.5 (29)
6 29 David Johnson ARI 23.7 (34)
6 30 Bishop Sankey TEN 23.0 (27)

6 31 Tevin Coleman ATL 22.4 (23)
7 32 Joseph Randle DAL 23.7 (42)
7 33 Jonathan Stewart CAR 28.4 (30)
7 34 Frank Gore IND 32.3 (35)
7 35 Devonta Freeman ATL 23.5 (45)
7 36 Isaiah Crowell CLE 22.6 (32)
7 37 Rashad Jennings NYG 30.4 (36)
8 38 Tre Mason STL 22.1 (37)
8 39 LeGarrette Blount NE 28.7 (38)
8 40 Shane Vereen NYG 26.5 (40)
8 41 Ronnie Hillman DEN 24.0 (52)
8 42 Montee Ball DEN 24.7 (39)
8 43 Jay Ajayi MIA 22.2 (41)
8 44 Chris Ivory NYJ 27.4 (46)
8 45 Charles Sims TB 25.0 (31)
8 46 Terrance West CLE 24.6 (44)
8 47 Joique Bell DET 29.1 (49)
9 48 Matt Jones WAS 22.5 (55)
9 49 David Cobb TEN 22.2 (58)
9 50 Ahmad Bradshaw 29.5 (43)
9 51 Denard Robinson JAX 24.9 (48)
9 52 Knile Davis KC 23.9 (50)
9 53 Roy Helu OAK 26.7 (51)
9 54 Khiry Robinson NO 25.7 (54)
9 55 Trent Richardson OAK 25.1 (57)
9 56 Stevan Ridley NYJ 26.6 (53)
9 57 Alfred Blue HOU 24.3 unr
9 58 Andre Williams NYG 23.0 (59)
10 59 Darren McFadden DAL 28.0 (60)
10 60 Robert Turbin SEA 25.7 (61)
10 61 Ryan Mathews PHI 27.9 (68)
10 62 Lorenzo Taliaferro BAL 23.7 (67)
10 63 Jeremy Langford CHI 23.7 (56)
10 64 James White NE 23.6 (64)
10 65 Cameron Artis-Payne CAR 25.2 (69)
10 66 Mike Davis SF 22.5 (62)
10 67 Dion Lewis NE 24.9 unr
10 68 Chris Johnson ARI 29.9 (83)
10 69 Brandon Bolden NE 25.6 unr
10 70 Karlos Williams BUF 22.3 (71)
11 71 Travaris Cadet NE 26.6 (63)
11 72 Javorius Allen BAL 24.0 (72)
11 73 DeAngelo Williams PIT 32.4 (65)
11 74 Josh Robinson IND 23.0 (80)
11 75 Zac Stacy NYJ 24.4 (70)
11 76 Reggie Bush SF 30.5 (73)
11 77 Dan Herron IND 26.4 (74)
11 78 Darren Sproles PHI 32.2 (76)
11 79 Branden Oliver SD 24.3 (66)
11 80 Knowshon Moreno 28.1 (47)
11 81 Theo Riddick DET 24.3 (77)
11 82 KaDeem Carey CHI 22.8 (78)
11 83 Lance Dunbar DAL 25.6 (85)
11 84 Jonas Gray NE 25.2 (87)
11 85 Juwan Thompson DEN 23.3 (90)
11 86 Michael Dyer OAK 24.9 unr
11 87 Toby Gerhart JAX 28.4 unr
12 88 Bernard Pierce JAX 25.7 (82)
12 89 Steven Jackson 32.1 (75)
12 90 Bobby Rainey TB 27.9 (81)
12 91 Chris Polk HOU 25.7 (84)
12 92 Jacquizz Rodgers CHI 25.6 (86)
12 93 Bryce Brown BUF 24.3 (88)
12 94 Vick Ballard IND 25.1 (89)
12 95 Dri Archer PIT 24.1 unr
12 96 Ray Rice 28.6 unr
12 97 Kendall Hunter SF 26.0 unr
12 98 Jonathan Grimes HOU 25.7 unr
12 99 Dexter McCluster TEN 27.0 unr
12 100 Danny Woodhead SD 30.7 unr
12 101 Fred Jackson BUF 34.5 unr
12 102 Antone Smith ATL 30.0 unr

QUARTERBACK

Tr Rk Player Team Age Prev

1 1 Andrew Luck IND 26.0 (1)
2 2 Aaron Rodgers GB 31.7 (2)
3 3 Russell Wilson SEA 26.8 (3)
3 4 Cam Newton CAR 26.3 (4)
4 5 Marcus Mariota TEN 21.8 (5)
4 6 Matt Ryan ATL 30.3 (7)
4 7 Jameis Winston TB 21.7 (6)
4 8 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 33.5 (12)
4 9 Tom Brady NE 38.1 (9)
4 10 Colin Kaepernick SF 27.8 (8)
4 11 Drew Brees NO 36.6 (11)
4 12 Matthew Stafford DET 27.6 (10)
4 13 Ryan Tannehill MIA 27.1 (13)
4 14 Tony Romo DAL 35.4 (16)
4 15 Peyton Manning DEN 39.4 (14)
4 16 Robert Griffin III WAS 25.5 (15)
4 17 Philip Rivers SD 33.7 (17)
4 18 Sam Bradford PHI 27.8 (18)
4 19 Teddy Bridgewater MIN 22.8 (19)
5 20 Johnny Manziel CLE 22.7 (20)
5 21 Eli Manning NYG 34.7 (24)
5 22 Blake Bortles JAX 23.7 (21)
5 23 Nick Foles STL 26.6 (22)
5 24 Derek Carr OAK 24.4 (23)
5 25 Joe Flacco BAL 30.6 (25)
5 26 Tyrod Taylor BUF 26.1 unr
5 27 Andy Dalton CIN 27.8 (26)
5 28 Carson Palmer ARI 35.7 (28)
5 29 Jay Cutler CHI 32.3 (27)
5 30 Jimmy Garoppolo NE 23.8 (29)
6 31 Geno Smith NYJ 24.9 (31)
6 32 Mark Sanchez PHI 28.8 (33)
6 33 Brock Osweiler DEN 24.8 (36)
6 34 Zach Mettenberger TEN 24.1 (39)

