Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Value Discussion Thread


spider321

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Nick Chubb had the fastest run, per MPH, in all of football last year.  That's why it's worthless.  You pick the fastest split second of a 50 yard run and extrapolate over an hour.  

He doesn't win with speed.  He's a 4.55+ guy.

Yeah when I first heard about that I thought it should be measured feet per second or yards per second for it to be more in scale and more relevant.

Chubb is certainly fast enough though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Nick Chubb had the fastest run, per MPH, in all of football last year.  That's why it's worthless.  You pick the fastest split second of a 50 yard run and extrapolate over an hour.  

He doesn't win with speed.  He's a 4.55+ guy.

It is a data conversion not an extrapolation. We can take a player's 40 time at the combine and convert it to MPH, though it will be low because of the starting gun. If we timed say the last 20 yards of their 40 then that would be a fair estimate of their top speed (without pads and within the combine) and would be similar to the Next Gen calculation. 

But when these numbers are reported in MPH it is just a conversion, like going from 32F to 0C. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

While the Bears certainly paid Burton for what he could do in those two games than any of the other games in his career, I am not sure he will get enough snaps or what kind of targets he will get with the Bears. I could see Sims and Shaheen possibly outsnapping Burton as the Eagles didn't have him on the field that much. No idea if he can block or how well, but not as good as Ertz and Celek anyways.

OK this is getting kind of weird.  Clearly the Bears didn't pay him the 6th richest TE contract to use him the same way the Eagles did, IE as a backup for one of the best TEs in the league.

We can argue all day about whether or not he was overpaid, and heck I'd probably agree that he was, but it seems very clear that they're bringing him in at least with the intent of him being the lead TE, not "the third string TE".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

It is a data conversion not an extrapolation. We can take a player's 40 time at the combine and convert it to MPH, though it will be low because of the starting gun. If we timed say the last 20 yards of their 40 then that would be a fair estimate of their top speed (without pads and within the combine) and would be similar to the Next Gen calculation. 

But when these numbers are reported in MPH it is just a conversion, like going from 32F to 0C. 

Converting a split second to MPH is an extrapolation, right?  What value does it actually have if a player can't maintain it beyond a stride or two?  Nick Chubb is nowhere near the fastest football player in the world.  He's never been the fastest running back on his own team.

Edit: If you're using it as a measure of functional football speed - it's extrapolation.  

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

OK this is getting kind of weird.  Clearly the Bears didn't pay him the 6th richest TE contract to use him the same way the Eagles did, IE as a backup for one of the best TEs in the league.

We can argue all day about whether or not he was overpaid, and heck I'd probably agree that he was, but it seems very clear that they're bringing him in at least with the intent of him being the lead TE, not "the third string TE".

Absolutely...new Coach with a vastly different offensive philosophy than the previous regime who not only targeted Burton but made absolutely sure they were not outbid for him...zero doubt in my mind he is going to get the opportunity to be very productive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Converting a split second to MPH is an extrapolation, right?  What value does it actually have if a player can't maintain it beyond a stride or two?  Nick Chubb is nowhere near the fastest football player in the world.  He's never been the fastest running back on his own team.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here... Chubb had a 38.5 vert and 128 broad jump meaning he’s highly explosive. Does not surprise me at all that of the hundreds of runs he had he happened to record the fastest MPH peak.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

OK this is getting kind of weird.  Clearly the Bears didn't pay him the 6th richest TE contract to use him the same way the Eagles did, IE as a backup for one of the best TEs in the league.

We can argue all day about whether or not he was overpaid, and heck I'd probably agree that he was, but it seems very clear that they're bringing him in at least with the intent of him being the lead TE, not "the third string TE".

I agree its weird that the Bears paid him that much money. He was 3rd string last season and for his career so far.

Its a lot of faith being put into those two games by the Bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here... Chubb had a 38.5 vert and 128 broad jump meaning he’s highly explosive. Does not surprise me at all that of the hundreds of runs he had he happened to record the fastest MPH peak.

He's not fast.  Which was my point: MPH is not a good measure of speed.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

I agree its weird that the Bears paid him that much money. He was 3rd string last season and for his career so far.

Its a lot of faith being put into those two games by the Bears.

It is...I see this as being the same scenario as Delanie walker going to the Titans...will be interesting to see how it pans out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Converting a split second to MPH is an extrapolation, right?  What value does it actually have if a player can't maintain it beyond a stride or two?  Nick Chubb is nowhere near the fastest football player in the world.  He's never been the fastest running back on his own team.

