too many different variables involved (league size, type of draft, scoring, FA/waiver system,etc.) for even a "basic" set of values or guidelines.
IMHO
IMHO
QUOTE (sparkky @ Jan 10 2008, 03:21 PM) 
too many different variables involved (league size, type of draft, scoring, FA/waiver system,etc.) for even a "basic" set of values or guidelines.
IMHO
IMHO
I think gianmarco correctly pointed out that these same variables are inherent in the player rankings as well (and not unique to draft picks), yet we all seem to be able to look at those player rankings and make adjustments/tweaks we know are unique to our own leagues. Not to mention that F&L often reminds us that essentially these are personal rankings he creates that are ultimately geared toward his league which continues on during the playoffs. If we can all overcome that hurdle, which likely applies to few of us, then incorporating draft picks (at least the top handful) into the rankings seems to be doable, and should spark some interesting discussions about value.
QUOTE (sparkky @ Jan 10 2008, 04:21 PM)
too many different variables involved (league size, type of draft, scoring, FA/waiver system,etc.) for even a "basic" set of values or guidelines.
IMHO
IMHO
truth, but this whole thread has been based around F&L's league and it's variables, people are adjusting according to those differences, it's a ton of thought/work but it could be of tremendous value...this is my first year in a dynasty league, i have 3 first round picks and i'm having an awful time deciding between trade/keep and if trade for what
either way F&L's rankings have been factored into every one of my trades and it's definately one of the better dynasty reads on the web
QUOTE (sparkky @ Jan 10 2008, 04:21 PM)
too many different variables involved (league size, type of draft, scoring, FA/waiver system,etc.) for even a "basic" set of values or guidelines.
IMHO
IMHO
I put a lot of thought into gianmarco's idea, but ultimately I think I lean much closer to you and EBF on this issue.
I question the viability of it for the reasons you mentioned -- variables in league size, type of draft, scoring, FA/waiver system, etc. As I've mentioned before when discussing the idea of a trade value table across positions, it's tough to go much further with the concept of these rankings until we all start playing under the same rules and set-ups. Until then, we may have reached a glass ceiling. I'm open to new ideas, but I question how feasible this one is under our widely varied leagues.
I think EBF had a good point that draft picks are only as valuable the person doing the drafting can make them. Furthermore, I'm definitely on board with EBF's statement that picks under 1.6 are extremely overvalued. I would argue that all but the top two or three picks are overvalued year in and year out. I always believe trading away draft picks is the best opportunity to maximize the talent on your roster. I have much more faith in my ability to judge a player's potential when I see his talent versus other NFL players and how he fits in on his NFL team as opposed to guessing his value based on college production.
QUOTE (2and2is5 @ Jan 10 2008, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE (sparkky @ Jan 10 2008, 04:21 PM)
too many different variables involved (league size, type of draft, scoring, FA/waiver system,etc.) for even a "basic" set of values or guidelines.
IMHO
IMHO
truth, but this whole thread has been based around F&L's league and it's variables, people are adjusting according to those differences, it's a ton of thought/work but it could be of tremendous value...this is my first year in a dynasty league, i have 3 first round picks and i'm having an awful time deciding between trade/keep and if trade for what
either way F&L's rankings have been factored into every one of my trades and it's definitely one of the better dynasty reads on the web
Thanks guys.
I actually go out of my way to make sure I don't use my specific league(s) as a barometer when I do the rankings, but I realize that my roster and my league's scoring subconsciously seep in on many players. In fact, it's probably my own roster that affects the rankings more than my league set-up or scoring system. For awhile now, I've taken the NFL playoff factor almost completely out of the rankings.
Still, I think that proves sparkky's point. As hard as I try to take myself out of my own situation when I do the rankings, our leagues are just so different that most of you have to make adjustments here and there for your own systems. So I guess the question ultimately becomes: how come the rankings do work across different leagues, but draft picks or an all-position trade value table would not?
I think the answer is in simplicity. The rankings simply aren't that complex. The factors involved are mostly NFL related: surrounding talent, coaching, offensive system, depth chart, age, etc., so making an adjustment here and there for your own league's specifics just isn't that complex.
But I think the variables start to pile up on top of each other, adding new gray areas of complexity when you involve draft picks or trade value charts. Something like roster size is a big deal in player values and takes quite a bit of adjustment. But with draft picks, the adjustment from a small-sized league to a monster one might not even be possible. Now throw in all of the other variables, and you're talking about a true clusterfork across different leagues.
Just my
Also, I started the off-season QB landscape at the blog. The AFC is done and up on the front page, so I'll work on the NFC tomorrow.
I appreciate the reply, F&L, and obviously go along with what you say since what I was asking was for YOU to do and would involve more work for yourself.
I will say, though, as others pointed out, that we would all obviously have to adjust if they were incorporated just as we do with players. I also think there has been a reluctance to do something like this for the reasons pointed out and it's possible that some of you are looking too deep into it and thinking it won't work when it may actually be something good.
After reading some of the responses, I think if it were to be done, should only be the top 5-6 picks. After that, it's so hit or miss for lots of the reasons pointed out that there would be no point. But those top picks represent real value, even before we know who is likely to go in those spots.
More than anything, I would welcome the discussion it could bring out than your actual ranking itself. What I envisioned when I originally came up with the idea is seeing you list the 1.1 pick above a guy like Portis or McGahee and would love to hear differeing opinions why the expected #1 pick (i.e. McFadden) should be there or shouldn't. Of course we could simply just start to throw some of these top guys in the rankings, but that doesn't come until later in the year when we know where they are going. At least the top 5 picks have some consistent value year after year and it would be nice to see how others think about it since we really have no reference aside from our own personal experience.
We may all be surprised and see that we value these top 5 picks very similarly and that it is universal across different league settings and scorings or we may find they are all over the board and the discussion that would ensue may explain why.
Ultimately, it's your choice, but possibly, with those top 5 picks, you could just do a little test run and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, take em out and be done with it. That's all I'll say about it after this. Thanks again.
I will say, though, as others pointed out, that we would all obviously have to adjust if they were incorporated just as we do with players. I also think there has been a reluctance to do something like this for the reasons pointed out and it's possible that some of you are looking too deep into it and thinking it won't work when it may actually be something good.
After reading some of the responses, I think if it were to be done, should only be the top 5-6 picks. After that, it's so hit or miss for lots of the reasons pointed out that there would be no point. But those top picks represent real value, even before we know who is likely to go in those spots.
More than anything, I would welcome the discussion it could bring out than your actual ranking itself. What I envisioned when I originally came up with the idea is seeing you list the 1.1 pick above a guy like Portis or McGahee and would love to hear differeing opinions why the expected #1 pick (i.e. McFadden) should be there or shouldn't. Of course we could simply just start to throw some of these top guys in the rankings, but that doesn't come until later in the year when we know where they are going. At least the top 5 picks have some consistent value year after year and it would be nice to see how others think about it since we really have no reference aside from our own personal experience.