6 35 Brian Hoyer HOU 29.9 (46)
6 36 Ryan Mallett HOU 27.2 (30)
6 37 Kirk Cousins WAS 27.0 (37)
6 38 Alex Smith KC 33.4 (38)
6 39 Bryce Petty NYJ 24.3 (34)
6 40 EJ Manuel BUF 25.5 (32)

7 41 Michael Vick PIT 35.2 (41)
7 42 Ryan Fitzpatrick NYJ 32.8 (44)

7 43 Sean Mannion STL 23.4 (35)
7 44 Tom Savage HOU 25.3 (40)
7 45 Matt Cassel BUF 33.3 (42)
7 46 Tim Tebow PHI 28.0 (43)
7 47 Josh McCown CLE 36.2 (45)
7 48 Garrett Grayson NO 24.3 (47)
7 49 Brett Hundley GB 22.2 (48)

TIGHT END

Tr Rk Player Team Age Prev
1 1 Rob Gronkowski NE 26.3 (1)
2 2 Jimmy Graham SEA 28.8 (2)
3 3 Travis Kelce KC 25.9 (3)
4 4 Tyler Eifert CIN 25.0 (6)
4 5 Zach Ertz PHI 24.8 (4)
4 6 Eric Ebron DET 22.4 (5)
4 7 Greg Olsen CAR 30.5 (7)
5 8 Jordan Cameron MIA 27.1 (8)
5 9 Julius Thomas JAX 27.2 (9)
5 10 Martellus Bennett CHI 28.5 (11)
5 11 Ladarius Green SD 25.3 (12)
5 12 Jordan Reed WAS 25.2 (10)
6 13 Dwayne Allen IND 25.5 (14)
6 14 Coby Fleener IND 26.9 (19)
6 15 Austin Seferian-Jenkins TB 22.9 (15)
6 16 Jace Amaro NYJ 23.2 (13)
6 17 Charles Clay BUF 26.5 (16)
7 18 Maxx Williams BAL 21.4 (17)
7 19 Kyle Rudolph MIN 25.8 (18)
7 20 Josh Hill NO 25.3 (20)
7 21 Richard Rodgers GB 23.6 (25)
7 22 Delanie Walker TEN 31.1 (21)
7 23 Antonio Gates SD 35.2 (22)
7 24 Jason Witten DAL 33.3 (23)
8 25 Larry Donnell NYG 26.8 (24)
8 26 Owen Daniels DEN 32.8 (26)
8 27 Gavin Escobar DAL 24.6 (28)
8 28 Clive Walford OAK 23.9 (32)
8 29 MyCole Pruitt MIN 23.4 (43)
8 30 Heath Miller PIT 32.9 (31)
8 31 Virgil Green DEN 27.1 (30)
8 32 Vernon Davis SF 31.6 (33)
9 33 Dennis Pitta BAL 30.2 (34)
9 34 C.J. Fiedorowicz HOU 23.9 (35)
9 35 Jared Cook STL 28.4 (36)
9 36 Derek Carrier WAS 25.1 unr

9 37 Jacob Tamme ATL 31.5 (37)
10 38 Robert Housler CLE 27.5 (27)
10 39 Niles Paul WAS 26.1 (29)
10 40 Mychal Rivera OAK 25.0 (39)
10 41 Troy Niklas ARI 23.0 (40)
10 42 Tim Wright NE 25.4 (41)
10 43 Demetrius Harris KC 24.1 (44)
10 44 Luke Willson SEA 25.6 (45)
10 45 Jeff Heuerman DEN 22.8 (46)
10 46 Tyler Kroft CIN 22.9 (47)
10 47 Garrett Graham HOU 29.1 (48)
10 48 Vance McDonald SF 25.2 (49)
10 49 Andrew Quarless GB 26.9 (42)
10 50 Jermaine Gresham ARI 27.2 unr
10 51 Scott Chandler NE 30.2 unr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much did White, Benjamin, and Jordy's value change based on missing 15?

Jordy lost about 45% of his value and dropped 2 tiers (10 spots).

Benjamin lost about 15% of his value and dropped 1 tier (and was passed by Matthews).

Kevin White lost about 10% of his value and dropped 0 tiers (and was passed by Cooks). He could still play this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Mariota and Winston will become elite QBs? Unlike other positions I don't think youth is important enough at the QB position to move guys ahead of proven productive players. Of course if you do see something in them then it makes sense. I like both, but feel young QBs are harder to project than other positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is A. Brown lower than Green or DT?

They are all in the same tier and approximately the same age. Doubt there's anything but a cosmetic preference there.

I know, but I was curious to his reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).

Wheaton hasn't done much on the field - he played over twice as many snaps as Bryant last year but put up similar receiving yards. And Bryant's suspension actually makes it less impressive that Wheaton has won the #2 role to start the season. We could debate Stedman Bailey vs. Terrance Williams vs. Rueben Randle vs. Wheaton vs. Robert Woods; I still wouldn't put Wheaton at the top of that group.

Why is A. Brown lower than Green or DT?

They are all in the same tier and approximately the same age. Doubt there's anything but a cosmetic preference there.

I know, but I was curious to his reasoning.

It's close, but I believe a bit more in Green & Thomas's talent. They've been producing for longer (2014 is the first time that Brown outproduced them), and they're built more like a prototypical WR1. Green has also produced with averageish QB play. If Manning, Roethlisberger, and Dalton all retired tomorrow, I'd guess that Brown would be the most likely to fall out of the top 12 fantasy WRs for the season. In Brown's favor, he did produce more last year, I have him projected to produce more this year, and Ben will probably keep playing at a high level for the next few years. So it is close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Mariota and Winston will become elite QBs? Unlike other positions I don't think youth is important enough at the QB position to move guys ahead of proven productive players. Of course if you do see something in them then it makes sense. I like both, but feel young QBs are harder to project than other positions.

