Dynasty Value Discussion Thread

[Concept Coop]

1 minute ago, MAC_32 said:

My leagues are very active on the trade market. QB is just a weird trade market. The right circumstances need to develop at the right time. When an owner develops a Mahomes-Watson sorta situation then they go shopping. As they should. That ain't the norm though.

Got it. I mistook you to be saying that this doesn’t happen.

[FreeBaGeL]

8 hours ago, Boston said:

I think he can go as early as 1.1...he is 25 years old and the safest bet for consistent high-end fantasy production and has a very good chance to maintain that status for a good decade or more...I'm sure there are some anti-QB people who would never do this but to not have to worry about a position for a prolonged period of time as well as going into pretty much every game you play with a positional advantage is very appealing to me...the fact you don't have to use other resources on this position for future drafts if you don't want to is another bonus...there are many ways to build successful Dynasty teams but I am an Owner that wants high quality starting QBs and TEs because you can really have an advantage there but just as importantly I can now focus all my efforts on building my RB and WR units because as we know (especially at RB) they tend to have dramatic changes year-to-year. 

I have become generally more pro-QB than most in 1 qb leagues, but 1.1 seems majorly excessive to me.

Mahomes was QB2 in ppg this year and QB7 last year.  He's not really providing a huge advantage relative to your opponent each week.  And that gap narrows massively when we consider the size of the advantage.  The difference between him at QB2 this year and the QB12 in my league (Tannehill) was 4ppg.  The difference between RB2 and RB12 was almost 10ppg.

The set it and forget it, don't have to spend capital at the position stuff doesn't bear out to me.  People say the same thing at WR but the reality is you'll still have injuries, down years where your top QB isn't performing like one, etc.  And if the value comes up in the draft or elsewhere on a QB you're still going to grab them, realistically.

It's not even about the Stafford's and Matt Ryan's of the world anymore.  There are enough elite young QBs that 2/3rds of the league have one, and you're really not getting much of an advantage over the guy starting Murray, Dak, Watson, Allen, Herbert, etc.

I am a buyer of Mahomes generally, but not at 1.1 startup value.  FWIW his startup ADP in January drafts is 3.05, which I think is fair.

[Boston]

6 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I have become generally more pro-QB than most in 1 qb leagues, but 1.1 seems majorly excessive to me.

Mahomes was QB2 in ppg this year and QB7 last year.  He's not really providing a huge advantage relative to your opponent each week.  And that gap narrows massively when we consider the size of the advantage.  The difference between him at QB2 this year and the QB12 in my league (Tannehill) was 4ppg.  The difference between RB2 and RB12 was almost 10ppg.

The set it and forget it, don't have to spend capital at the position stuff doesn't bear out to me.  People say the same thing at WR but the reality is you'll still have injuries, down years where your top QB isn't performing like one, etc.  And if the value comes up in the draft or elsewhere on a QB you're still going to grab them, realistically.

It's not even about the Stafford's and Matt Ryan's of the world anymore.  There are enough elite young QBs that 2/3rds of the league have one, and you're really not getting much of an advantage over the guy starting Murray, Dak, Watson, Allen, Herbert, etc.

I am a buyer of Mahomes generally, but not at 1.1 startup value.  FWIW his startup ADP in January drafts is 3.05, which I think is fair.

IMO when you take into account talent, stats, system, age and longevity of the position he plays he is the safest Dynasty asset on the market...for me, if I am doing a start-up I want that 1.1 pick to be as safe as possible and for me he is the safest...I don't think you will regret that you took him 1.1 that first year and a few years down the line I think you will be even more happy you did it. 

[Just Win Baby]

5 hours ago, Concept Coop said:

More so than any of the flex-eligible positions. There’s little incentive to hold two of the top guys. In my experience, owners are eager to deal their surplus QB value. 

This assumes that owners can find trading partners who value QB enough to trade something of reasonable value for one. That has not been my experience in start 1 QB leagues.

[Just Win Baby]

57 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I have become generally more pro-QB than most in 1 qb leagues, but 1.1 seems majorly excessive to me.

Mahomes was QB2 in ppg this year and QB7 last year.  He's not really providing a huge advantage relative to your opponent each week.  And that gap narrows massively when we consider the size of the advantage.  The difference between him at QB2 this year and the QB12 in my league (Tannehill) was 4ppg.  The difference between RB2 and RB12 was almost 10ppg.