Edit: If you're using it as a measure of functional football speed - it's extrapolation.  

It would only be an extrapolation if someone was making the claim that a certain speed could be maintained for an entire hour. Much like if you drive down the freeway at say 65 mph but only go for one exit, you can still justifiably say your speed was 65 mph, even though you didn't drive for anything close to an hours worth of time.

My argument is mostly a semantic one though. The question of whether the next-gen speed is useful or not is a fair and open question. But to report a next-gen game speed in MPH is not an extrapolation it is just a measurement.  Obviously a player is not going to be able to maintain top speed over the course of an hour. It is simply a measurement on the field in live conditions. Admittedly over a short distance. The combine is pretty short, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

It would only be an extrapolation if someone was making the claim that a certain speed could be maintained for an entire hour. Much like if you drive down the freeway at say 65 mph but only go for one exit, you can still justifiably say your speed was 65 mph, even though you didn't drive for anything close to an hours worth of time.

My argument is mostly a semantic one though. The question of whether the next-gen speed is useful or not is a fair and open question. But to report a next-gen game speed in MPH is not an extrapolation it is just a measurement.  Obviously a player is not going to be able to maintain top speed over the course of an hour. It is simply a measurement on the field in live conditions. Admittedly over a short distance. The combine is pretty short, too. 

Crowell took 4.57 seconds to run 40 yards.  He's simply not fast for an NFL RB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

 

Edit: If you're using it as a measure of functional football speed - it's extrapolation.  

No it isn't. By definition a measurement is different than an extrapolation. You have to make a measurement prior to deciding whether to extrapolate or not. It's two different processes. But again it's semantic. Your point on Chubb may very well be spot on. 

Coaches, players, and armchair QBs like us have argued for years that there is such a thing as game speed. Well now with digital video tools we can actually sort of prove/disprove that theory. Right now it's still open. 

That being said, the combine speeds are highly standardized and defendable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

No it isn't. By definition a measurement is different than an extrapolation. You have to make a measurement prior to deciding whether to extrapolate or not. It's two different processes. But again it's semantic. Your point on Chubb may very well be spot on. 

Coaches, players, and armchair QBs like us have argued for years that there is such a thing as game speed. Well now with digital video tools we can actually sort of prove/disprove that theory. Right now it's still open. 

That being said, the combine speeds are highly standardized and defendable.

If you're using it as a measure of functional football speed - it's extrapolation.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Concept Coop said:

If you're using it as a measure of functional football speed - it's extrapolation.  

And the combine measurements are doing what exactly? What are we *using* those measurements for? It literally doesn't matter if the measurememt is reported in MPH, seconds per 40 yards, or feet per second. In the end it represents one measurement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, barackdhouse said:

And the combine measurements are doing what exactly? What are we *using* those measurements for? It literally doesn't matter if the measurememt is reported in MPH, seconds per 40 yards, or feet per second. In the end it represents one measurement. 

40 yards is a relevant football distance.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

He is fast. Your assessment is plain wrong, even moreso when taking into account his size.

He's 70th percentile for RBs.  He's fast enough (and I literally never said otherwise).  40 yards is a relavent distance to measure.  The fastest split second of a 50 yard run is not.  That's my last bit - and my apologies for derailing the thread.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bojang0301 said:

I wouldn’t say it’s derailed the thread. Athleticism is definitely a valid concern for dynasty value. Just because a guy operates mostly between the tackles and is viewed more as a grinder doesn’t necessarily equate to not athletic.

That's a straw man.  I literally never said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

40 yards is a relevant football distance.

On this point I agree. The only reason MPH is reported is because people can relate to it. If it was converted to a 40 time it would make a little more sense to people from a football standpoint. But it would of course be faster than the combine scores, so it still would need to be understood to be it's own dataset. 

Anyway there is nothing wrong with reporting it in MPH. It might as well be kilometers per second or distance per time (that one is controversial as ####).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

That's a straw man.  I literally never said that.

You have been unequivocally wrong in your assessment of what is fast for an NFL RB. It is not my problem you didn’t check to see where the spectrum of speed falls for an NFL RB. You believed the 4.50 range was slow for an NFL RB making the statement that 4.57 is slow even though it’s above 50th percentile. Therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about and can stop arguing. The only thing you’ve derailed is anyone’s belief that you’re properly assessing players Mr. Strawman.