Why so low on Bridgewater?

Eta: I mean I guess it's one big tier, just surprised he brings up the rear of it

Mariota and Winston are that high because they still have a chance to become elite fantasy QBs. The "proven productive players" have also mostly proven themselves non-elite (or they are nearing the end of their career).

Two key things to remember when ranking fantasy QBs: most fantasy value comes from the top 5 fantasy QBs, and top QBs usually show it during their first few seasons (by age 26, as I discussed in May).

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

If any of the older QBs seemed likely to put together 3 more top 5ish fantasy QB seasons, then they would be ahead of the rookies. Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Rivers have been pretty consistently good, but generally not top 5. By PFR scoring, across their 27 combined seasons as starters, they have put up a combined of 4 seasons in the top 5 (2 each for Roethlisberger & Rivers). Cam Newton already has more career VBD than any of those 3. Brees, Brady, and Manning are 36+ and have significant risk of decline. Romo is 35, and also behind Newton in career VBD.

I do think that Roethlisberger & Ryan have a good shot at being midrange fantasy starters for the next few years, which is enough to make them neck-and-neck with the rookies, but I'd rather bet on the chance that Mariota becomes the next Newton or Wilson. (I should probably stick another tier break in after Roethlisberger.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I should probably stick another tier break in after Roethlisberger.)

It seems the huge QB tier of "okay starter" is warranted and accurate. Rivers is closer to Ben than this huge ranking discrepancy implies. Ben was QB5 last year but he was QB12 or worse the previous 4. Rivers was QB12 last year but QB6 the previous year. You prefer Winston to Roethlisberger because you can get arbitrage Roethlisberger 50 picks later.

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

Having Kaepernick over Bridgewater makes little sense to me. Kaepernick has 1 career VBD and his only upside comes from becoming a bad QB on a bad team and compiling garbage stats. Bridgewater at least presents the promise of having draftnik approval and similar "what-if" potential as Mariota and Winston.

Overall his statistical year was below average but over his last 6 games he had 10 TDs, a completion % of 69%, and a QB rating of 98. The question is really will his talent translate to FP or not. But Mariota has the same questions. Mariota doesn't project as a 4500/30 QB and it's hard to predict his rushing usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I should probably stick another tier break in after Roethlisberger.)

It seems the huge QB tier of "okay starter" is warranted and accurate. Rivers is closer to Ben than this huge ranking discrepancy implies. Ben was QB5 last year but he was QB12 or worse the previous 4. Rivers was QB12 last year but QB6 the previous year. You prefer Winston to Roethlisberger because you can get arbitrage Roethlisberger 50 picks later.

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

Having Kaepernick over Bridgewater makes little sense to me. Kaepernick has 1 career VBD and his only upside comes from becoming a bad QB on a bad team and compiling garbage stats. Bridgewater at least presents the promise of having draftnik approval and similar "what-if" potential as Mariota and Winston.

Overall his statistical year was below average but over his last 6 games he had 10 TDs, a completion % of 69%, and a QB rating of 98. The question is really will his talent translate to FP or not. But Mariota has the same questions. Mariota doesn't project as a 4500/30 QB and it's hard to predict his rushing usage.

That tier (from Brady at #9 through Bridgewater at #19) is pretty tightly packed. Bridgewater at #9 wouldn't seem crazy to me. I may have been underestimating Bridgewater's upside by a bit; a mediocre rookie season with a few great games late in the year is not very strong evidence about how good a QB someone is, but it is a sign of high-end upside. The rankings are tricky, though, since guys like Bradford & Griffin also have upside.

Kaep was QB8 in 2012 in fantasy points per start (over his 7 starts). Over his career (39 starts), he has been very slightly above baseline on average. He has done that on one of the lowest passing-volume offenses in the NFL, with a pretty lousy receiving corps. So he has 3 paths available which could lead to him becoming a mid-range fantasy starter: 1) more passes / fewer handoffs, 2) get a better receiving corps, or 3) improve as a passer. (Assuming that he keeps running for 500+ yards each season.)

It's hard to predict whether Mariota will be a 400 yard rusher or a 700 yard rusher, but I think it's pretty easy to predict that he'll be one of the top rushing QBs.

With Roethlisberger vs. Rivers, redraft experts are pretty consistently ranking Ben several spots higher and expecting him to be closer to his 2014 numbers than to his previous norm (especially in terms of passing volume).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me

Agree with Landry. He should be higher and is very underrated by a lot of folks.

Blackmon being that high? Seriously, WTH? This guys career is over.

Edited by jurb26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).

After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.

Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vereen seems low IMO, or maybe it is that Jennings is too high. Or both. I'm surprised to see Jennings a full tier ahead of Vereen, who is four years younger. Vereen could easily outproduce Jennings this season.

Remember what happened the last time New England's third down RB moved on. Woodhead went to the Chargers in 2013, and he finished as a top 15 RB. Vereen could easily do the same and is younger than Woodhead was at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff.

I broke out the top ranked rookies for the WRs and RBs so that people can look at them separate from the rest of the rankings.