The set it and forget it, don't have to spend capital at the position stuff doesn't bear out to me.  People say the same thing at WR but the reality is you'll still have injuries, down years where your top QB isn't performing like one, etc.  And if the value comes up in the draft or elsewhere on a QB you're still going to grab them, realistically.

It's not even about the Stafford's and Matt Ryan's of the world anymore.  There are enough elite young QBs that 2/3rds of the league have one, and you're really not getting much of an advantage over the guy starting Murray, Dak, Watson, Allen, Herbert, etc.

I am a buyer of Mahomes generally, but not at 1.1 startup value.  FWIW his startup ADP in January drafts is 3.05, which I think is fair.

But it's much easier to confidently project that Mahomes will be top 5 every year for several years than it is to project any RB to be top 12, much less top 5 with a healthy advantage over RB12 for several years. Much more variability to RBs 2-12 every year in comparison to preseason expectations than for QBs 2-12. Or at least that is my gut reaction. Maybe I'm off base.

I haven't done a startup in several years, but feel like Mahomes would never get to 3.5, unless the league was small (e.g., less than 12 teams) or had a scoring system that devalues QB scoring more than normal. I would probably take him in mid to late 2nd, depending on league parameters.

[ghostguy123]

If my team was stacked everywhere except QB, trading a high rookie pick becomes a lot easier.  

If trading for a QB weakens me elsewhere it becomes less appealing

[mcd]

4 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

This assumes that owners can find trading partners who value QB enough to trade something of reasonable value for one. That has not been my experience in start 1 QB leagues.

I agree. A few years back I took over a terrible team and drafted both Lamar Jackson and Josh Allen in the rookie draft (I was starting Case Keenum). About midway through the season I wasn't competitive and bit the bullet, trading 2 #1 picks for Mahomes.

Mahomes turned my deadbeat team around and I've been playoff caliber every since. Tried trading Jackson during his breakout season with no interest. Had Allen available for the last 2 years without any reasonable offers. Multiple teams could have gone from bottom feeders to the playoffs but they just don't value the QB position.

[Helaire-ious]

Price check on Golladay in PPR? I own him & another owner is trying to get him. He started with Drake + a pick for him. Drake isn't worth nearly what Golladay is IMO. He did not say what pick yet, but even if it was his 1st (1.11 out of 12) it's not enough IMO. Am I overvaluing Golladay?

 

While we are here, what IS Drake's value?

Edited January 12, 2021 by Helaire-ious

[FreeBaGeL]

2 hours ago, Helaire-ious said:

Price check on Golladay in PPR? I own him & another owner is trying to get him. He started with Drake + a pick for him. Drake isn't worth nearly what Golladay is IMO. He did not say what pick yet, but even if it was his 1st (1.11 out of 12) it's not enough IMO. Am I overvaluing Golladay?

 

While we are here, what IS Drake's value?

I don't think you're overvaluing Golladay, simply because the entire FF community is overvaluing him in my opinion.

He's entering his age 28 season with a career high of 15.5ppg and a 3 year average a little over 13ppg.  Guys like Lockett, Woods, and Boyd are similar age (younger in Boyd's case) with a better career high and better 3 year average.

So to me, he is a sell.  But he's only a sell if you're getting market value for him (which is higher than 1.11 + Drake) and not true value.

To tie this into the QB discussion above, his value on trade calcs and in startup ADP is pretty near some really nice QBs like Murray/Allen/Watson.  He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that I'd be looking to flip for an elite QB if you don't already have one.

[FreeBaGeL]

3 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

But it's much easier to confidently project that Mahomes will be top 5 every year for several years than it is to project any RB to be top 12, much less top 5 with a healthy advantage over RB12 for several years. Much more variability to RBs 2-12 every year in comparison to preseason expectations than for QBs 2-12. Or at least that is my gut reaction. Maybe I'm off base.

Definitely a fair point.  And like I said I am a buyer, but not at (or near) the 1.01 startup price as was presented.

Of course, your point here is exactly what I was thinking when I drafted Andrew Luck relatively early in a startup a few years ago.  Obviously that was an outlier unique situation, but I think people do underrate a bit how much fluctuation there is at the top of the QB range even among elite guys.