Edited by Bojang0301
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

You have been unequivocally wrong in your assessment of what is fast for an NFL RB. It is not my problem you didn’t check to see where the spectrum of speed falls for an NFL RB. You believed the 4.50 range was slow for an NFL RB making the statement that 4.57 is slow even though it’s above 50th percentile. Therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about and can stop arguing. The only thing you’ve derailed is anyone’s belief that you’re properly assessing players Mr. Strawman.

Show me where I called 4.57 slow, or apologize and move on.  Stop trolling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Anyway there is nothing wrong with reporting it in MPH. It might as well be kilometers per second or distance per time (that one is controversial as ####).

I understand the math behind it.  But just because the math works, doesn't mean it's practical.  If you capture my fastest split second over a 50 yard sprint, translate it to MPH, then apply that back to the 40 - I crack 5 seconds.  And I promise you, I don't crack a 5 second 40.  

Nick Chubb's fastest 100th of a step might be faster than Tyreek Hill's, but that will never matter on a football field.  

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mph gps data is very interesting but it's not as useful as combine 40 times because it's no very often that a football player is able to run straight long enough to get to full speed so we don't actually get top speeds for a lot of the players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Concept Coop said:

Player A runs 40 yards in 4.57 seconds.

Player B runs 40 yards in 4.47 seconds.

Player A's max MPH was 22.

Player B's max MPH was 23.  

Who is the faster football player?

It depends, player B seems faster starting from 0 and going 40 yards in a straight line with track gear. Player A has the ability to hit a speed on the football field that is faster (assuming both players actually encountered a similar situation where they were able to run straight at full speed).  So it's not really as simple as one guy being faster than another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Player A runs 40 yards in 4.57 seconds.

Player B runs 40 yards in 4.47 seconds.

Player A's max MPH was 22.

Player B's max MPH was 23.  

Who is the faster football player?

It seems Player B is the faster player in both measurements here.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ilov80s said:

If I ever get a ticket, I might try that line though. "Officer miles per hour is not a good measure of speed." 

Come on, man.  You know what I meant.  Nick Chubb hit a faster MPH than Tyreek Hill.  If you think "it depends" who the faster guy is, say so and lets have that conversation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 yard dash speeds are measured over the entire 40 yards. Converting that to MPH would just be looking at the same data a little differently.

The MPH measure we talk about for max speed is just that. The fastest fraction of a second a guy hit while running. It has nothing to do with their 40 times, and you can’t extrapolate anything from it because it’s just a measurement at an instant in time.

Coop thinks the MPH measurement doesn’t mean much because it is an instaneous measure and doesn’t measure speed over time. He thinks 40 times are a much better measure.

Others either don’t understand the MPH measurement (I don’t think this is the case for everyone), or they think it is relevant because heck, you’re running with a football and hitting a high speed.

Tyreek Hill had the third fastest MPH measured last year. Fournette had the highest. Do what you want with that data.

Can we move on now?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, barackdhouse said:

On this point I agree. The only reason MPH is reported is because people can relate to it. If it was converted to a 40 time it would make a little more sense to people from a football standpoint. But it would of course be faster than the combine scores, so it still would need to be understood to be it's own dataset. 

Anyway there is nothing wrong with reporting it in MPH. It might as well be kilometers per second or distance per time (that one is controversial as ####).

 

That's not entirely accurate.  A 40 time is a measure of how fast moved over a distance they actually travelled.  MPH is not.  Reporting MPH is not simply translating a players 40 time.  It's capturing a player's quickest step in a 40 and extrapolating it. There's a reason races measure a set distance, and not the fastest step in a set distance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Come on, man.  You know what I meant.  Nick Chubb hit a faster MPH than Tyreek Hill.  If you think "it depends" who the faster guy is, say so and lets have that conversation.  

I am joking but I think you can understand the absurdity of what you said. I am very sure Tyreek Hill is faster. The issue with the mph isn't that it's a poor measurement of speed but that it isn't a fair comparison because not all players get the same chance to reach full speed in an actual game. Also, where dd you get the speed for Chubb? I didn't know college football recorded that kind of next gen data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

lol, I knew what you were saying and basically read it as you meant it- totally didn't even notice the error. I whiffed on a real softball. 

Calling it a softball is generous. 