I may have missed one or two but these are how the rookie WRs and RBs rank from the list:

--------------

WIDE RECEIVERS

=============== 

14 Amari Cooper OAK 21.2 (14)

16 Kevin White CHI 22.2 (16)

17 Devante Parker MIA 22.6 (17)

20 Nelson Agholor PHI 22.3 (23)

23 Breshad Perriman BAL 22.0 (24)

25 Phillip Dorsett IND 22.7 (26)

31 Dorial Green-Beckham TEN 22.4 (30)

35 Devin Funchess CAR 21.3 (40)

44 Devin Smith NYJ 23.5 (42)

51 Tyler Lockett SEA 22.9 (47)

56 Jaelen Strong HOU 21.6 (48)

61 Sammie Coates PIT 22.4 (54)

67 Ty Montgomery GB 22.6 (90)

71 Albert Wilson KC 23.1 unr

---------------------------------------------

RUNNING BACKS

==========================

3 Todd Gurley STL 21.1 (2)

7 Melvin Gordon SD 22.4 (7)

11 Ameer Abdullah DET 22.2 (17)

19 T.J. Yeldon JAX 21.9 (19)

26 Duke Johnson CLE 21.9 (28)

29 David Johnson ARI 23.7 (34)

31 Tevin Coleman ATL 22.4 (23)

43 Jay Ajayi MIA 22.2 (41)

48 Matt Jones WAS 22.5 (55)

49 David Cobb TEN 22.2 (58)

63 Jeremy Langford CHI 23.7 (56)

65 Cameron Artis-Payne CAR 25.2 (69)

66 Mike Davis SF 22.5 (62)

70 Karlos Williams BUF 22.3 (71)

72 Javorius Allen BAL 24.0 (72)

74 Josh Robinson IND 23.0 (80)

-------------------------------------------

This might help anyone looking for rookie info for a dynasty league rookie draft and it might open up a discussion on rookie rankings within the list.

Once again good stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me

I get where he's coming from: Landry is very similar to Kendall Wright or late-'00s Wes Welker. A possession guy who you can always flip in and out of your WR3/flex slot, but who isn't going to put your team on his back and carry them to a title a la OBJ.

If you want straight value at each position, Landry and Wright are your guys. If you churn your roster a bunch and want top-12-or-bust guys, he's not for you. Neither is right or wrong; many ways to skin a cat in dynasty.

I do agree that ranking him below Blackmon is ludicrous. Dude will never see an NFL field again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.

Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.

I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.

Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me

Agree with Landry. He should be higher and is very underrated by a lot of folks.

Blackmon being that high? Seriously, WTH? This guys career is over.

Landry is a one-dimensional underneath possession receiver, and players like that have rarely had much fantasy value outside of New England.

I think that Blackmon & Gordon each have about a 20% chance of coming back and being a top 15 WR. It's hard to find that kind of upside at that part of the rankings.

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).

After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.

Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.

I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.

Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.

I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.

Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.

Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.

I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.

Edited by jurb26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landry is a one-dimensional underneath possession receiver, and players like that have rarely had much fantasy value outside of New England.

I think that Blackmon & Gordon each have about a 20% chance of coming back and being a top 15 WR. It's hard to find that kind of upside at that part of the rankings.

This is a rather unorthodox level of optimism in Blackmon. The chances of him even making it back into the NFL are probably less than 20%, let alone that he becomes a top 15 WR.

Players like Landry Rarely have value outside of NE? Even if we assume that's true, which it's not. It doesn't matter. Landry had value in Mia last year in this very role you speak of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.
Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.

I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.

Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.

Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.

I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.

How has he been wrong about Stafford? A top 5 season does not necessarily equal a top 5 QB. Stafford has been hugely dependent upon volume, and still hasn't been elite. In exactly one season, which was 4 years ago, he provided an advantage at the position over some of your leaguemates. I think ZWK nailed Stafford two years ago, and is 100% correct in his assessment of him today. The only potential gripe I'd have about Stafford ranked as QB12 is ranking Brady in front of him, simply due to the fact that while Brady may play 5 more years, he's more likely to play 2-3 more. And I'd probably take 10 years of Stafford over 2-3 of Brady unless my team was completely loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.
Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.

I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.

Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.

Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.

I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.

Stafford has 24 VBD, in total, over the past 2 seasons. He has been 11th in fpt/g over that period. That seems pretty much in line with what I was guessing 2 years ago - slightly worse, actually.

How has he been wrong about Stafford? A top 5 season does not necessarily equal a top 5 QB. Stafford has been hugely dependent upon volume, and still hasn't been elite. In exactly one season, which was 4 years ago, he provided an advantage at the position over some of your leaguemates. I think ZWK nailed Stafford two years ago, and is 100% correct in his assessment of him today. The only potential gripe I'd have about Stafford ranked as QB12 is ranking Brady in front of him, simply due to the fact that while Brady may play 5 more years, he's more likely to play 2-3 more. And I'd probably take 10 years of Stafford over 2-3 of Brady unless my team was completely loaded.

I think that Stafford has 3-4 years left in his current form (with Calvin) as a low-end QB1, and then another 3-4 where he's basically just Joe Flacco. Whereas Brady has a good shot at another 1-2 top 5 seasons (at least in PPG).

Vereen seems low IMO, or maybe it is that Jennings is too high. Or both. I'm surprised to see Jennings a full tier ahead of Vereen, who is four years younger. Vereen could easily outproduce Jennings this season.

Remember what happened the last time New England's third down RB moved on. Woodhead went to the Chargers in 2013, and he finished as a top 15 RB. Vereen could easily do the same and is younger than Woodhead was at that time.

My take on the NYG running backs is that Jennings is a good all-around back, Andre Williams is not good, and Vereen is a relatively one-dimensional receiving back. The fantasy value of guys like Vereen is pretty dependent on their team's offense, and I don't get the sense that NY is the sort of team that is going to throw a ton to their RBs. It's possible that I should rank Vereen a little higher just because of the uncertainty about his role. I don't think I should put Jennings any lower - he's basically the last guy in my rankings who has a good shot to be a solid fantasy starter this year (except maybe Ivory, who I should move up after the recent good news about his role).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.

This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.
Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.

I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.

Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.

Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.

I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.

How has he been wrong about Stafford? A top 5 season does not necessarily equal a top 5 QB. Stafford has been hugely dependent upon volume, and still hasn't been elite. In exactly one season, which was 4 years ago, he provided an advantage at the position over some of your leaguemates. I think ZWK nailed Stafford two years ago, and is 100% correct in his assessment of him today. The only potential gripe I'd have about Stafford ranked as QB12 is ranking Brady in front of him, simply due to the fact that while Brady may play 5 more years, he's more likely to play 2-3 more. And I'd probably take 10 years of Stafford over 2-3 of Brady unless my team was completely loaded.