I could be wrong on that last point, but I would be interested in seeing how often guys like Peyton and Aaron Rodgers finished outside the top 3 QBs in a season.  Maybe when I get some free time I'll run the numbers and see.

EDIT: Just did a cursory glance and it looks like they were more consistent than I thought.  Peyton top five in 8 of his first 10 years not counting his rookie year, Rodgers top five in 6 of his first 10 after getting the starting job.

ETA2: It's also worth nothing that both Peyton and Rodgers' year to year consistency fell off hard around year 10 as a starter, and we're already on year 4 for Mahomes if you're buying him now.  If we start at year 4 for Peyton or Rodgers and look over the next 10 years (IE on the notion that buying Mahomes now means you're set for a decade) I think it worked out to Peyton finishing top five 6 out of 10 times and Rodgers finishing top five 5 out of 10 times.

Edited January 13, 2021 by FreeBaGeL

[Helaire-ious]

8 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I don't think you're overvaluing Golladay, simply because the entire FF community is overvaluing him in my opinion.

He's entering his age 28 season with a career high of 15.5ppg and a 3 year average a little over 13ppg.  Guys like Lockett, Woods, and Boyd are similar age (younger in Boyd's case) with a better career high and better 3 year average.

So to me, he is a sell.  But he's only a sell if you're getting market value for him (which is higher than 1.11 + Drake) and not true value.

To tie this into the QB discussion above, his value on trade calcs and in startup ADP is pretty near some really nice QBs like Murray/Allen/Watson.  He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that I'd be looking to flip for an elite QB if you don't already have one.

I appreciate the analysis. I have Lamar & Tua so not looking for a QB unless I'm moving Lamar in that deal. I need a TE & RB depth. I am deep at WR.

 

The guy wanting Golladay doesn't have a QB or TE for me, but he does have Jacobs & Montgomery @ RB. I doubt he'd do Jacobs for Golladay, though.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Helaire-ious

[Just Win Baby]

12 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Definitely a fair point.  And like I said I am a buyer, but not at (or near) the 1.01 startup price as was presented.

Of course, your point here is exactly what I was thinking when I drafted Andrew Luck relatively early in a startup a few years ago.  Obviously that was an outlier unique situation, but I think people do underrate a bit how much fluctuation there is at the top of the QB range even among elite guys.

I could be wrong on that last point, but I would be interested in seeing how often guys like Peyton and Aaron Rodgers finished outside the top 3 QBs in a season.  Maybe when I get some free time I'll run the numbers and see.

EDIT: Just did a cursory glance and it looks like they were more consistent than I thought.  Peyton top five in 8 of his first 10 years not counting his rookie year, Rodgers top five in 6 of his first 10 after getting the starting job.

ETA2: It's also worth nothing that both Peyton and Rodgers' year to year consistency fell off hard around year 10 as a starter, and we're already on year 4 for Mahomes if you're buying him now.  If we start at year 4 for Peyton or Rodgers and look over the next 10 years (IE on the notion that buying Mahomes now means you're set for a decade) I think it worked out to Peyton finishing top five 6 out of 10 times and Rodgers finishing top five 5 out of 10 times.

What are you sourcing for the finishes for Peyton and Rodgers? I'm not sure of an easy source to look at a glance for multiple years other than PFR, which is based on total points, 4/passing TD, 1/25 passing yards, and -2/turnover.

• PFR QB position ranks for Peyton from 2001 (year 4) to 2010: 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 6, 5, 4
• PFR QB position ranks for Rodgers from 2008 (year 4) to 2017: 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 22 (9 games played), 1, 7, 1, 29 (7 GP)

Peyton is arguably a better comparison, since his 4th season was his age 25 season, like Mahomes, and it was his 4th year starting compared to 3rd year starting for Mahomes. Rodgers' 4th season was also his age 25 season, but it was his first year as a starter, so it would have taken a much bigger leap of faith for anyone to invest such a high dynasty pick as is being discussed here in him at that time.

