If we divide successful WRs into "technicians" and "freaks", I think that technicians are generally more QB-dependent. Witness Reggie Wayne vs. Pierre Garcon when Manning got hurt, for example. With a technician, the QB needs to get the ball down the field into the right window at the right time. In this case, we also have direct data on what Brown and Martavis Bryant have done when Roethlisberger missed time.Can you elaborate on this?Brown seems more QB-dependent
OK, I follow this, although I think it is likely that when Roethlisberger is replaced long term, it will be with a QB better than Landry Jones, so I don't see the bolded part as having any real predictive value.If we divide successful WRs into "technicians" and "freaks", I think that technicians are generally more QB-dependent. Witness Reggie Wayne vs. Pierre Garcon when Manning got hurt, for example. With a technician, the QB needs to get the ball down the field into the right window at the right time. In this case, we also have direct data on what Brown and Martavis Bryant have done when Roethlisberger missed time.
Pittsburgh's next long-term solution at QB will be better than Landry Jones, but it may take them a couple years to find that guy. Those couple years would be a large fraction of 29-year-old Antonio Brown's remaining career.OK, I follow this, although I think it is likely that when Roethlisberger is replaced long term, it will be with a QB better than Landry Jones, so I don't see the bolded part as having any real predictive value.
Crabtree has about 37 fpts more than Golden Tate over the past 2 seasons, which may not seem like much but actually gives him about twice as much VBD. Crabtree's edge over Tate has come on TDs, but given their style of play and their TD production over the rest of their careers, it seems likely that this is a real edge and just short-term variation. Golden Tate's style of play is also more RB-like (more reliant on broken tackles and YAC), which makes me suspect that he is unlikely to age well.Thanks for sharing as always, ZWK.
I'm very curious about Tate being so low. For instance he's 20 spots being Michael Crabtree. Their numbers have been fairly close the last couple years and Tate is actually a year younger. In addition, Crabtree has an up and coming WR across from him that could presumably start taking a bigger piece of the pie going forward.
Cobb seems pretty high still as well.
Pryor basically stayed put. 3 rookies slotted in ahead of him and Martavis Bryant leapfrogged him. I don't think that Cleveland vs. Washington makes a huge difference, especially since he was at the end of his contract in Cleveland and is on a one-year deal in Washington.Terrell Pryor escapes the dumpster fire that is Cleveland for a Skins team with an above-average QB who lost their co-#1 WR to FA, and as a result he moves ... down five spots?
Color me curious on that one.
I totally agree with your strategy here. I want upside upside upside with QBs in a normal 1qb 12 team league.I've decided to move Brady and Brees up my rankings. They keep putting up high-end numbers, and while the historical data say that we should keep betting on them hitting their decline any year now, it does seem plausible that they'll have a few more years at this level. High-end QB production is worth a lot more than a low-end starter, so I'll take the chance at getting 1-4 years of high-end production in start 1 QB leagues where starting quarterbacks are readily available each year.
I have the rookies higher than most people do, for similar reasons. The odds aren't great, but they have a better chance than most mid-career QBs do of turning out to be stars. (And, if they do, you get them for their whole career.) Ryan Tannehill is unlikely to emerge as a star at age 29, Eli Manning is unlikely to give you anything more than a few years of borderline QB1/2 production, and Joe Flacco seems like a safe bet to continue his career-long streak outside the top 12 fantasy QBs. So I'll roll the dice on Trubisky, Mahomes, or Watson (alongside Wentz), a tier or more ahead of any of those vets.