Wrong in that 2 years ago Stafford was a QB7 and that was with Calvin getting injured, missing 2 games and being hobbled in others. Irronically he played very well in one of those games, combining for 604 yds 4 TDs & 0 Ints in both. That's not a low end QB1. It's a firm QB1. From a VBD hardly any QBs provide much after the top few. Associating that to Stafford alone doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's one of the main reasons I won't ever draft QBs early. There are a bunch of them who don't separate from a VBD standpoint. The past 2 years, after QBs 1 & 2 only 100 points have separated QBs 3 thru 16 and 3 thru 17. That's a ton of guys with poor VBD and basically just a slew of options for you as a drafter when looking at QBs. Personally, I think the VBD angle as it applies here is being hugely overemphasized. I'd say that about a slew of other guys as well.

Just saw the post by ZWK.... Brady has a VBD of 14 combined the past 2 years. How is it he doesn't get punished for this yet, Stafford does. The same could be said about a bunch of other QBs. Plus, Brady is much older. Other guys with a WORSE VBD over the 2 year span; Keapernick, Tannehill, Romo, Ryan, Wilson & Newton. Again, it seems highly inconsistent to apply this methodology to Stafford yet none of these guys.

Stafford may live and die on volume, but if the volume is going to be there who cares? Stafford is still young. He still has Calvin and that doesn't appear to be changing, nor does Calvin's age really present a major problem at 29. He's got pretty good weapons aside from that, assuming the hype on a few guys like Ebron and Ameer pans out. He's still likely to be passing the ball a lot as well. So, saying his success is contingent on many of these things is kind of moot. If they don't change it doesn't matter.

What scares me most about Stafford as it relates to fantasy hasn't even been mention. That is his far more conservative approach last year. It seemed he was making a concerted effort to not take chances as he had in the past. It made Det a better team, because they also had a dominant D. Something that has helped his fantasy value has been that gunslinger mentality.

Edited by jurb26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).

After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.

Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.

I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?

Next suspension is 10 games. After that is a full year.

Also worth noting: the new Substance Abuse policy doubled the limits of detection, so testing positive is harder and the "second-hand" argument carries less weight. Also, under the new policy a 4-game suspension doesn't come until the 4th strike, which means Bryant has either failed four tests in the last 16 months, or else he entered the league in the program and then failed three tests in the last 16 months.

Either way, there is non-trivial cause for concern.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.

And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).

This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 2015 season, Blackmon and Gordon will have missed 44 and 27 consecutive games, respectively. Is there a precedent for a player (any skill position) being relevant after missing the better part of 2-3 seasons for disciplinary reasons?

* I could see it more with Gordon, at least to attempt a return, though he would just continue to be a massive recidivism/re-suspension risk barring some extraordinary shift in his lifestyle and priorities (technically, I think the latest suspension was for drinking on a team flight which he claimed he didn't know was a violation, not due to pot, though he was subject to those draconian terms due to previousOt violations). Blackmon seems completely done, like he isn't even interested in playing again and meeting reinstatement compliance.

** Vick missed two seasons. His two year prison-related absence was of course due to an issue far worse than pot, though didn't come with attendant addiction concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.

And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).

This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.

The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.

The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)

There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.

Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 2015 season, Blackmon and Gordon will have missed 44 and 27 consecutive games, respectively. Is there a precedent for a player (any skill position) being relevant after missing the better part of 2-3 seasons for disciplinary reasons?

* I could see it more with Gordon, at least to attempt a return, though he would just continue to be a massive recidivism/re-suspension risk barring some extraordinary shift in his lifestyle and priorities (technically, I think the latest suspension was for drinking on a team flight which he claimed he didn't know was a violation, not due to pot, though he was subject to those draconian terms due to previousOt violations). Blackmon seems completely done, like he isn't even interested in playing again and meeting reinstatement compliance.

** Vick missed two seasons. His two year prison-related absence was of course due to an issue far worse than pot, though didn't come with attendant addiction concerns.

Didn't Gordon play the last six games last season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 2015 season, Blackmon and Gordon will have missed 44 and 27 consecutive games, respectively. Is there a precedent for a player (any skill position) being relevant after missing the better part of 2-3 seasons for disciplinary reasons?

* I could see it more with Gordon, at least to attempt a return, though he would just continue to be a massive recidivism/re-suspension risk barring some extraordinary shift in his lifestyle and priorities (technically, I think the latest suspension was for drinking on a team flight which he claimed he didn't know was a violation, not due to pot, though he was subject to those draconian terms due to previousOt violations). Blackmon seems completely done, like he isn't even interested in playing again and meeting reinstatement compliance.

** Vick missed two seasons. His two year prison-related absence was of course due to an issue far worse than pot, though didn't come with attendant addiction concerns.

It depends on what you categorize as "disciplinary reasons". The Ricky Williams saga might qualify. He missed all of 2004, ostensibly due to retirement, but in reality it was triggered by a suspension for a failed drug test and might be counted as "disciplinary reasons". He came back in 2005 (when he learned Miami could recoup his signing bonus if he retired early), but then missed 2006 and almost all of 2007 after another failed drug test and a stint in the CFL, which again could be categorized as "missed time - disciplinary reasons".

You already mentioned Vick. If we're dropping the "for disciplinary reasons" requirement, first name that comes to mind is Garrison Hearst. Hearst made the pro bowl in 1998 and 2001 after not playing a single snap of professional football in 1999 and 2000 (due to injury, not discipline). Jimmy Smith was drafted in 1992, played just 7 games (and had 0 catches) over the first two years of his career thanks to a broken leg and ruptured appendix, spent his third year out of football, and then latched on with Jacksonville and blew up at age 27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost dropped the disciplinary qualifier in the above post, and was going to cite the "donut years" portion of Kurt Warner's career.

Not exactly the same, but Joe Horn (28) and Rich Gannon (34) were notoriously late blooming in terms of their first breakout years.

* Good catch and thanks for the correction from Doc Oc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.