Either way, sign me up for this level of performance for a 2nd round startup pick, maybe a 1st rounder. IMO:

• Odds of being top 5 or better at his position for several years is much greater for Mahomes than any non-QB
• Odds of a bust or relatively short peak followed by a significant dropoff are much lower for Mahomes than any non-QB

[Concept Coop]

16 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

This assumes that owners can find trading partners who value QB enough to trade something of reasonable value for one. That has not been my experience in start 1 QB leagues.

I agree, but that kind of supports my point. Most owners have a guy they are comfortable with and aren’t especially motivated to upgrade or add another QB. QB is almost always a buyer’s market, in my experience. I’m trying to sell high on Josh Allen in my 12 Tm league, and he’s only a major upgrade for 4 teams. Two of the owners won’t spend on QBs, so I’ve got a market of 2. 

I know experiences vary from league to league and that my opinion is heavily shaped by my leagues - a tiny sample size - but ADP supports this as well. I think QBs are more valuable and harder to acquire after the startup, but that you can land a good option in round 6 takes some of the luster off of spending a lot more than that, for me.

[Andy Dufresne]

I need this explained to me...

What's the value in citing startup ADP when talking about dynasty? Is the assumption that "dynasty" only means about 5 years?

Because if I'm talking player values and trade scenarios in a 10+ year league, then start up values seem moot.

[Concept Coop]

1 hour ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I need this explained to me...

What's the value in citing startup ADP when talking about dynasty? Is the assumption that "dynasty" only means about 5 years?

Because if I'm talking player values and trade scenarios in a 10+ year league, then start up values seem moot.

I’m referring to current dynasty startup ADP, FTR. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best stand in for market value we have. Owners essentially rank order players as dynasty assets. That gives us an idea of how owners collectively value players in relation to each other. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Concept Coop

[FreeBaGeL]

24 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I need this explained to me...

What's the value in citing startup ADP when talking about dynasty? Is the assumption that "dynasty" only means about 5 years?

Because if I'm talking player values and trade scenarios in a 10+ year league, then start up values seem moot.

It's just a way to compare player values against each other.  Far from perfect of course, but probably the closest we have to representing consensus market value quantitatively.

Edited January 13, 2021 by FreeBaGeL

[Andy Dufresne]

4 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

I’m referring to current dynasty startup ADP, FTT. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best stand in for market value we have. Owners essentially rank order players as dynasty assets. That gives us an idea of how owners collectively value players in relation to each other. 

 

4 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

It's just a way to compare player values against each other.  Far from perfect of course, but probably the closest we have to representing consensus market value quantitatively.

Hmmm...I guess I get it. But I don't know that I'd find that useful. Seems like it assumes that all drafters have the same goal at draft time. I think, thought, that depending on which data you look at you could end up with, for example, Trevor Lawrence being rated ahead of Deshaun Watson (for a rough example). I don't think that's correct.

But then I'm the guy that thinks NFL front offices are relying too much on analytics and not enough on what they see so...

[FreeBaGeL]

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

What are you sourcing for the finishes for Peyton and Rodgers? I'm not sure of an easy source to look at a glance for multiple years other than PFR, which is based on total points, 4/passing TD, 1/25 passing yards, and -2/turnover.

• PFR QB position ranks for Peyton from 2001 (year 4) to 2010: 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 6, 5, 4
• PFR QB position ranks for Rodgers from 2008 (year 4) to 2017: 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 22 (9 games played), 1, 7, 1, 29 (7 GP)

Peyton is arguably a better comparison, since his 4th season was his age 25 season, like Mahomes, and it was his 4th year starting compared to 3rd year starting for Mahomes. Rodgers' 4th season was also his age 25 season, but it was his first year as a starter, so it would have taken a much bigger leap of faith for anyone to invest such a high dynasty pick as is being discussed here in him at that time.

Either way, sign me up for this level of performance for a 2nd round startup pick, maybe a 1st rounder. IMO:

• Odds of being top 5 or better at his position for several years is much greater for Mahomes than any non-QB
• Odds of a bust or relatively short peak followed by a significant dropoff are much lower for Mahomes than any non-QB

Yeah I was referencing their 4th year after they took over the starting role which is where Mahomes is now.  So Rodgers 4th year would be 2011 (Peyton's was 2002 not 2001, though I mistakenly had it as 2003 so we were both off by a year).