2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I am joking but I think you can understand the absurdity of what you said. I am very sure Tyreek Hill is faster. The issue with the mph isn't that it's a poor measurement of speed but that it isn't a fair comparison because not all players get the same chance to reach full speed in an actual game. Also, where dd you get the speed for Chubb? I didn't know college football recorded that kind of next gen data. 

Sure - I certainly chose my words poorly there. 

I originally saw it passed around here.  Here's one mention of it: http://gridironnow.com/georgia-bulldog-players-may-fast-college-football-nfl/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kutta said:

40 yard dash speeds are measured over the entire 40 yards. Converting that to MPH would just be looking at the same data a little differently.

The MPH measure we talk about for max speed is just that. The fastest fraction of a second a guy hit while running. It has nothing to do with their 40 times, and you can’t extrapolate anything from it because it’s just a measurement at an instant in time.

Coop thinks the MPH measurement doesn’t mean much because it is an instaneous measure and doesn’t measure speed over time. He thinks 40 times are a much better measure.

Others either don’t understand the MPH measurement (I don’t think this is the case for everyone), or they think it is relevant because heck, you’re running with a football and hitting a high speed.

Tyreek Hill had the third fastest MPH measured last year. Fournette had the highest. Do what you want with that data.

Can we move on now?

Thanks for the summation of a page of useless reading.

Back to the thread.  What do we think of Sterling Shepard vs. Nelson Agholor vs. Cooper Kupp vs. Will Fuller.  All are basically the teams #2 option at young ages with productive seasons on their belt and could be in line for an uptick in value if they expand on what they've done so far.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zyphros said:

Thanks for the summation of a page of useless reading.

Back to the thread.  What do we think of Sterling Shepard vs. Nelson Agholor vs. Cooper Kupp vs. Will Fuller.  All are basically the teams #2 option at young ages with productive seasons on their belt and could be in line for an uptick in value if they expand on what they've done so far.  

Even though it is all based on a really small sample size that represents an impossible to maintain pace, I have to put Fuller ahead of them just because of the glimpse of a potential ceiling we saw last year with Watson. Then I have Kupp who is a safe bet for targets but I don't think he has much of a ceiling. I think Agholor and Shepard are really the 3rd options in their respective passing games so they are well below the other 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Concept Coop said:

That's not entirely accurate.  A 40 time is a measure of how fast moved over a distance they actually travelled.  MPH is not.  Reporting MPH is not simply translating a players 40 time.  It's capturing a player's quickest step in a 40 and extrapolating it. There's a reason races measure a set distance, and not the fastest step in a set distance. 

That's why they have to be different datasets. They tell different stories. Though both *could* be reported in MPH *or* seconds per 40 and nothing would have changed for either dataset.

I promise I will bring this back to Chubb and Crowell and get off this. I know people think it's just nonsense thread filler but I have thought both those guys looked particularly fast in games I have watched. Apparently the Next Gen data bear this out. But of course straight line speed is only one aspect of a player. 

As I see it I've been a lot higher on Crowell than most but don't have a ton of faith he'll prove me right in New York. Not about speed but about success as a RB. I hope the Jets get Mayfield and win games. And my valuation of Chubb is that since I only play in PPR I kind of don't want him unless he goes to a very good offense. I don't know. Chubb is probably the one RB that I am the most torn on. And he'll probably be on the board for me in a lot of drafts next month.

@Concept Coop sorry I trolled you and got this thing derailed. Done now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please get back to discussing whether fuel efficiency should be measured in miles per gallon or gallons per mile?

What about Alex Collins?  Is he worth a late first pre-draft?  Most mocks have the Ravens going OT or WR in round one.  Maybe TE in the second.  Running back seems far down the list of needs. What's he worth if they don't add a RB?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oldmanhawkins said:

Can we please get back to discussing whether fuel efficiency should be measured in miles per gallon or gallons per mile?

What about Alex Collins?  Is he worth a late first pre-draft?  Most mocks have the Ravens going OT or WR in round one.  Maybe TE in the second.  Running back seems far down the list of needs. What's he worth if they don't add a RB?   

I wouldn’t want to pay that right now. Just because mocks have them doing what seems to be the biggest needs who knows when the draft comes around. Still have to worry about Dixon, he’s hung around despite the injuries and suspension and gets mentioned in the offseason as a guy they like (sorry it was a while ago, no link.) I see Collins a lot like the GB backfield, if you can get for a late 2nd it’s a decent dart throw. I don’t think Collins is anywhere near a 1st right now, and I’m not sure I want to pay that even if they don’t add a back in the draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Concept Coop said:

Nick Chubb had the fastest run, per MPH, in all of football last year.  That's why it's worthless.  You pick the fastest split second of a 50 yard run and extrapolate over an hour.  