And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).

This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.

The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.

The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)

There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.

Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.

I wrote a couple of articles this offseason about how I'm calculating player value:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadValueOverBaseline

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadVBDBaselines

For non-subscribers, the first one just laid out the case for calculating VBD on a per-game basis and introduced the idea of splitting it into two forms- value over "worst starter" and value over "average starter". The second one trolled through a bunch of MFL leagues to measure what qualified as actual, real-world "worst starter" production. That's how I got the QB21/22 baseline in PPG, because in actual MFL leagues, that's about what the least-productive QB team was producing. Think of it as "in the absolute worst case scenario, this is what you can expect to get at the position". "Average Starter" baseline was calculated similarly- by going to actual MFL leagues and recording what the actual average ppg at the position was across the entire league.

I think the two different baselines provide a useful snapshot of value over absolute worst-case scenario and of the actual advantage a player is giving you over your entire league. Especially if we go with the idea that "anyone under baseline scores as a zero", I think it's more justifiable with a baseline that represents true "replacement level". QB12 still provides some value, because at least you aren't forced to start Geno Smith. QB30 doesn't really provide value, though, because you could have always started Geno Smith instead.

(In terms of Value over Average Starter, Stafford hasn't produced anything since 2011. Of course, there are only 14 total QBs who gave *any* value over average starter over the last three years.)

Regardless of how you calculate it, the fact remains that Stafford has produced little value despite high volume and is trending down to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).

After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.

Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.

I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?

Next suspension is 10 games. After that is a full year.

Also worth noting: the new Substance Abuse policy doubled the limits of detection, so testing positive is harder and the "second-hand" argument carries less weight. Also, under the new policy a 4-game suspension doesn't come until the 4th strike, which means Bryant has either failed four tests in the last 16 months, or else he entered the league in the program and then failed three tests in the last 16 months.

Either way, there is non-trivial cause for concern.

Saw this earlier. What Adam says above makes me real nervous...

Said to me from Steelers locker room: Martavis Bryant could be best receiver in NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost dropped the disciplinary qualifier in the above post, and was going to cite the "donut years" portion of Kurt Warner's career.

Not exactly the same, but Joe Horn (28) and Rich Gannon (34) were notoriously late blooming in terms of their first breakout years.

Since 1985, here are all of the top fantasy QBs/RBs/WRs who went at least 2 years in the middle of their career without providing any fantasy value (using my very low "replacement level" baselines, and remembering that I'm calculating value per-game so even an injury-abbreviated season can produce positive value):

Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Joe Montana, Kurt Warner, Rich Gannon, Drew Bledsoe

Ricky Williams, Ernest Byner, Charlie Garner, Garrison Hearst, Travis Henry, Mike Anderson, Eric Rhett, LeRoy Hoard, (Marshawn Lynch didn't technically qualify, but he's an interesting name to consider)

Irving Fryar, Plaxico Burress, Ed McCaffrey, James Lofton, Jeff Graham, Vance Johnson, Eddie Kennison (twice!), Bobby Engram, Ricky Proehl, (Joey Galloway another name that didn't "technically" qualify, but is worth considering)

A lot of this won't really meet the spirit of what you're looking for. Some of that is just junk where a QB threw in one last QB17 season after years of QB23 finishes before retiring, for instance. Or like Charlie Garner, where he *technically* produced non-zero fantasy value in 1994 and 1995 before his 1998 breakout, but that was really just an illustration of how low the baselines really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost dropped the disciplinary qualifier in the above post, and was going to cite the "donut years" portion of Kurt Warner's career.

Not exactly the same, but Joe Horn (28) and Rich Gannon (34) were notoriously late blooming in terms of their first breakout years.

Since 1985, here are all of the top fantasy QBs/RBs/WRs who went at least 2 years in the middle of their career without providing any fantasy value (using my very low "replacement level" baselines, and remembering that I'm calculating value per-game so even an injury-abbreviated season can produce positive value):

Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Joe Montana, Kurt Warner, Rich Gannon, Drew Bledsoe

Ricky Williams, Ernest Byner, Charlie Garner, Garrison Hearst, Travis Henry, Mike Anderson, Eric Rhett, LeRoy Hoard, (Marshawn Lynch didn't technically qualify, but he's an interesting name to consider)

Irving Fryar, Plaxico Burress, Ed McCaffrey, James Lofton, Jeff Graham, Vance Johnson, Eddie Kennison (twice!), Bobby Engram, Ricky Proehl, (Joey Galloway another name that didn't "technically" qualify, but is worth considering)

A lot of this won't really meet the spirit of what you're looking for. Some of that is just junk where a QB threw in one last QB17 season after years of QB23 finishes before retiring, for instance. Or like Charlie Garner, where he *technically* produced non-zero fantasy value in 1994 and 1995 before his 1998 breakout, but that was really just an illustration of how low the baselines really are.

Good work, some blasts from the past there for sure, like Cunningham, Hearst, Fryar and Kennison.

* I forgot Thomas Jones (26-27) as a notorious late bloomer example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.

I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).

After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.

Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.

I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?

Next suspension is 10 games. After that is a full year.

Also worth noting: the new Substance Abuse policy doubled the limits of detection, so testing positive is harder and the "second-hand" argument carries less weight. Also, under the new policy a 4-game suspension doesn't come until the 4th strike, which means Bryant has either failed four tests in the last 16 months, or else he entered the league in the program and then failed three tests in the last 16 months.

Either way, there is non-trivial cause for concern.

That does sound pretty serious. There is some major risk there for Bryant.

On the other hand, Bryant keeps flashing talent. And it's worth buying into risky guys with upside, for the same reason that it's worth packaging competent starters to buy studs: the top guys are what win you championships. (The same logic applies to Blackmon & Gordon.) So I think my post-suspension update to that part of my WR rankings looks like this:

Tr Rk Play (prev: tr,rk)

5 32 Julian Edelman (prev: 5,32)

5 33 Jeremy Maclin (prev: 6,42)

5 34 Michael Floyd (prev: 5,34)

6 35 Devin Funchess (prev: 6,35)

6 36 Martavis Bryant (prev: 5,33)

6 37 Donte Moncrief (prev: 6,36)

(with Maclin rising because he has shown some rapport with Alex Smith in the preseason.) Even though 3 spots seems like too small a drop in the rankings for this news, I still think I'd rather have Bryant than guys like Moncrief, Latimer, Wright, or Andre Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.