Maybe that's a silly way to look at it and actual years in the league is better to look at than years playing, I'm not sure.  In that case we'd actually be looking at Mahomes' 5th year in the league as the starting point for buyers rather than 4th.

Either way, I've come around a bit that those guys spent more time at the top than I gave them credit for.  I still wouldn't take Mahomes 1.01, but it's fair to count him as a very valuable asset.  I guess ultimately how valuable he turns out to be long-term will somewhat come down to how all of the other good young QBs hold up going forward compared to him.

[FreeBaGeL]

2 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

 

Hmmm...I guess I get it. But I don't know that I'd find that useful. Seems like it assumes that all drafters have the same goal at draft time. I think, thought, that depending on which data you look at you could end up with, for example, Trevor Lawrence being rated ahead of Deshaun Watson (for a rough example). I don't think that's correct.

But then I'm the guy that thinks NFL front offices are relying too much on analytics and not enough on what they see so...

Yeah it's not perfect, but the idea is that kind of stuff averages out with a bigger sample.

Compare that to the only other ways of comparing player value like dynasty rankings or trade calculators which are typically the work of one singular person and really only give us an idea of that one person's preferences, rather than consensus market value.

They each have their flaws.

[Helaire-ious]

Waller value? His owner in PPR said not for sale, but I am trying anyway lol. He said no to 2021 1.09 + Engram as well as no to Golladay + Engram. Thoughts?

 

I have Goedert too & trying to keep him, but not opposed to moving him

Edited January 13, 2021 by Helaire-ious

[Concept Coop]

Using DLF ADP, these scenarios represent the premium you pay for taking Mahomes at his ADP over Watson (or Lamar or Allen if he slips a few spots) at his. 

Are you taking the Mahomes or Watson side of these? (It’s closer than I thought it would be, admittedly. But I lean Watson.)

Mahomes + Hockenson or Watson + Kittle (or Kelce)?

Mahomes + Deebo (or Woods) or Watson + Terry (or Godwin)?

Mahomes + Ronald Jones or Watson + Ekeler (or Robinson)? 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Concept Coop

[Andy Dufresne]

15 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Using DLF ADP, these scenarios represent the premium you pay for taking Mahomes at his ADP over Watson (or Lamar or Allen if he slips a few spots) at his. 

Are you taking the Mahomes or Watson side of these? (It’s closer than I thought it would be, admittedly. But I lean Watson.)

Mahomes + Hockenson or Watson + Kittle (or Kelce)?

Mahomes + Deebo (or Woods) or Watson + Terry (or Godwin)?

Mahomes + Ronald Jones or Watson + Ekeler (or Robinson)? 

Watson + player in every scenario.

[ghostguy123]

FFPC

In a rebuild, attempting to move Watson for a future 1st with zero luck.  A couple of the teams have basically nothing at QB and would be able to compete with good QB points.  

Oh well.  Probably a bad time to try and deal a QB.  Right before the season is probably a better time.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

9 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

FFPC

In a rebuild, attempting to move Watson for a future 1st with zero luck.  A couple of the teams have basically nothing at QB and would be able to compete with good QB points.  

Oh well.  Probably a bad time to try and deal a QB.  Right before the season is probably a better time.

 

Come to my FFPC league where I need a QB.  I would pay a 1st for him.

[ghostguy123]

2 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Come to my FFPC league where I need a QB.  I would pay a 1st for him.

Lol

I am not even saying I would trade him for JUST a future 1st.  Just saying I cant even get just that.  

Oh well.  I got like 8 months to figure it out.  Maybe 8 years.  He is quite good.

[jm192]

36 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Lol

I am not even saying I would trade him for JUST a future 1st.  Just saying I cant even get just that.  

Oh well.  I got like 8 months to figure it out.  Maybe 8 years.  He is quite good.

I'm trying to get him in a league.  Is McLaurin for Watson in the ball-park in your eyes?

[jm192]

40 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Come to my FFPC league where I need a QB.  I would pay a 1st for him.

I'm in the same situation.  Started Jared Goff and Trubisky in the playoffs.  

Trying to turn McLaurin into Watson

[Gally]

10 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I'm trying to get him in a league.  Is McLaurin for Watson in the ball-park in your eyes?

 

9 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I'm in the same situation.  Started Jared Goff and Trubisky in the playoffs.  