We may all be surprised and see that we value these top 5 picks very similarly and that it is universal across different league settings and scorings or we may find they are all over the board and the discussion that would ensue may explain why.
Ultimately, it's your choice, but possibly, with those top 5 picks, you could just do a little test run and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, take em out and be done with it. That's all I'll say about it after this. Thanks again.
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 10 2008, 05:34 PM)
I appreciate the reply, F&L, and obviously go along with what you say since what I was asking was for YOU to do and would involve more work for yourself.
I will say, though, as others pointed out, that we would all obviously have to adjust if they were incorporated just as we do with players. I also think there has been a reluctance to do something like this for the reasons pointed out and it's possible that some of you are looking too deep into it and thinking it won't work when it may actually be something good.
After reading some of the responses, I think if it were to be done, should only be the top 5-6 picks. After that, it's so hit or miss for lots of the reasons pointed out that there would be no point. But those top picks represent real value, even before we know who is likely to go in those spots.
More than anything, I would welcome the discussion it could bring out than your actual ranking itself. What I envisioned when I originally came up with the idea is seeing you list the 1.1 pick above a guy like Portis or McGahee and would love to hear differeing opinions why the expected #1 pick (i.e. McFadden) should be there or shouldn't. Of course we could simply just start to throw some of these top guys in the rankings, but that doesn't come until later in the year when we know where they are going. At least the top 5 picks have some consistent value year after year and it would be nice to see how others think about it since we really have no reference aside from our own personal experience.
We may all be surprised and see that we value these top 5 picks very similarly and that it is universal across different league settings and scorings or we may find they are all over the board and the discussion that would ensue may explain why.
Ultimately, it's your choice, but possibly, with those top 5 picks, you could just do a little test run and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, take em out and be done with it. That's all I'll say about it after this. Thanks again.
I will say, though, as others pointed out, that we would all obviously have to adjust if they were incorporated just as we do with players. I also think there has been a reluctance to do something like this for the reasons pointed out and it's possible that some of you are looking too deep into it and thinking it won't work when it may actually be something good.
After reading some of the responses, I think if it were to be done, should only be the top 5-6 picks. After that, it's so hit or miss for lots of the reasons pointed out that there would be no point. But those top picks represent real value, even before we know who is likely to go in those spots.
More than anything, I would welcome the discussion it could bring out than your actual ranking itself. What I envisioned when I originally came up with the idea is seeing you list the 1.1 pick above a guy like Portis or McGahee and would love to hear differeing opinions why the expected #1 pick (i.e. McFadden) should be there or shouldn't. Of course we could simply just start to throw some of these top guys in the rankings, but that doesn't come until later in the year when we know where they are going. At least the top 5 picks have some consistent value year after year and it would be nice to see how others think about it since we really have no reference aside from our own personal experience.
We may all be surprised and see that we value these top 5 picks very similarly and that it is universal across different league settings and scorings or we may find they are all over the board and the discussion that would ensue may explain why.
Ultimately, it's your choice, but possibly, with those top 5 picks, you could just do a little test run and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, take em out and be done with it. That's all I'll say about it after this. Thanks again.
If what you really want is only the top 5-6 picks or so, then maybe the best idea would to be use actual names instead of 1.1, 1.2, etc. I've been resistant to this idea in the past b/c I think the leagues that have their rookie drafts before the NFL draft are more than just a little silly, but I do think it makes sense to use the actual players [McFadden, Stewart, Ryan, etc.] as opposed to numbers.
I try not to volunteer other people, but if this is something that would help a lot of people out, and if it's something that people are truly clamoring for, then maybe a guy like EBF who does follow college football and knows the prospects a hell of a lot better than I do could work on this.
If EBF says, "here's where McFadden should go, here's where I would put Stewart...," then I don't see why I couldn't just slip them in their rightful value slot on the rankings list. But like I said, I shouldn't speak for EBF on this issue and create extra work for him (though I am aware that I've probably already done that inadvertently with this post).
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Jan 10 2008, 04:45 PM)
If EBF says, "here's where McFadden should go, here's where I would put Stewart...," then I don't see why I couldn't just slip them in their rightful value slot on the rankings list. But like I said, I shouldn't speak for EBF on this issue and create extra work for him (though I am aware that I've probably already done that inadvertently with this post).
It's ok....I already did the same to you
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Jan 10 2008, 05:23 PM)
In fact, it's probably my own roster that affects the rankings more than my league set-up or scoring system.
HAHA, maybe a quick list of your favorite rostered players, just so i don't get too excited when i see a similiar player ranked a little too high...j/k
Interesting discussion and thanks for it. And thanks to all who contribute here. I have been and will keep up with this thread until all my drafts are done.
I think we can all agree that ranking the "talent and skill level" is somewhat a constant but the fantasy draft position, relevant to each of own leagues, and trade values, are the variables. A pick or a player are only worth what you can get.
And even the "constant" is a subjective opinion that only time will prove and disprove.
I think we can all agree that ranking the "talent and skill level" is somewhat a constant but the fantasy draft position, relevant to each of own leagues, and trade values, are the variables. A pick or a player are only worth what you can get.
And even the "constant" is a subjective opinion that only time will prove and disprove.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Jan 10 2008, 05:45 PM)
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 10 2008, 05:34 PM)
I appreciate the reply, F&L, and obviously go along with what you say since what I was asking was for YOU to do and would involve more work for yourself.
I will say, though, as others pointed out, that we would all obviously have to adjust if they were incorporated just as we do with players. I also think there has been a reluctance to do something like this for the reasons pointed out and it's possible that some of you are looking too deep into it and thinking it won't work when it may actually be something good.
After reading some of the responses, I think if it were to be done, should only be the top 5-6 picks. After that, it's so hit or miss for lots of the reasons pointed out that there would be no point. But those top picks represent real value, even before we know who is likely to go in those spots.
More than anything, I would welcome the discussion it could bring out than your actual ranking itself. What I envisioned when I originally came up with the idea is seeing you list the 1.1 pick above a guy like Portis or McGahee and would love to hear differeing opinions why the expected #1 pick (i.e. McFadden) should be there or shouldn't. Of course we could simply just start to throw some of these top guys in the rankings, but that doesn't come until later in the year when we know where they are going. At least the top 5 picks have some consistent value year after year and it would be nice to see how others think about it since we really have no reference aside from our own personal experience.
We may all be surprised and see that we value these top 5 picks very similarly and that it is universal across different league settings and scorings or we may find they are all over the board and the discussion that would ensue may explain why.