And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).

This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.

The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.

The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)

There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.

Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.

I wrote a couple of articles this offseason about how I'm calculating player value:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadValueOverBaseline

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadVBDBaselines

For non-subscribers, the first one just laid out the case for calculating VBD on a per-game basis and introduced the idea of splitting it into two forms- value over "worst starter" and value over "average starter". The second one trolled through a bunch of MFL leagues to measure what qualified as actual, real-world "worst starter" production. That's how I got the QB21/22 baseline in PPG, because in actual MFL leagues, that's about what the least-productive QB team was producing. Think of it as "in the absolute worst case scenario, this is what you can expect to get at the position". "Average Starter" baseline was calculated similarly- by going to actual MFL leagues and recording what the actual average ppg at the position was across the entire league.

I think the two different baselines provide a useful snapshot of value over absolute worst-case scenario and of the actual advantage a player is giving you over your entire league. Especially if we go with the idea that "anyone under baseline scores as a zero", I think it's more justifiable with a baseline that represents true "replacement level". QB12 still provides some value, because at least you aren't forced to start Geno Smith. QB30 doesn't really provide value, though, because you could have always started Geno Smith instead.

(In terms of Value over Average Starter, Stafford hasn't produced anything since 2011. Of course, there are only 14 total QBs who gave *any* value over average starter over the last three years.)

Regardless of how you calculate it, the fact remains that Stafford has produced little value despite high volume and is trending down to boot.

That's good research.

If you're really serious about trying to upgrade VBD into something that comes closer to tracking what we actually care about, I do think you're going to have to go nonlinear.

An elite WR who scores 8 ppg above "baseline" gives you 8 extra fpts every time he's in your lineup (we'll say), and he'll be in your lineup all 15 times.

A decent WR who scores 2 ppg above "baseline" gives you 2 extra fpts every time he's in your lineup, and he might only be in your lineup 10 times.

The elite WR is adding 6x as many fpts to your squad (120 vs. 20), even though he's only scoring 4x as many points over baseline. And moving the baseline around can't fix this problem with the formula. The player value curve (relative to the players' ppg) is a lot flatter near the level that typically gets called "baseline" - there are a lot of players who are moderately useful options to plug in for a few games when you need them, but who probably won't be starting for you for most of the season.

For high-end players, a linear relationship makes sense: each additional fantasy point that they score does translate into 1 more fantasy point for your team, because they're in your lineup every week. But that's not true near baseline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.

And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).

This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.

The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.

The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)

There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.

Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.

I wrote a couple of articles this offseason about how I'm calculating player value:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadValueOverBaseline

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadVBDBaselines

For non-subscribers, the first one just laid out the case for calculating VBD on a per-game basis and introduced the idea of splitting it into two forms- value over "worst starter" and value over "average starter". The second one trolled through a bunch of MFL leagues to measure what qualified as actual, real-world "worst starter" production. That's how I got the QB21/22 baseline in PPG, because in actual MFL leagues, that's about what the least-productive QB team was producing. Think of it as "in the absolute worst case scenario, this is what you can expect to get at the position". "Average Starter" baseline was calculated similarly- by going to actual MFL leagues and recording what the actual average ppg at the position was across the entire league.

I think the two different baselines provide a useful snapshot of value over absolute worst-case scenario and of the actual advantage a player is giving you over your entire league. Especially if we go with the idea that "anyone under baseline scores as a zero", I think it's more justifiable with a baseline that represents true "replacement level". QB12 still provides some value, because at least you aren't forced to start Geno Smith. QB30 doesn't really provide value, though, because you could have always started Geno Smith instead.

(In terms of Value over Average Starter, Stafford hasn't produced anything since 2011. Of course, there are only 14 total QBs who gave *any* value over average starter over the last three years.)

Regardless of how you calculate it, the fact remains that Stafford has produced little value despite high volume and is trending down to boot.

That's good research.

If you're really serious about trying to upgrade VBD into something that comes closer to tracking what we actually care about, I do think you're going to have to go nonlinear.

An elite WR who scores 8 ppg above "baseline" gives you 8 extra fpts every time he's in your lineup (we'll say), and he'll be in your lineup all 15 times.

A decent WR who scores 2 ppg above "baseline" gives you 2 extra fpts every time he's in your lineup, and he might only be in your lineup 10 times.

The elite WR is adding 6x as many fpts to your squad (120 vs. 20), even though he's only scoring 4x as many points over baseline. And moving the baseline around can't fix this problem with the formula. The player value curve (relative to the players' ppg) is a lot flatter near the level that typically gets called "baseline" - there are a lot of players who are moderately useful options to plug in for a few games when you need them, but who probably won't be starting for you for most of the season.

For high-end players, a linear relationship makes sense: each additional fantasy point that they score does translate into 1 more fantasy point for your team, because they're in your lineup every week. But that's not true near baseline.

To some extent, that's the nice thing about the "value above average starter" metric. A relatively small amount of players are actually going to qualify, and those are the guys who you're going to be starting every week, no matter what. Also, since the average doesn't represent a single static player, it shifts with the distribution of talent. If the talent curve is unusually concave (high peak, but with a huge cluster of players right around baseline, such as at quarterback), then "average starter" will be relatively higher in the distribution, and a proportionally smaller part of the population will qualify. If the talent curve is not quite so concave, (a lot more players clustered at the peak and a bit less of a broad plateau right around the baseline, such as at wide receiver), "average starter" baseline will fall a bit lower in the rankings and you're going to have more "no-brainer" weekly starts.