He doesn't win with speed.  He's a 4.55+ guy.

Apologies for the late reply. I kind of just picked one of yours at random to reply to, but the common theme that I'm seeing is that you are confusing acceleration with top speed. Chubb might not have the best acceleration in the game, but it's possible that he's got one of the higher top speeds (sometimes referred to as "build up speed"). And from the article you linked, it cites Chubb at 22.3 mph... so your statement that he's somehow shown faster than Tyreek is incorrect. I saw Tyreek listed as having hit 23.24 (and another at 22.77) in 2016. 

Also, there's no extrapolation. You might've been too many pints in, but it's just a measurement of speed, so any unit of distance and time would work. It feet per second makes you happier, it can be converted. 

In general, I fully agree with ilov80s - top speed rarely matters. Acceleration is much more important. I only pointed it out with regard to Crowell because his top speed and high breakaway % contradict the typical "plodder" label he seems to get for playing an early down role against stacked boxes. If the Jets can get an OL and decent QB play, he should present good value this year since they don't have the draft picks anymore to draft one of the exciting rookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zyphros said:

Back to the thread.  What do we think of Sterling Shepard vs. Nelson Agholor vs. Cooper Kupp vs. Will Fuller.  All are basically the teams #2 option at young ages with productive seasons on their belt and could be in line for an uptick in value if they expand on what they've done so far.  

I like Shepard (25.1) the most. Kupp (24.8) is enticing due to the strong rookie year, but I think he's purely a slot/possession guy. Shepard has the speed to play outside and he flashed a little WR1 ability while OBJ was hurt (on a trash offense nonetheless). Agholor (24.8) and Fuller (24.0) I think will end up being roster cloggers or flex plays. Their hands are too unreliable, IMO, to be high volume guys and will eventually be phased out. The fact Philly traded Torrey but then immediately followed that by signing Wallace (31.7) tells me how confident they are in Agholor.

10 hours ago, oldmanhawkins said:

What about Alex Collins?  Is he worth a late first pre-draft?  Most mocks have the Ravens going OT or WR in round one.  Maybe TE in the second.  Running back seems far down the list of needs. What's he worth if they don't add a RB?   

I think he got a standard 1-year RFA deal, right? Not a huge vote of confidence. Baltimore had OL problems last year and they just lost their starting center (Jensen) to Tampa, so I don't see it as a great situation. Being the last remaining Dixon believer :tinfoilhat: I would want both Collins and Dixon if I was giving up a late 1st. I don't think either one is worth a late first on their own and I'd be very hesitant to pay that much pre-draft. Baltimore has a lot of needs, but if they happen to take one of the top ~8 RBs in the draft, it'll tank your investment immediately. So I'd say a definite no to a late 1st pre-draft for Collins and a maybe to Collins+Dixon after the draft if no RBs taken. But even then, I'd be looking hard at rookie ADPs and situations. So many nice rookie RBs out there. One of them will be available in the late first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Still have to worry about Dixon, he’s hung around despite the injuries and suspension and gets mentioned in the offseason as a guy they like (sorry it was a while ago, no link.) 

Still, Harbaugh said Dixon could weigh heavily in next year’s competition.

“Kenneth Dixon should be in that conversation,” he said. “Kenneth has to take care of his business and be ready to go. I’ve seen him in here doing it all the time. So heck yeah, Kenneth Dixon is a big part of that conversation.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bs-sp-ravens-open-to-tinkering-with-running-back-group-20180104-story.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Warhogs said:

What kind of rookie pick value would you put on Donte Moncrief?

I'd pay a late 2nd I think.  But there are so many players that can fall into that category it's insane.  I think he took that deal in Jacksonville to do 2 things.  

1.  To rehab his value and prove he can play

2.  To give himself a chance at being the #1 guy on an offense if he proves he can stay healthy

If he does those things then he could skyrocket in value, but that's always been his problem.  Maintaining his health to show how good he actually is.  Nobody knows the answer if he will stay healthy but he's worth a late 2nd for that type of risk to me.  Early 2nd, I'd rather grab one of the TE's or a "my guy" in the rookie draft.    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...