I had Wentz ranked at 14 before his rookie year and caught some flak for having him so high. His rookie year wasn't very good - he was in the bottom third of passers by most efficiency stats (ANY/A, QBR, DVOA) - and I still have him rated about the same (and again at QB14). It feels like some of the excitement that people were feeling after his strong start to the season is lingering more than it should - if Wentz's good games had been spread throughout the season then that would if anything be a more positive sign about his prospects, but I think that his reputation would not be as positive. Winston was a better prospect, in my eyes and in the eyes of NFL evaluators, and he had a better rookie year, so I ranked him significantly higher than Wentz both as a rookie and as a rising sophomore.Do you appreciate that this ranking of Wentz appears anti-Wentz? Especially given your higher than normal ranking of Winston and Mariota last year. I would view Wentz's 2016 as not significantly different than Winston's 2015, and he benefits that the whole organization has shown no inclination to run the ball for the foreseeable future. Certainly part of the reason he hasn't climbed is there are more "long term QB1s" than last year with Carr's cemented status, Ryan's bounceback, etc. I think Wentz has more upside than anyone in the 2016 class including Mahomes if he hits. Is this more based on metric because he dinked too much, previous negative views on him, or just how the chips fell? Certainly there is some homerism in my reaction, but it would be my nature to be very pessimistic if I thought there was a chance he would bust.
I would favor Cam over Dak and possibly others in tier 2 by a significant margin for exactly the same reason you want to move the 40 year old guys up a few spots.
I still don't get how you have Cousins so low (and falling). Is this a "will never be elite" ranking like Staffford? Then why do you have Carr so high.
Before his age 29 season, Matt Ryan had 2 Pro Bowls, 2 seasons above 7 ANY/A, a 71.5 career QBR, and a career high of 305 fpts (PFR scoring). Ryan Tannehill currently has 0 Pro Bowls, a career high of 6.27 ANY/A, a 54.7 career QBR, and a career high of 279 fpts. Matt Ryan is an example of how age 30+ QBs still have a chance to wildly surprass their previous career highs, but he is not a close comparison to Tannehill in particular. Tannehill has a chance of further improvement, but I (obviously) prefer the guys ahead of him.I totally agree with your strategy here. I want upside upside upside with QBs in a normal 1qb 12 team league.
However, it is probably worth noting that QBs do have a tendency to suddenly turn another corner a little older than at other positions. Matt Ryan's best finish prior to turning 30 was QB7. Tannehill has been QB8 and still has another year left before turning 30. He also has two seasons where he scored more than anything Brady had done through age 30 (different eras, to be fair).
I'm not saying it's likely that he'll magically turn a corner, and I'm not high on him, but it's not that out of line for it to happen with a QB. Oddly with QBs sometimes it is those slow and steady borderline QB1/QB2 guys that suddenly turn a corner later in their careers.
I think it's popular to say this but the Packers usually hang onto their own guys - and don't generally sign outside free agents. Everyone though they'd let Cobb walk as well. I'm not saying it's a lock they hold onto Adams, but they did invest a second round pick in him and I do think they make an effort to retain him - especially if Rodgers stumps for it.
- Devante Adams at #17. There's a very real possibility that the Packers let him walk after this season. If they don't, I think his value at #17 is justifiable. If they do, I'm guessing he drops a healthy amount. I don't think that risk is baked into his ranking quite enough
They could, but he could price himself out of their range if he manages to put up great numbers again, or motivate them to move on if he regresses, to be replaced by one of their other WRs like Geronimo or Malachi. I'm not an Adams fan, so I think 17 is high for him, but I know a lot of people have him ranked around there or higher.I think it's popular to say this but the Packers usually hang onto their own guys - and don't generally sign outside free agents. Everyone though they'd let Cobb walk as well. I'm not saying it's a lock they hold onto Adams, but they did invest a second round pick in him and I do think they make an effort to retain him - especially if Rodgers stumps for it.
I do not rank him that highly either (and don't own him anywhere) but it just seems like people act like it's more likely than not that he leaves - when my guess is that it's more likely the Packers look to retain him.They could, but he could price himself out of their range if he manages to put up great numbers again, or motivate them to move on if he regresses, to be replaced by one of their other WRs like Geronimo or Malachi. I'm not an Adams fan, so I think 17 is high for him, but I know a lot of people have him ranked around there or higher.