Ultimately, it's your choice, but possibly, with those top 5 picks, you could just do a little test run and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, take em out and be done with it. That's all I'll say about it after this. Thanks again.
I will say, though, as others pointed out, that we would all obviously have to adjust if they were incorporated just as we do with players. I also think there has been a reluctance to do something like this for the reasons pointed out and it's possible that some of you are looking too deep into it and thinking it won't work when it may actually be something good.
After reading some of the responses, I think if it were to be done, should only be the top 5-6 picks. After that, it's so hit or miss for lots of the reasons pointed out that there would be no point. But those top picks represent real value, even before we know who is likely to go in those spots.
More than anything, I would welcome the discussion it could bring out than your actual ranking itself. What I envisioned when I originally came up with the idea is seeing you list the 1.1 pick above a guy like Portis or McGahee and would love to hear differeing opinions why the expected #1 pick (i.e. McFadden) should be there or shouldn't. Of course we could simply just start to throw some of these top guys in the rankings, but that doesn't come until later in the year when we know where they are going. At least the top 5 picks have some consistent value year after year and it would be nice to see how others think about it since we really have no reference aside from our own personal experience.
We may all be surprised and see that we value these top 5 picks very similarly and that it is universal across different league settings and scorings or we may find they are all over the board and the discussion that would ensue may explain why.
Ultimately, it's your choice, but possibly, with those top 5 picks, you could just do a little test run and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, take em out and be done with it. That's all I'll say about it after this. Thanks again.
If what you really want is only the top 5-6 picks or so, then maybe the best idea would to be use actual names instead of 1.1, 1.2, etc. I've been resistant to this idea in the past b/c I think the leagues that have their rookie drafts before the NFL draft are more than just a little silly, but I do think it makes sense to use the actual players [McFadden, Stewart, Ryan, etc.] as opposed to numbers.
I try not to volunteer other people, but if this is something that would help a lot of people out, and if it's something that people are truly clamoring for, then maybe a guy like EBF who does follow college football and knows the prospects a hell of a lot better than I do could work on this.
If EBF says, "here's where McFadden should go, here's where I would put Stewart...," then I don't see why I couldn't just slip them in their rightful value slot on the rankings list. But like I said, I shouldn't speak for EBF on this issue and create extra work for him (though I am aware that I've probably already done that inadvertently with this post).
It's really a little bit early to start stacking these guys up against the veterans. Two big data points for me when evaluating a RB prospect are his draft position and his combine performance. We won't know those things for a few months. But if I had to make a rough estimate right now, I'd probably break it down like so:
Group 1
Darren McFadden
Jonathan Stewart
Rashard Mendenhall
These guys are comparable in value to most of the RBs in your second and third tiers (McGahee, Parker, Maroney, etc). You could conceivably get a tier one guy in return for McFadden, but I think McFadden is risky enough to bump down into the second or third tier of veterans. The FF value gap between McFadden and the other two might not be as big as draft hype will lead you to believe. This is especially true if Stewart or Mendenhall lands on a solid offensive team like the Texans or Seahawks.
Group 2
Ray Rice
Felix Jones
These guys are probably comparable in value to the RBs in your late third tier or early fourth tier. I would rather roll the dice on one of these two than on a mediocre veteran like Jacobs or Lewis. At the same time, I might be willing to take someone like DeAngelo Williams or Kevin Jones instead since they're still pretty young and probably have more talent.
The combine will be important for these two backs since there is some doubt about Rice's speed/explosiveness and Felix's size. A good showing could bump these guys up towards the group 1 guys.
Group 3
Kevin Smith
James Davis
Jamaal Charles
Chris Johnson
Here's where things start to get dicey. All of the guys in this group will probably be drafted in rounds 2-3, and yet we don't quite know enough about them to confidently project their NFL potential. Kevin Smith and James Davis seemingly have some featured back potential, but I'll need to see their combine numbers before I decide if they have a realistic chance of starting for an NFL team. Charles and Johnson are speedsters for whom size will be critical.
It's quite possible that I'll eventually become a fan of one or two of these guys and move them up in my rankings. As of right now they're probably comparable in value to guys like Kenny Irons, Justin Fargas, Julius Jones, Chester Taylor, and Jerious Norwood. They should probably be viewed as future back-ups and change of pace guys instead of franchise RBs since that's how most of them will end up.
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 10 2008, 07:22 PM)
It's really a little bit early to start stacking these guys up against the veterans. Two big data points for me when evaluating a RB prospect are his draft position and his combine performance. We won't know those things for a few months. But if I had to make a rough estimate right now, I'd probably break it down like so:
Group 1
Darren McFadden
Jonathan Stewart
Rashard Mendenhall
These guys are comparable in value to most of the RBs in your second and third tiers (McGahee, Parker, Maroney, etc). You could conceivably get a tier one guy in return for McFadden, but I think McFadden is risky enough to bump down into the second or third tier of veterans. The FF value gap between McFadden and the other two might not be as big as draft hype will lead you to believe. This is especially true if Stewart or Mendenhall lands on a solid offensive team like the Texans or Seahawks.
Group 2
Ray Rice
Felix Jones
These guys are probably comparable in value to the RBs in your late third tier or early fourth tier. I would rather roll the dice on one of these two than on a mediocre veteran like Jacobs or Lewis. At the same time, I might be willing to take someone like DeAngelo Williams or Kevin Jones instead since they're still pretty young and probably have more talent.
The combine will be important for these two backs since there is some doubt about Rice's speed/explosiveness and Felix's size. A good showing could bump these guys up towards the group 1 guys.
Group 3
Kevin Smith
James Davis
Jamaal Charles
Chris Johnson
Here's where things start to get dicey. All of the guys in this group will probably be drafted in rounds 2-3, and yet we don't quite know enough about them to confidently project their NFL potential. Kevin Smith and James Davis seemingly have some featured back potential, but I'll need to see their combine numbers before I decide if they have a realistic chance of starting for an NFL team. Charles and Johnson are speedsters for whom size will be critical.
It's quite possible that I'll eventually become a fan of one or two of these guys and move them up in my rankings. As of right now they're probably comparable in value to guys like Kenny Irons, Justin Fargas, Julius Jones, Chester Taylor, and Jerious Norwood. They should probably be viewed as future back-ups and change of pace guys instead of franchise RBs since that's how most of them will end up.
Group 1
Darren McFadden
Jonathan Stewart
Rashard Mendenhall
These guys are comparable in value to most of the RBs in your second and third tiers (McGahee, Parker, Maroney, etc). You could conceivably get a tier one guy in return for McFadden, but I think McFadden is risky enough to bump down into the second or third tier of veterans. The FF value gap between McFadden and the other two might not be as big as draft hype will lead you to believe. This is especially true if Stewart or Mendenhall lands on a solid offensive team like the Texans or Seahawks.