Trying to turn McLaurin into Watson

I think McLaurin is a tough guy to gauge because of the QB situation there.  He has been fine with the crap they have had and should be better but you need someone willing to take that chance. 

[ghostguy123]

11 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I'm trying to get him in a league.  Is McLaurin for Watson in the ball-park in your eyes?

I would easily deal watson for mclaurin

[FreeBaGeL]

1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I'm trying to get him in a league.  Is McLaurin for Watson in the ball-park in your eyes?

In FFPC McLaurin is an overpay for Watson.  Certainly not finding fault if you do it because I think Watson is a great buy right now, but on value in FFPC McLaurin is worth a lot more.

Even in non-FFPC leagues McLaurin's startup ADP is 3.8 and Watson's is 5.11.  And QBs are worth even less than normal in FFPC.

[Andy Dufresne]

FFPC rules must be quite different because I'd easily pay McLaurin for Watson in a 6 point per league.

[FreeBaGeL]

10 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

FFPC rules must be quite different because I'd easily pay McLaurin for Watson in a 6 point per league.

FFPC is 4 points per pass TD but the bigger issue is the small rosters means there are always good QBs on the wire and no one ever holds 2 QBs through the offseason (when you have to cut down to 14 players) so the top QBs are always spread out. Hence in most leagues there are typically only 1 or 2 teams that would even be potential buyers and even they can get a guy like Brady for a useless mid-round pick or pick up a Kirk Cousins type for free out of free agency. 

So you have to really hope that the 1 or 2 teams that don't already have a really good QB are the type that highly value a guy like Watson over platooning Brady/Cousins AND that they have the type of assets you're looking to get in return.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by FreeBaGeL

[Andy Dufresne]

Ah, that makes a lot more sense now.

[AJF07]

What are some example of fair value with:

DK Metcalf

for

CeeDee Lamb + ??

[ghostguy123]

3 minutes ago, AJF07 said:

What are some example of fair value with:

DK Metcalf

for

CeeDee Lamb + ??

If competing I could see giving lamb and a mid 1st at least.  

[menobrown]

17 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

FFPC is 4 points per pass TD but the bigger issue is the small rosters means there are always good QBs on the wire and no one ever holds 2 QBs through the offseason (when you have to cut down to 14 players) so the top QBs are always spread out. Hence in most leagues there are typically only 1 or 2 teams that would even be potential buyers and even they can get a guy like Brady for a useless mid-round pick or pick up a Kirk Cousins type for free out of free agency. 

So you have to really hope that the 1 or 2 teams that don't already have a really good QB are the type that highly value a guy like Watson over platooning Brady/Cousins AND that they have the type of assets you're looking to get in return.

 

 

Agree with most of what you are saying here, and maybe you did not mean it literally, but regarding the bolded comment while I'm not a fan of carrying two QB's it's what I plan to do in 3 of my 4 teams with FFPC. And really that reinforces the rest of what you are saying in that this is my plan because it's hard to find teams with need who will pay anything of decent value. While I may not love carrying two QB's I dislike idea of cutting guys like Dak and Herbert or giving them away for peanuts even less.

But for sure to have any value in offseason in FFPC a QB must  demonstrate clear top 3-5 fantasy upside. If I thought a QB would give me 10 years of QB 8-10 type play I would not carry them as a second QB or pay anything more then a mid round pick for them to be my QB1.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

15 hours ago, AJF07 said:

What are some example of fair value with:

DK Metcalf

for

CeeDee Lamb + ??

Keep Lamb. Dak returns next year and Seahawks are going to throw less next year.

[scothawk]

3 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Keep Lamb. Dak returns next year and Seahawks are going to throw less next year.

We don't know Dak is back and we dont know that Seahwks will throw less.

We don't know if Dallas goes WR or Pitts just for the fun.

In my mind Metcalf is on a different level from Lamb. 

[Andy Dufresne]

7 minutes ago, scothawk said:

We don't know Dak is back and we dont know that Seahwks will throw less.

We don't know if Dallas goes WR or Pitts just for the fun.

In my mind Metcalf is on a different level from Lamb. 

Sure you do. When the Seahawks re-dedicated themselves to the run, DK's numbers dipped. 

He didn't break 100 yards from week 13 on. And Carrol has come out and said that they need to run the ball MORE next year. 