Additionally you could say Wentz was a better prospect in the eyes of NFL evaluators than all this years rookies, which is famously justification provided by the Eagles and Roseman of why they invested in him last year.I had Wentz ranked at 14 before his rookie year and caught some flak for having him so high. His rookie year wasn't very good - he was in the bottom third of passers by most efficiency stats (ANY/A, QBR, DVOA) - and I still have him rated about the same (and again at QB14). It feels like some of the excitement that people were feeling after his strong start to the season is lingering more than it should - if Wentz's good games had been spread throughout the season then that would if anything be a more positive sign about his prospects, but I think that his reputation would not be as positive. Winston was a better prospect, in my eyes and in the eyes of NFL evaluators, and he had a better rookie year, so I ranked him significantly higher than Wentz both as a rookie and as a rising sophomore.
Well, you were too low on him to begin with and have only adjusted down in ranking. He is coming off 2 straight mid QB1 seasons and you are ranking him as if he only has an "some upside" chance to do so again. This is a drastically different situation than Tyrod Taylor who has 3 career VBD and little team commitment. Two teams want Cousins to have high volume pass attempts for their team. No team wants Tyrod to be a starter; his next career phase is journeyman.Tier 4 QB have some upside, or a chance to stick around for several years as a low-end QB1. My expectations of Cousins haven't dropped, he just got leapfrogged by the rookies and Brady+Brees.
I don't get why you have Brees and Brady so low when you have the rookies so high, this seems contradictory to me. If it's so easy to find a starter (with which I concur), and you're putting the premium on upside (also concur), why aren't Brady and Brees top 3 (with Rodgers)? If I get a chance to put those points on the board every year I'm taking it. I'll let someone else hopes Jared Goff gets there then hopes Deshaun Watson can get there and then hopes Josh Rosen can get there ad infinitum.I've decided to move Brady and Brees up my rankings. They keep putting up high-end numbers, and while the historical data say that we should keep betting on them hitting their decline any year now, it does seem plausible that they'll have a few more years at this level. High-end QB production is worth a lot more than a low-end starter, so I'll take the chance at getting 1-4 years of high-end production in start 1 QB leagues where starting quarterbacks are readily available each year.
I have the rookies higher than most people do, for similar reasons. The odds aren't great, but they have a better chance than most mid-career QBs do of turning out to be stars. (And, if they do, you get them for their whole career.) Ryan Tannehill is unlikely to emerge as a star at age 29, Eli Manning is unlikely to give you anything more than a few years of borderline QB1/2 production, and Joe Flacco seems like a safe bet to continue his career-long streak outside the top 12 fantasy QBs. So I'll roll the dice on Trubisky, Mahomes, or Watson (alongside Wentz), a tier or more ahead of any of those vets.
Same question. In particular, why is Rivers a tier and 12 spots lower in the rankings than Roethlisberger?Are you really taking guys like Bradford, Lynch, Bridgewater, etc. over Rivers? He has been a top 10 option the last few years even with his receivers going down every year, and his weapons seem to be the best he has had in a long time this coming year. I think I'd have him at least 10 spots higher.
Had the exact same question.Same question. In particular, why is Rivers a tier and 12 spots lower in the rankings than Roethlisberger?
It appears that Rivers will have an improved offensive line this year, likely one that will not be in the bottom few in the league for the first time in at least a few years. On top of that, he gets Allen back, adds Mike Williams, Tyrell Williams should be improved after a year of experience forced into a WR1 role, and Henry should make a typical second year improvement for a TE. If they remain healthy, Rivers has one of the best groups of targets in the NFL, both for this season and for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, Roethlisberger gets hurt a lot for a QB and has missed 5 starts over the past 2 seasons, and he has openly discussed retirement. Neither of those things applies to Rivers. They are the same age.
I would imagine it has to do with Big Ben outscoring Rivers handily over the last 3 years when on the field.Same question. In particular, why is Rivers a tier and 12 spots lower in the rankings than Roethlisberger?
It appears that Rivers will have an improved offensive line this year, likely one that will not be in the bottom few in the league for the first time in at least a few years. On top of that, he gets Allen back, adds Mike Williams, Tyrell Williams should be improved after a year of experience forced into a WR1 role, and Henry should make a typical second year improvement for a TE. If they remain healthy, Rivers has one of the best groups of targets in the NFL, both for this season and for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, Roethlisberger gets hurt a lot for a QB and has missed 5 starts over the past 2 seasons, and he has openly discussed retirement. Neither of those things applies to Rivers. They are the same age.