Group 2
Ray Rice
Felix Jones
These guys are probably comparable in value to the RBs in your late third tier or early fourth tier. I would rather roll the dice on one of these two than on a mediocre veteran like Jacobs or Lewis. At the same time, I might be willing to take someone like DeAngelo Williams or Kevin Jones instead since they're still pretty young and probably have more talent.
The combine will be important for these two backs since there is some doubt about Rice's speed/explosiveness and Felix's size. A good showing could bump these guys up towards the group 1 guys.
Group 3
Kevin Smith
James Davis
Jamaal Charles
Chris Johnson
Here's where things start to get dicey. All of the guys in this group will probably be drafted in rounds 2-3, and yet we don't quite know enough about them to confidently project their NFL potential. Kevin Smith and James Davis seemingly have some featured back potential, but I'll need to see their combine numbers before I decide if they have a realistic chance of starting for an NFL team. Charles and Johnson are speedsters for whom size will be critical.
It's quite possible that I'll eventually become a fan of one or two of these guys and move them up in my rankings. As of right now they're probably comparable in value to guys like Kenny Irons, Justin Fargas, Julius Jones, Chester Taylor, and Jerious Norwood. They should probably be viewed as future back-ups and change of pace guys instead of franchise RBs since that's how most of them will end up.
Thanks, EBF. I'll probably try to mix these guys in soon. I agree that it's largely futile until the combine/draft, but I guess if there's a call for it...
I'll likely shoot you a PM when I finally sit down and do this. Thanks again.
We missed the big Selvin Young / Travis Henry news a couple of days ago, but I guess we're all more than a bit jaded about Shanny and the Denver runningback du jour. From the blog:
I think Selvin Young = Jerious Norwood.
QUOTE
Gregg Rosenthal covered the bad news on Selvin Young today:
Selvin Young was one of fantasy football's randomly big stories all year. He was an undrafted rookie with seemlingly limitless potential while he waited in vain for Travis Henry to get suspended. It never happened, but Young did finish among the top-five in the NFL in yards-per-rush, and led Denver runners in rushing and receiving. And now, oddly, his potential is diminishing.
Asked if Young could carry the load next year, Mike Shanahan was definitive:
"No, definitely not. Any time a guy's been hurt as many times as he did, you know that there's no possible way he can carry the ball 20, 25 times a game. The body just won't hold up. He went down too many times this year. But you are looking at a guy that you know has big-play potential.
At best, Young is going to be a high-upside committee member or third-down back. It's a mystery who will start for Denver, because Travis Henry must take a huge pay cut or get released. I bet he gets cut, just like Javon Walker. Look for another drama-filled Denver offseason."
I had been a fan of Selvin Young ever since Shanny's early season proclamation that he is "definitely a starter in this league" after just a couple of NFL games. After all, a tenured head coach's endorsement is as close as it gets to pure gold for dynasty prospects. Young was impressive as a big play back during the season, but I had soured on him just a bit by the end of the year. By Week 17, I saw Young as a Jerious Norwood type of RB who will split carries and always be replaced near the goal-line. Partly out of desperation for a playoff eligible RB and partly because I no longer saw Young as a every down RB, I traded him for Najeh Davenport just over a week ago. Now that it's clear that Young is headed to Norwood territory, he has lost quite a bit of future value.
Selvin Young was one of fantasy football's randomly big stories all year. He was an undrafted rookie with seemlingly limitless potential while he waited in vain for Travis Henry to get suspended. It never happened, but Young did finish among the top-five in the NFL in yards-per-rush, and led Denver runners in rushing and receiving. And now, oddly, his potential is diminishing.
Asked if Young could carry the load next year, Mike Shanahan was definitive:
"No, definitely not. Any time a guy's been hurt as many times as he did, you know that there's no possible way he can carry the ball 20, 25 times a game. The body just won't hold up. He went down too many times this year. But you are looking at a guy that you know has big-play potential.
At best, Young is going to be a high-upside committee member or third-down back. It's a mystery who will start for Denver, because Travis Henry must take a huge pay cut or get released. I bet he gets cut, just like Javon Walker. Look for another drama-filled Denver offseason."
I had been a fan of Selvin Young ever since Shanny's early season proclamation that he is "definitely a starter in this league" after just a couple of NFL games. After all, a tenured head coach's endorsement is as close as it gets to pure gold for dynasty prospects. Young was impressive as a big play back during the season, but I had soured on him just a bit by the end of the year. By Week 17, I saw Young as a Jerious Norwood type of RB who will split carries and always be replaced near the goal-line. Partly out of desperation for a playoff eligible RB and partly because I no longer saw Young as a every down RB, I traded him for Najeh Davenport just over a week ago. Now that it's clear that Young is headed to Norwood territory, he has lost quite a bit of future value.
I think Selvin Young = Jerious Norwood.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Jan 13 2008, 10:51 AM)
We missed the big Selvin Young / Travis Henry news a couple of days ago, but I guess we're all more than a bit jaded about Shanny and the Denver runningback du jour. From the blog:
I think Selvin Young = Jerious Norwood.
QUOTE
Gregg Rosenthal covered the bad news on Selvin Young today:
Selvin Young was one of fantasy football's randomly big stories all year. He was an undrafted rookie with seemlingly limitless potential while he waited in vain for Travis Henry to get suspended. It never happened, but Young did finish among the top-five in the NFL in yards-per-rush, and led Denver runners in rushing and receiving. And now, oddly, his potential is diminishing.
Asked if Young could carry the load next year, Mike Shanahan was definitive:
"No, definitely not. Any time a guy's been hurt as many times as he did, you know that there's no possible way he can carry the ball 20, 25 times a game. The body just won't hold up. He went down too many times this year. But you are looking at a guy that you know has big-play potential.
At best, Young is going to be a high-upside committee member or third-down back. It's a mystery who will start for Denver, because Travis Henry must take a huge pay cut or get released. I bet he gets cut, just like Javon Walker. Look for another drama-filled Denver offseason."
I had been a fan of Selvin Young ever since Shanny's early season proclamation that he is "definitely a starter in this league" after just a couple of NFL games. After all, a tenured head coach's endorsement is as close as it gets to pure gold for dynasty prospects. Young was impressive as a big play back during the season, but I had soured on him just a bit by the end of the year. By Week 17, I saw Young as a Jerious Norwood type of RB who will split carries and always be replaced near the goal-line. Partly out of desperation for a playoff eligible RB and partly because I no longer saw Young as a every down RB, I traded him for Najeh Davenport just over a week ago. Now that it's clear that Young is headed to Norwood territory, he has lost quite a bit of future value.