If you wanted to give me Lamb plus a 1st for DK I'd definitely let you. 

Edit: Check out how much his YPC dipped later in the season. He's an awesome athlete that, in another offense, would be super exciting. But not with the Seahawks. There he's just impressive.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Andy Dufresne

[Boston]

1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Sure you do. When the Seahawks re-dedicated themselves to the run, DK's numbers dipped. 

He didn't break 100 yards from week 13 on. And Carrol has come out and said that they need to run the ball MORE next year. 

If you wanted to give me Lamb plus a 1st for DK I'd definitely let you. 

I agree with this...love DKM and if I did own him he would be very difficult to deal but Seattle is real funky when it comes to the passing game...not sure he would have kept the pace because it was only 5 games but with Dak Lamb was 30-433-3 which comes out to 96-1,385-8....like DKM, Lamb is gonna be elite but if you also hit on that #1 you could really be in a good spot.  

[Zyphros]

21 hours ago, AJF07 said:

What are some example of fair value with:

DK Metcalf

for

CeeDee Lamb + ??

This is why I like doing Tier rankings more, for this exact type of situation. I have them in the same tier. Most of the time player A in a tier is worth the same as player B in a tier, it'll just depend on the player who they prefer. I prefer DK as a dynasty asset which falls in line with your question, but if I'm getting Lamb + extra's then I'm all for that move. 

[Helaire-ious]

.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Helaire-ious

[FreeBaGeL]

4 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Sure you do. When the Seahawks re-dedicated themselves to the run, DK's numbers dipped. 

He didn't break 100 yards from week 13 on. And Carrol has come out and said that they need to run the ball MORE next year. 

If you wanted to give me Lamb plus a 1st for DK I'd definitely let you. 

Edit: Check out how much his YPC dipped later in the season. He's an awesome athlete that, in another offense, would be super exciting. But not with the Seahawks. There he's just impressive.

They also fired their notoriously conservative run-first offensive coordinator, Brian Schottenheimer.

[FreeBaGeL]

4 hours ago, Boston said:

I agree with this...love DKM and if I did own him he would be very difficult to deal but Seattle is real funky when it comes to the passing game...not sure he would have kept the pace because it was only 5 games but with Dak Lamb was 30-433-3 which comes out to 96-1,385-8....like DKM, Lamb is gonna be elite but if you also hit on that #1 you could really be in a good spot.  

Dak was on pace to throw for 7000 yards in those 5 games.

Obviously even had Dak stayed healthy that kind of volume was not sustainable.  Russell Wilson was on pace to throw for 62 TDs at the time Dak was injured, as an example of how misleading a 5 game pace can be.

Edited January 16, 2021 by FreeBaGeL

[Andy Dufresne]

13 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

They also fired their notoriously conservative run-first offensive coordinator, Brian Schottenheimer.

Well I suppose Carroll could be lying and really wants to throw more.

[Boston]

57 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Dak was on pace to throw for 7000 yards in those 5 games.

Obviously even had Dak stayed healthy that kind of volume was not sustainable.  Russell Wilson was on pace to throw for 62 TDs at the time Dak was injured, as an example of how misleading a 5 game pace can be.

Agreed...which is why I pointed that out.

[Just Win Baby]

2 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

They also fired their notoriously conservative run-first offensive coordinator, Brian Schottenheimer.

Carroll is more conservative than Schottenheimer. Supposedly, Carroll and Schottenheimer discussed how to improve the offense in his exit interview after the season, and it became clear that they disagreed philosophically, which led to Schottenheimer's firing. I can't imagine that, between the two of them, Schottenheimer was the one who wanted to be more conservative.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Just Win Baby

[scothawk]

Dak is unsigned. Its going to be interesting.

[MAC_32]

11 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

They also fired their notoriously conservative run-first offensive coordinator, Brian Schottenheimer.

There's unfortunately good reason Anthony Lynn is being connected to this job.

[ghostguy123]

4 hours ago, scothawk said:

Dak is unsigned. Its going to be interesting.

Topic for another thread, but yeah, wow what a terrible decision to have that much money being handed to you and holding out for just a little more, and now who really knows if not only can he be what he was but can he ever even play at all.  There IS that possibility