Less when its 6 pt pass TDs. I know you bang the table for Tyrod so I don't want to get too focused on him. I would feel 29 yo passer > nonelite 28 yo dual threat. Recent evidence of Kaepernick (who also blazed PPG last year) is not encouraging. His drawback is longevity both in style and team buy-in, so he is a special case.Many of these questions are covered pretty well just by looking at ppg. Kirk Cousins has lower ppg than Tyrod Taylor over the past 2 seasons (by 0.1 ppg).
So Roethlisberger has upside considering upgrades to PIT receiving corps but Rivers doesn't considering upgrades to Chargers OL and receiving corps? Seems inconsistent.Many of these questions are covered pretty well just by looking at ppg. Kirk Cousins has lower ppg than Tyrod Taylor over the past 2 seasons (by 0.1 ppg). Philip Rivers is in the QB2 range, 1.5 ppg behind Roethlisberger (and only 1.0 ppg ahead of Eli Manning and Alex Smith). Wentz is down near the bottom, despite his large number of attempts.
Roethlisberger also has some upside relative to his recent ppg, considering the upgrades to Pittsburgh's receiving corps.
I'm going to take another look at things and do a little reshuffling. On reflection I think Cousins should be ahead of Roethlisberger instead of right behind him, and Palmer's upside (if 2016 was an injury-induced down year) should make him a few spots higher.
Fair enough. Although I would point out a couple things. Using one of my fairly typical scoring leagues:The last time that Rivers finished as a top 12 QB in ppg was 2013 (19.9 VBD as QB8), and 2011 was the last season where he had more than 20 VBD. He did have a nice stretch at the start of 2015, but that's an 8 game stretch out of the past 5 seasons where a lot of things came together for him at once. He was on pace for a career high both in passing attempts and in passing TDs thanks in large part to a lousy running game (especially in the red zone) and a lousy defense that left them playing from behind a lot. Now Gordon and the defense are solid, and Woodhead is gone.
Rivers does have upside over what he's been doing the past couple years, but Roethlisberger's upside is higher, and young guys like Bortles, Bridgewater, and Lynch have upside and a chance of sustaining it for several years if they reach their upside.
FGB projections for this season have Rivers at QB16, on average, and FFCalculator has his ADP at QB15. Not the sort of numbers that you want to see if you're banking on short-term upside from a QB in his mid-30s.
Wait, what? It's highly probable that he never sets foot on the field again. The fact that you have him ranked above -anyone- who will be on a roster this year is, frankly, mind blowing.young guys like Bortles, Bridgewater, and Lynch have upside and a chance of sustaining it for several years if they reach their upside
That isn't true.Wait, what? It's highly probable that he never sets foot on the field again. The fact that you have him ranked above -anyone- who will be on a roster this year is, frankly, mind blowing.
Ideally, you want to be both those owners at once.I don't get why you have Brees and Brady so low when you have the rookies so high, this seems contradictory to me. If it's so easy to find a starter (with which I concur), and you're putting the premium on upside (also concur), why aren't Brady and Brees top 3 (with Rodgers)? If I get a chance to put those points on the board every year I'm taking it. I'll let someone else hopes Jared Goff gets there then hopes Deshaun Watson can get there and then hopes Josh Rosen can get there ad infinitum.
Yep, drafted Manning and Bridgewater in a startup 3 years ago. When it was clear Manning was at the end I traded for Rivers. Timing of Bridgewater's injury hurt last year because it was difficult to buy a young QB at that time, but thankfully Rivers stayed healthy. Picked Kizer and Watson in the rookie draft then flipped them for Mariota.Ideally, you want to be both those owners at once.