Selvin Young was one of fantasy football's randomly big stories all year. He was an undrafted rookie with seemlingly limitless potential while he waited in vain for Travis Henry to get suspended. It never happened, but Young did finish among the top-five in the NFL in yards-per-rush, and led Denver runners in rushing and receiving. And now, oddly, his potential is diminishing.
Asked if Young could carry the load next year, Mike Shanahan was definitive:
"No, definitely not. Any time a guy's been hurt as many times as he did, you know that there's no possible way he can carry the ball 20, 25 times a game. The body just won't hold up. He went down too many times this year. But you are looking at a guy that you know has big-play potential.
At best, Young is going to be a high-upside committee member or third-down back. It's a mystery who will start for Denver, because Travis Henry must take a huge pay cut or get released. I bet he gets cut, just like Javon Walker. Look for another drama-filled Denver offseason."
I had been a fan of Selvin Young ever since Shanny's early season proclamation that he is "definitely a starter in this league" after just a couple of NFL games. After all, a tenured head coach's endorsement is as close as it gets to pure gold for dynasty prospects. Young was impressive as a big play back during the season, but I had soured on him just a bit by the end of the year. By Week 17, I saw Young as a Jerious Norwood type of RB who will split carries and always be replaced near the goal-line. Partly out of desperation for a playoff eligible RB and partly because I no longer saw Young as a every down RB, I traded him for Najeh Davenport just over a week ago. Now that it's clear that Young is headed to Norwood territory, he has lost quite a bit of future value.
I think Selvin Young = Jerious Norwood.
Another Tatum Bell type situation? I just hope none of the top rookie RBs in the draft are "wasting" by going to Denver. What was once a machine at churning at FF RBs is now an erratic RBBC approach.
From Rotoworld:
QUOTE
The Chicago Tribune's David Haugh believes the Bears will consider signing Michael Turner in the offseason.
Turner is a Chicago native and went to Northern Illinois. The Bears have roughly $20 million in cap space and want a running back with big play ability. Cleveland, Oakland, and Houston could also have interest in Turner.
Turner is a Chicago native and went to Northern Illinois. The Bears have roughly $20 million in cap space and want a running back with big play ability. Cleveland, Oakland, and Houston could also have interest in Turner.
QUOTE (EBF @ Oct 18 2007, 06:58 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Oct 18 2007, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE (EBF @ Oct 18 2007, 05:39 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Oct 18 2007, 03:18 PM)
QUOTE (jdoggydogg @ Oct 18 2007, 03:39 PM)
That's a valid point. These are brilliant talents, and they are quite close in terms of skill. But how anyone ranks Marvin Harrison above Anquan Boldin in a Dynasty league is beyond me.
People were up in arms over the same issue going into last season as well. How'd that one turn out for Harrison & Boldin owners?
F&L,
I agree with the vast majority of your rankings, but you of all people should know better than to resort to this argument. Boldin is a 26 year old WR who has already put up two 100 catch seasons and three seasons of 1,200+ yards.
Harrison is almost a decade older. Unless he finds the fountain of youth, we're talking about a guy who could hit the wall at any given moment (he's not even on pace for 1,000 yards btw). People have been acting like Isaac Bruce is dead for years. Did you know that Marvin Harrison is actually older than Isaac Bruce? The guy was a great player, but the vultures are circling.
Even if you're not the biggest Boldin fan in the world, it's a HUGE mathematical mistake to rank him behind two similar players who offer a much shorter potential shelf life. Boldin can produce on the Harrison/TO level THIS year and he'll probably be a Pro Bowl caliber player long after they've retired.
I can see ranking Walker, Burress, and Calvin a little higher if you think those guys are better than Boldin. But there's no excuse for putting him behind Marvin and TO at this point. An elite young receiver > an elite old receiver.
It's not "resorting to an argument." It's pointing out that the same argument used against Marvin Harrison last year failed miserably. People who pegged Marvin Harrison as past his prime and preferred Boldin instead suffered for that decision last year. And what was your argument for pumping up Thomas Jones' dynasty value this pre-season? Dynasty leaguers are constantly overvaluing youth while productive veterans get swept aside too easily.
It wasn't just last year that the "Boldin = younger than Harrison, so he's automatically a better dynasty WR" argument failed. People have been using this argument against Marvin Harrison for years now. There was a very well respected owner in one of my leagues who traded Marvin Harrison for the rights to draft Charles Rogers four years ago using the exact same reasoning. What if my window in looking at WRs is two years? If I think Marvin Harrison can significantly outproduce Anquan Boldin for the next two seasons while also expecting more consistency and less injury risk, why would I pass that up just because it's a dynasty league? What if I'm going for the title this year, and I think Marvin gives me the reliability and consistency I need to put me over the top?
While I have the two close in value, I actually do have Boldin a tad higher...and he'll move up a point or two now that he's healthy and presumably productive again. But I can envision situations where it would make sense to prefer Harrison.
I'm not advocating always taking a "past-his-prime veteran" over a rookie with the same prospects. But in this case I can see their values being pretty even when one finished with one of the best seasons of his first ballot Hall of Famer career less than a year ago while I don't quite trust the other to produce consistently or stay a reliable start every single week for the next couple of years.
I advocated Thomas Jones as a good pickup if you were looking at a 2 year window, but I never would've ranked him ahead of similar talents in the prime of their career.
It seems like you're using the same logic FF owners used when they took Faulk, Holmes, and Alexander in the top 3-5 dynasty picks when it was clear that those guys were nearing the end of their playing days. It's easy to say "I'll take the elite production for the next 2 years." In practice it doesn't work so well because old guys often flame out pretty quickly, leaving you with dust when you could've played it safe and secured a top tier youngster who would still be contributing to your team.
A few posts back you referenced not relying too heavily on last year's numbers, yet most of your arguments regarding Boldin vs. Harrison/Owens seem to be relying too heavily on past performance. You mentioned that people were saying the same things about Harrison vs. Boldin last year. So what? Last year was last year. Moreover, just because Harrison had a better 2006 than Boldin doesn't mean that the people pimping Harrison were correct. We're talking dynasty here. One year isn't enough to prove anything.
Take a step back and think about it. Independent of context, would you really rather have a 35 year old player instead of a 26 year old player who has been similarly productive? It just doesn't make any sense. It's not like we're talking about Mark Clayton here. Anquan Boldin is a superstar who has routinely put up monster seasons throughout his career.
I just can't fathom taking Owens or Harrison over Boldin in a dynasty league. It's insanity almost on the level of taking Favre over Palmer.
It's not a big deal really, but I definitely think your rankings are off in this particular case.