The example I like to use is this: Imagine the top 10 running backs score 100, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, and 50 points. Imagine the top 10 wide receivers score 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 50 points. With a "worst starter" baseline, the top running back and top receiver appear to be equally valuable... but that is self-evidently not the case. In any given week, the top running back likely provides and 46 point advantage over whatever team he's facing. The top receiver only provides a 9.6 point advantage.

So the running back is clearly the bigger difference maker. But if you had the top running back and the top wide receiver, which would you rather lose? Imagine the 11th-best running back scored 49 points, while the 11th-best receiver scored 30 points. In this case, you'd be a lot better off losing the top running back- even though he was more valuable- than the top receiver. Because, regardless of the weekly advantage, the top receiver showed a much steeper drop down to "replacement level".

You can't really say that one value measure or the other is flatly superior. Both are measuring different things. During the season, value over replacement is probably more important, because it's giving a better measure of the opportunity cost of any moves you might back. When constructing your roster during the offseason, though, you're going to be more focused on loading up on value over average starters. I would suggest that value over replacement is better for comparing two players at the same position, while value over average starter is better at comparing across positions. (With the caveat that "value over average starter" really only works at the top of the distribution, since the baseline is so high.)

The ideal would be to find an organic way to synthesize the two value measures into a single value, but that's something of a pipe dream for me at this point. The ideal beyond that would be to somehow adjust the values for the non-linearity of VBD (each point of VBD is more valuable than the point before it, at least until you reach some unknown inflection point). But that's even more of a pipe dream.

In the meantime, I think they serve as pretty good proxies for a player's "difference-making" and the opportunity cost of replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

There has been a lot of turmoil at RB these first couple weeks. Here are updated RB rankings, posted without commentary for now.

0.5 ppr, start 2, about 250 position players rostered. Age as of 9/1/15. Prev from Aug 27.

Tr Rk Player Team Age Prev

1 1 LeVeon Bell PIT 23.5 (1)
2 2 Todd Gurley STL 21.1 (3)
2 3 Eddie Lacy GB 25.2 (2)
3 4 Jeremy Hill CIN 22.9 (4)
3 5 Jamaal Charles KC 28.7 (6)
4 6 Melvin Gordon SD 22.4 (7)
4 7 Lamar Miller MIA 24.4 (9)
4 8 Ameer Abdullah DET 22.2 (11)
4 9 Carlos Hyde SF 23.9 (17)
4 10 LeSean McCoy BUF 27.1 (10)
4 11 DeMarco Murray PHI 27.5 (5)
4 12 Matt Forte CHI 29.7 (14)
4 13 Giovani Bernard CIN 23.8 (16)
4 14 Marshawn Lynch SEA 29.4 (12)
4 15 Adrian Peterson MIN 30.4 (13)
4 16 Mark Ingram NO 25.7 (15)
4 17 Arian Foster HOU 29.0 (18)
4 18 T.J. Yeldon JAX 21.9 (19)
4 19 C.J. Anderson DEN 24.6 (8)
5 20 C.J. Spiller NO 28.1 (20)

5 21 Justin Forsett BAL 29.9 (21)
5 22 Doug Martin TB 26.6 (24)
5 23 Alfred Morris WAS 26.7 (22)
5 24 Andre Ellington ARI 26.6 (23)
5 25 David Johnson ARI 23.7 (29)
5 26 Matt Jones WAS 22.5 (48)
5 27 Latavius Murray OAK 24.5 (28)
5 28 Duke Johnson CLE 21.9 (26)
5 29 Christine Michael DAL 24.8 (25)
5 30 Tevin Coleman ATL 22.4 (31)
5 31 Dion Lewis NE 24.9 (67)
5 32 Chris Ivory NYJ 27.4 (44)
5 33 Jerick McKinnon MIN 23.3 (27)
5 34 Bishop Sankey TEN 23.0 (30)
5 35 Jonathan Stewart CAR 28.4 (33)
6 36 Isaiah Crowell CLE 22.6 (36)
6 37 Shane Vereen NYG 26.5 (40)

6 38 Frank Gore IND 32.3 (34)
6 39 Joseph Randle DAL 23.7 (32)
6 40 Rashad Jennings NYG 30.4 (37)
6 41 Devonta Freeman ATL 23.5 (35)
6 42 Ronnie Hillman DEN 24.0 (41)
7 43 Tre Mason STL 22.1 (38)
7 44 Khiry Robinson NO 25.7 (54)
7 45 LeGarrette Blount NE 28.7 (39)
7 46 Danny Woodhead SD 30.7 (100)
7 47 Karlos Williams BUF 22.3 (70)
7 48 Charles Sims TB 25.0 (45)
7 49 Lorenzo Taliaferro BAL 23.7 (62)
7 50 Joique Bell DET 29.1 (47)
7 51 Jay Ajayi MIA 22.2 (43)
8 52 David Cobb TEN 22.2 (49)
8 53 Ahmad Bradshaw 29.5 (50)
8 54 Denard Robinson JAX 24.9 (51)
8 55 Knile Davis KC 23.9 (52)
8 56 Jeremy Langford CHI 23.7 (63)
8 57 Ryan Mathews PHI 27.9 (61)

8 58 Stevan Ridley NYJ 26.6 (56)

9 59 Terrance West TEN 24.6 (46)
9 60 Roy Helu OAK 26.7 (53)
9 61 Darren McFadden DAL 28.0 (59)
9 62 DeAngelo Williams PIT 32.4 (73)
9 63 Andre Williams NYG 23.0 (58)
9 64 Damien Williams MIA 23.4 unr
9 65 Cameron Artis-Payne CAR 25.2 (65)
9 66 Chris Johnson ARI 29.9 (68)
9 67 Zach Zenner DET 24.0 unr
9 68 Alfred Blue HOU 24.3 (57)
9 69 Charcandrick West KC 24.2 unr
9 70 Benny Cunningham STL 25.2 unr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ZWK changed the title to ZWK's Dynasty Rankings (WR updated April 2021)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...