In a standard-sized, somewhat-deep league, I'm firmly convinced the Nassim Taleb-esque "barbell strategy" is the way to go with QBs ... spend one roster spot on an older elite-level vet while dedicating multiple roster spots to cycling through young, high-upside dart throws (and culling them ruthlessly if they haven't shown at least flashes of being elite by Year 2, i.e. Wilson, Mariota, Winston-level or better). You get top-end points today while maximizing your odds at top-end points years down the line. And if your vet retires before one of your young guys hits, simply acquire another short-timer at low cost, rinse, and repeat.
Bridgewater's upside is Flacco, IMO. A 3rd QB you don't want to start.That isn't true.
It'd be difficult to justify ranking him above someone like Garoppolo, but as a 3rd (or 4th) QB I'd rather have him than most veterans that I don't want to start - Alex Smith and Flacco immediately come to mind.
While I don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison it may be now, but I think he was about to breakout. I want him as my 3rd QB, so I can find out if he can get back to where I think he was about to be. If he isn't ever going to be the same I think we'll know by this time next year and I can move on if that's the case.Bridgewater's upside is Flacco, IMO. A 3rd QB you don't want to start.
It isn't? Who has come back from this kind of horrific injury and been fantasy relevant? I honestly don't know, so I'm asking.That isn't true.
It'd be difficult to justify ranking him above someone like Garoppolo, but as a 3rd (or 4th) QB I'd rather have him than most veterans that I don't want to start - Alex Smith and Flacco immediately come to mind.
It may be semantics, but I mainly took exception to the 'highly probable' portion. We're still wedged in the we don't know zone. There aren't enough relevant samples to reference one way or another. This is what Jean wrote April 1 and I'm not aware of an update since then. Would be cool to get one before camp, but I'm really not expecting anything until at least then.It isn't? Who has come back from this kind of horrific injury and been fantasy relevant? I honestly don't know, so I'm asking.
TEDDY BRIDGEWATER | LEFT KNEE DISLOCATION / MULTI-LIGAMENT REPAIR
Players are carted off the field often in practice and games. Some leave the locker room by ambulance for additional evaluation. It's thankfully rare for a player to need emergent transportation for injury -- and exceedingly rare for a joint injury. Unfortunately, Bridgewater's knee dislocation met that standard. Bridgewater reportedly avoided nerve and blood vessel injuries but required repair of multiple knee ligaments and continues his long and difficult rehab.
Bridgewater hasn't updated his status but the Vikings have been very guarded in their optimism since the season ended. Mike Zimmer told reporters in late January he was "worried about Teddy getting better" and acknowledged the difficulty of putting a timetable on Bridgewater's return because no two injuries of this severity are similar enough to estimate accurately. General manager Rick Spielman told reporters last week it would be "totally unfair" to put a timetable on Bridgewater's rehab and said the current focus was still on regaining range of motion. Former NFL team orthopedic surgeon Dr. David Chao tweeted that a 90% recovery after knee dislocation should be considered a "great result."
Bridgewater wasn't a threat to lead all quarterbacks in rushing attempts and rushing yards but mobility was an important part of his game. Front leg stability is also critical to throwing accuracy. It's also fair to wonder how high the mental hurdle to climbing the pocket in the face of an NFL pass rush may prove to be for Bridgewater. The Vikings say they are "hopeful" for 2017 and it's too soon to put an accurate endpoint on Bridgewater's rehab, but an effective return this season is a very tough ask.
It's too soon to write Bridgewater off entirely. But physical recovery isn't the only issue of note here. Sam Bradford is not yet under contract for 2018. The Vikings must make a decision on whether to exercise the fifth-year option on Bridgewater before he's had time to fully recover. And Bridgewater's biggest supporter may have been now-fired offensive coordinator Norv Turner. Bridgewater may have to prove himself fully recovered with another team.
April 1 Update: Videos of Bridgewater doing some light positional work -- dropbacks and throws to receivers on the move -- surfaced last week. Though it's great to see Bridgewater cleared to weight bear and do light activity, there's not much to take from these videos. Bridgewater's knee was braced and he was moving in a deliberate and controlled fashion. There remains no specific timetable for Bridgewater's return.