It's interesting to revisit this after Marvin's disappointing 2007 season. I think this year was a perfect example of why you have to be very careful with players nearing the end of their careers. I'm betting that a lot of people took Marvin as a top 10-15 dynasty WR last season and I'm betting none of those folks are too pleased with their selection.
Obviously it's impossible to predict exactly when an aging superstar is going to hit the wall, but I think Marvin's swift drop in value shows why you can't place these types too high in your dynasty rankings. Sure, thery're great when they're healthy and productive, but once they show the slightest signs of aging their value sinks like a stone.
The poster boy for this phenomenon next year is going to be Terrell Owens. People are going to take him as a top 10 dynasty WR using the reasoning, "Sure, he's old, but he'll help me win the title this year." It's the same reasoning owners used when they burned early picks on Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, Marshall Faulk, and Marvin Harrison when those guys were clearly approaching the twilight of their careers. I think taking this type of player early in a dynasty draft is a losing strategy when younger stars are still available.
I would be reluctant to take Owens over guys like Boldin, Marshall, Holt, and Burress. I own Santonio Holmes in two of my PPR dynasty leagues. If someone offered me Owens for Holmes, I would pass on the deal. Would Owens help me win a title next year? Maybe. But so will Holmes. And he'll also help me win a title in 2010.
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 13 2008, 04:50 PM)
The poster boy for this phenomenon next year is going to be Terrell Owens. People are going to take him as a top 10 dynasty WR using the reasoning, "Sure, he's old, but he'll help me win the title this year." It's the same reasoning owners used when they burned early picks on Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, Marshall Faulk, and Marvin Harrison when those guys were clearly approaching the twilight of their careers. I think taking this type of player early in a dynasty draft is a losing strategy when younger stars are still available.
I would be reluctant to take Owens over guys like Boldin, Marshall, Holt, and Burress. I own Santonio Holmes in two of my PPR dynasty leagues. If someone offered me Owens for Holmes, I would pass on the deal. Would Owens help me win a title next year? Maybe. But so will Holmes. And he'll also help me win a title in 2010.
I would be reluctant to take Owens over guys like Boldin, Marshall, Holt, and Burress. I own Santonio Holmes in two of my PPR dynasty leagues. If someone offered me Owens for Holmes, I would pass on the deal. Would Owens help me win a title next year? Maybe. But so will Holmes. And he'll also help me win a title in 2010.
I asked someone what he wanted for Gates in my dynasty league. He said a top-12 WR. I asked if he considered Owens a top-12 WR. He said yes, and I was on that like white on rice. Owens is going to be 35 next year, and, historically speaking, 35 is the death rattle for elite WRs. It sure looks right now like Owens is poised to buck the trend... but it's looked like a LOT of WRs were poised to buck the trend, and unless their name was Jerry Rice, they haven't (and even Jerry Rice only got 3 good seasons after 35). The floor really drops out in a hurry, and no one can see it coming.
The big thing to me isn't the loss of real value, it's the loss of trade value. F&L accused me earlier of buying and selling players like stocks, and I still think there's merit to that consideration. I mean, assume that I believe that Moss will outproduce Fitzgerald for the next three years... and then fall off of a cliff. Let's also assume that I believe that Moss's value will remain constant for the next 3 years, too. I would project Fitz to be the better dynasty prospect, but I'd keep Moss anyway, milk the extra production out of him, and then sell him for a Fitzgerald-type after I'd benefitted from the extra scoring for a couple of years. I'm not so much concerned with whether a player's PRODUCTION is going to drop over the next season as I am with whether his VALUE is going to drop over the next season. I'd rather miss out on some stellar production if I get a lot more exit value out of the deal.
F&L made a point a while back about people only saying players were underrated after they'd already gone hot, and saying they were overrated after they'd already gone cold. In the interest of forward-thinking analysis, I figured I'd chime in now on some value going forward. Looking through his rankings, I'll identify 3 players from each position who I believe are underrated, and 3 who I believe are overrated.
QBs:
Underrated-
David Garrard. Finished 12th in PPG among QBs with at least 8 starts, despite being a first year starter on a run-heavy team. I view his situation as one that has a lot more room to improve than to regress (a declining Taylor means more pass attempts, and the WRs have nowhere to go but up). His efficiency stats are absurd, especially given his receiving corps, and it's not a one-year thing, either- Garrard ranked 10th in yards per attempt back in 2006. Unexpectedly enough, Garrard actually ties with Tom Brady for third in the NFL in yards per completion, meaning his label as a "game manager" isn't deserved- he's not just taking the safe underneath stuff here. Outside of the age and the amount of time spent as a backup in the NFL, David Garrard reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger in his first two seasons, at least from a statistical standpoint. Just with a little less gunslinging (meaning slightly lower ypa and significantly lower int%). I'm making a point to pay more attention to him next year, but what I saw this year was all positive. I'd put him over Favre, Bulger, and Hass.
Aaron Rodgers. I never thought I'd find myself on this bandwagon a couple of years ago, but here I am. He's had several years to learn the NFL, which is a massive advantage (see Garrard, David and Schaub, Matt). He's the heir apparent for a franchise with a great supporting cast. Most importantly, and the thing that separates him from JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (two guys who are also heirs apparent who are ranked ahead of Rodgers)... he's already shown something in the NFL. It's pretty much the definition of a small sample size, but the only players with a higher DVOA than Rodgers this year were Tom Brady, David Garrard, and Todd Collins. Yes, as I said, it's a small sample size... but he's still shown something. If I see someone play out of his mind in a small sample size, I'm not going to automatically conclude that he's very good... but I'm even more certainly not going to conclude that he's not very good. And QB25, in my mind, is firmly entrenched in "not very good" territory. Sure, you'll have to sit on him for a couple of years before you start seeing returns, but his cost is only going to rise from this point on, so now is the time to join me on the bandwagon. Especially if you already have a solid vet like Hasselbeck, Bulger, or McNabb manning your QB position.
Daunte Culpepper. I bring this one up from time to time, and I usually catch a lot of flak for it, but hear me out. The guy was arguably the biggest fantasy QB stud in history. He holds the NFL record for yards accounted for in a single season. Yes, he played with Moss, and yes, Moss makes players look better... but lots of other very good QBs have played with mind-blowing WRs and not come close to what Culpepper did. And, oh yeah, by the way... the season where he set the yardage record was also the season where Moss was hurt, ineffective, and didn't crack 1,000 yards. If you piece together all the halves that Culpepper played without Moss and pro-rate the numbers, they're better than his numbers WITH Moss in every statistical category. His leading receiver that season was Nate Burleson, who is perhaps best known for being the only WR in NFL history who had a team sign him to a $49 million contract to be their WR4. 2005 looked brutal, but in reality it was two brutal games to start the season (actually, one and a half brutal games), followed by Culpepper performing at roughly the same level he performed at with Moss on the team for a while, followed by an injury before everyone realized that Culpepper was performing at the same level he was performing at with Moss on the team. This year in Oakland he came in and actually didn't look like crap, which is an amazing accomplishment when you consider that he was in Oakland at the time. Culpepper finished the season with a respectable 1.5% DVOA, which becomes positively glowing when you look at the rest of the Oakland QBs (McCown's DVOA was -41.6% and Russell's was -48.0%). This tells me that Culpepper still has something left in the tank. Where he's ranked right now would make him one of the worst QB3s in the league, but in my opinion, he's one of the best QB3s in the league. Stellar upside, lots of reasons for hope, practically no cost. Don't count on him as a starter, or even as a primary backup, but if I had both of those positions filled nicely, there isn't a single QB I'd rather have than C'Pep.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Marc Bulger. He's a lot like Hasselbeck. He's historically been amazingly consistent. He's played at a higher level than Hasselbeck, but that's been offset by his drastically increased injury risk. I think his receiving corps is declining (although Holt is still the man), but mostly, I'm worried about that offensive line. He was terrible this year. That whole offense was terrible this year. I think he's fast approaching QB2 territory.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
QBs:
Underrated-
David Garrard. Finished 12th in PPG among QBs with at least 8 starts, despite being a first year starter on a run-heavy team. I view his situation as one that has a lot more room to improve than to regress (a declining Taylor means more pass attempts, and the WRs have nowhere to go but up). His efficiency stats are absurd, especially given his receiving corps, and it's not a one-year thing, either- Garrard ranked 10th in yards per attempt back in 2006. Unexpectedly enough, Garrard actually ties with Tom Brady for third in the NFL in yards per completion, meaning his label as a "game manager" isn't deserved- he's not just taking the safe underneath stuff here. Outside of the age and the amount of time spent as a backup in the NFL, David Garrard reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger in his first two seasons, at least from a statistical standpoint. Just with a little less gunslinging (meaning slightly lower ypa and significantly lower int%). I'm making a point to pay more attention to him next year, but what I saw this year was all positive. I'd put him over Favre, Bulger, and Hass.
Aaron Rodgers. I never thought I'd find myself on this bandwagon a couple of years ago, but here I am. He's had several years to learn the NFL, which is a massive advantage (see Garrard, David and Schaub, Matt). He's the heir apparent for a franchise with a great supporting cast. Most importantly, and the thing that separates him from JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (two guys who are also heirs apparent who are ranked ahead of Rodgers)... he's already shown something in the NFL. It's pretty much the definition of a small sample size, but the only players with a higher DVOA than Rodgers this year were Tom Brady, David Garrard, and Todd Collins. Yes, as I said, it's a small sample size... but he's still shown something. If I see someone play out of his mind in a small sample size, I'm not going to automatically conclude that he's very good... but I'm even more certainly not going to conclude that he's not very good. And QB25, in my mind, is firmly entrenched in "not very good" territory. Sure, you'll have to sit on him for a couple of years before you start seeing returns, but his cost is only going to rise from this point on, so now is the time to join me on the bandwagon. Especially if you already have a solid vet like Hasselbeck, Bulger, or McNabb manning your QB position.
Daunte Culpepper. I bring this one up from time to time, and I usually catch a lot of flak for it, but hear me out. The guy was arguably the biggest fantasy QB stud in history. He holds the NFL record for yards accounted for in a single season. Yes, he played with Moss, and yes, Moss makes players look better... but lots of other very good QBs have played with mind-blowing WRs and not come close to what Culpepper did. And, oh yeah, by the way... the season where he set the yardage record was also the season where Moss was hurt, ineffective, and didn't crack 1,000 yards. If you piece together all the halves that Culpepper played without Moss and pro-rate the numbers, they're better than his numbers WITH Moss in every statistical category. His leading receiver that season was Nate Burleson, who is perhaps best known for being the only WR in NFL history who had a team sign him to a $49 million contract to be their WR4. 2005 looked brutal, but in reality it was two brutal games to start the season (actually, one and a half brutal games), followed by Culpepper performing at roughly the same level he performed at with Moss on the team for a while, followed by an injury before everyone realized that Culpepper was performing at the same level he was performing at with Moss on the team. This year in Oakland he came in and actually didn't look like crap, which is an amazing accomplishment when you consider that he was in Oakland at the time. Culpepper finished the season with a respectable 1.5% DVOA, which becomes positively glowing when you look at the rest of the Oakland QBs (McCown's DVOA was -41.6% and Russell's was -48.0%). This tells me that Culpepper still has something left in the tank. Where he's ranked right now would make him one of the worst QB3s in the league, but in my opinion, he's one of the best QB3s in the league. Stellar upside, lots of reasons for hope, practically no cost. Don't count on him as a starter, or even as a primary backup, but if I had both of those positions filled nicely, there isn't a single QB I'd rather have than C'Pep.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Marc Bulger. He's a lot like Hasselbeck. He's historically been amazingly consistent. He's played at a higher level than Hasselbeck, but that's been offset by his drastically increased injury risk. I think his receiving corps is declining (although Holt is still the man), but mostly, I'm worried about that offensive line. He was terrible this year. That whole offense was terrible this year. I think he's fast approaching QB2 territory.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 15 2008, 12:18 AM)
F&L made a point a while back about people only saying players were underrated after they'd already gone hot, and saying they were overrated after they'd already gone cold. In the interest of forward-thinking analysis, I figured I'd chime in now on some value going forward. Looking through his rankings, I'll identify 3 players from each position who I believe are underrated, and 3 who I believe are overrated.
QBs:
Underrated-
David Garrard. Finished 12th in PPG among QBs with at least 8 starts, despite being a first year starter on a run-heavy team. I view his situation as one that has a lot more room to improve than to regress (a declining Taylor means more pass attempts, and the WRs have nowhere to go but up). His efficiency stats are absurd, especially given his receiving corps, and it's not a one-year thing, either- Garrard ranked 10th in yards per attempt back in 2006. Unexpectedly enough, Garrard actually ties with Tom Brady for third in the NFL in yards per completion, meaning his label as a "game manager" isn't deserved- he's not just taking the safe underneath stuff here. Outside of the age and the amount of time spent as a backup in the NFL, David Garrard reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger in his first two seasons, at least from a statistical standpoint. Just with a little less gunslinging (meaning slightly lower ypa and significantly lower int%). I'm making a point to pay more attention to him next year, but what I saw this year was all positive. I'd put him over Favre, Bulger, and Hass.