Yeah Rivers should be like 3 tiers above most of those guysBen is ranked correctly, Rivers is too low but right tier. Biggest problem is Bradford, Bridgewater (best of luck to him though), Glennon, and Kaepernick should be one tier lower, not in the same tier as Rivers.
I don't. Partly that's because it's more work and I haven't come up with a simple/elegant way to do that work. Partly it's because the overall ranking depends a lot more on the specifics of the league format. None of the dynasty leagues that I play in have the standard format that I assume for my rankings (scoring, number of starters, roster sizes, etc.), but my positional rankings still come pretty close to how I rank players in each of my leagues. But if I made an overall ranking for a particular format, it would be way off when I looked at a league with a different format.Just out of curiosity @ZWK, do you merge your positional rankings into an overall ranking at all? Like a top 200?
FWIW, I'd prefer that you never bothered to do this. League formats differ so wildly that comparing positions against each other isn't worth it.I don't. Partly that's because it's more work and I haven't come up with a simple/elegant way to do that work. Partly it's because the overall ranking depends a lot more on the specifics of the league format.
Interesting. Henry already showed he is an excellent red zone target, with 8 TDs on 53 targets as a rookie. He added 36/478 on those targets, despite playing with HOF TE Gates, who got 93 targets himself... Gates will be retired after this season, implying Henry is in line for 100+ targets starting NLT next season. He could easily double his receptions and receiving yards from his rookie season with that many targets. IMO he should be ranked above Njoku and Engram.Henry's impressive-for-a-rookie-TE season puts him up there, and I think he's a safer bet to have at least a solid NFL career, but I am less excited about his upside
I see Fiedorowicz as the kind of guy who might hang around the borderline TE1/TE2 part of the rankings but isn't that likely to emerge as a difference maker. His efficiency stats were bad (YPT, DVOA, fpts/target) - I expect that part of that was Osweiler loving to dump it off, but that also helped him get so many targets (10th most among TEs).I'm interested in hearing more about CJ Fiedorowicz.
21st ranked TE and that's not particularly out of line with most rankings. Yet last year in his first year as a starter he posted 52-552-4 in 12 games as the starter. Over 16 games that projects to 69-736-5. That would have been good for TE7 last year (just behind Zach Ertz) and he did it with his first real playing time and with Brock Osweiler tossing the rock. It seems like it's possible or perhaps even probable that both he AND his situation will improve going forward (hard to get much worse than Osweiler).
Henry did have very good efficiency stats as a rookie. But I think that some of that was Rivers (who doesn't have many years left), and it's also a small sample size. He doesn't have the athleticism or draft pedigree of guys like Njoku and Engram, and often the difference-makers at TE do. Henry is a safer bet than than rookies to string together several top-10 TE seasons, so in some formats I'd prefer him, but in a league with only 12 TEs starting each week I'll roll the dice on the athletic rookie first rounders.Interesting. Henry already showed he is an excellent red zone target, with 8 TDs on 53 targets as a rookie. He added 36/478 on those targets, despite playing with HOF TE Gates, who got 93 targets himself... Gates will be retired after this season, implying Henry is in line for 100+ targets starting NLT next season. He could easily double his receptions and receiving yards from his rookie season with that many targets. IMO he should be ranked above Njoku and Engram.
Agreed, I've tried to pry Henry away from his current owner and he's no budging one bit. I'd take Henry over any TE in this draft. I regret passing on Henry in the 2nd round last year but I kept to my board.I think Henry has a chance to become a Witten type of player. Witten isn't the same type of athlete as guys like Eifert, Gonzalez, and Graham, but he wins with a combination of routes, size, and hands. I could see Henry turning out to the same. Steady and reliable, without ever being the unquestioned #1 TE in the NFL.
In my opinion he definitely has a higher floor than Engram/Njoku. They might have a higher ceiling than him, but I'd probably favor him in dynasty since he has already shown that he can play. I like Njoku a lot, but there's at least a little bit of a bust risk. I think Engram is a volatile prospect who could be a star or a big disappointment.