Aaron Rodgers. I never thought I'd find myself on this bandwagon a couple of years ago, but here I am. He's had several years to learn the NFL, which is a massive advantage (see Garrard, David and Schaub, Matt). He's the heir apparent for a franchise with a great supporting cast. Most importantly, and the thing that separates him from JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (two guys who are also heirs apparent who are ranked ahead of Rodgers)... he's already shown something in the NFL. It's pretty much the definition of a small sample size, but the only players with a higher DVOA than Rodgers this year were Tom Brady, David Garrard, and Todd Collins. Yes, as I said, it's a small sample size... but he's still shown something. If I see someone play out of his mind in a small sample size, I'm not going to automatically conclude that he's very good... but I'm even more certainly not going to conclude that he's not very good. And QB25, in my mind, is firmly entrenched in "not very good" territory. Sure, you'll have to sit on him for a couple of years before you start seeing returns, but his cost is only going to rise from this point on, so now is the time to join me on the bandwagon. Especially if you already have a solid vet like Hasselbeck, Bulger, or McNabb manning your QB position.
Daunte Culpepper. I bring this one up from time to time, and I usually catch a lot of flak for it, but hear me out. The guy was arguably the biggest fantasy QB stud in history. He holds the NFL record for yards accounted for in a single season. Yes, he played with Moss, and yes, Moss makes players look better... but lots of other very good QBs have played with mind-blowing WRs and not come close to what Culpepper did. And, oh yeah, by the way... the season where he set the yardage record was also the season where Moss was hurt, ineffective, and didn't crack 1,000 yards. If you piece together all the halves that Culpepper played without Moss and pro-rate the numbers, they're better than his numbers WITH Moss in every statistical category. His leading receiver that season was Nate Burleson, who is perhaps best known for being the only WR in NFL history who had a team sign him to a $49 million contract to be their WR4. 2005 looked brutal, but in reality it was two brutal games to start the season (actually, one and a half brutal games), followed by Culpepper performing at roughly the same level he performed at with Moss on the team for a while, followed by an injury before everyone realized that Culpepper was performing at the same level he was performing at with Moss on the team. This year in Oakland he came in and actually didn't look like crap, which is an amazing accomplishment when you consider that he was in Oakland at the time. Culpepper finished the season with a respectable 1.5% DVOA, which becomes positively glowing when you look at the rest of the Oakland QBs (McCown's DVOA was -41.6% and Russell's was -48.0%). This tells me that Culpepper still has something left in the tank. Where he's ranked right now would make him one of the worst QB3s in the league, but in my opinion, he's one of the best QB3s in the league. Stellar upside, lots of reasons for hope, practically no cost. Don't count on him as a starter, or even as a primary backup, but if I had both of those positions filled nicely, there isn't a single QB I'd rather have than C'Pep.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Marc Bulger. He's a lot like Hasselbeck. He's historically been amazingly consistent. He's played at a higher level than Hasselbeck, but that's been offset by his drastically increased injury risk. I think his receiving corps is declining (although Holt is still the man), but mostly, I'm worried about that offensive line. He was terrible this year. That whole offense was terrible this year. I think he's fast approaching QB2 territory.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
QBs:
Underrated-
David Garrard. Finished 12th in PPG among QBs with at least 8 starts, despite being a first year starter on a run-heavy team. I view his situation as one that has a lot more room to improve than to regress (a declining Taylor means more pass attempts, and the WRs have nowhere to go but up). His efficiency stats are absurd, especially given his receiving corps, and it's not a one-year thing, either- Garrard ranked 10th in yards per attempt back in 2006. Unexpectedly enough, Garrard actually ties with Tom Brady for third in the NFL in yards per completion, meaning his label as a "game manager" isn't deserved- he's not just taking the safe underneath stuff here. Outside of the age and the amount of time spent as a backup in the NFL, David Garrard reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger in his first two seasons, at least from a statistical standpoint. Just with a little less gunslinging (meaning slightly lower ypa and significantly lower int%). I'm making a point to pay more attention to him next year, but what I saw this year was all positive. I'd put him over Favre, Bulger, and Hass.
Aaron Rodgers. I never thought I'd find myself on this bandwagon a couple of years ago, but here I am. He's had several years to learn the NFL, which is a massive advantage (see Garrard, David and Schaub, Matt). He's the heir apparent for a franchise with a great supporting cast. Most importantly, and the thing that separates him from JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (two guys who are also heirs apparent who are ranked ahead of Rodgers)... he's already shown something in the NFL. It's pretty much the definition of a small sample size, but the only players with a higher DVOA than Rodgers this year were Tom Brady, David Garrard, and Todd Collins. Yes, as I said, it's a small sample size... but he's still shown something. If I see someone play out of his mind in a small sample size, I'm not going to automatically conclude that he's very good... but I'm even more certainly not going to conclude that he's not very good. And QB25, in my mind, is firmly entrenched in "not very good" territory. Sure, you'll have to sit on him for a couple of years before you start seeing returns, but his cost is only going to rise from this point on, so now is the time to join me on the bandwagon. Especially if you already have a solid vet like Hasselbeck, Bulger, or McNabb manning your QB position.
Daunte Culpepper. I bring this one up from time to time, and I usually catch a lot of flak for it, but hear me out. The guy was arguably the biggest fantasy QB stud in history. He holds the NFL record for yards accounted for in a single season. Yes, he played with Moss, and yes, Moss makes players look better... but lots of other very good QBs have played with mind-blowing WRs and not come close to what Culpepper did. And, oh yeah, by the way... the season where he set the yardage record was also the season where Moss was hurt, ineffective, and didn't crack 1,000 yards. If you piece together all the halves that Culpepper played without Moss and pro-rate the numbers, they're better than his numbers WITH Moss in every statistical category. His leading receiver that season was Nate Burleson, who is perhaps best known for being the only WR in NFL history who had a team sign him to a $49 million contract to be their WR4. 2005 looked brutal, but in reality it was two brutal games to start the season (actually, one and a half brutal games), followed by Culpepper performing at roughly the same level he performed at with Moss on the team for a while, followed by an injury before everyone realized that Culpepper was performing at the same level he was performing at with Moss on the team. This year in Oakland he came in and actually didn't look like crap, which is an amazing accomplishment when you consider that he was in Oakland at the time. Culpepper finished the season with a respectable 1.5% DVOA, which becomes positively glowing when you look at the rest of the Oakland QBs (McCown's DVOA was -41.6% and Russell's was -48.0%). This tells me that Culpepper still has something left in the tank. Where he's ranked right now would make him one of the worst QB3s in the league, but in my opinion, he's one of the best QB3s in the league. Stellar upside, lots of reasons for hope, practically no cost. Don't count on him as a starter, or even as a primary backup, but if I had both of those positions filled nicely, there isn't a single QB I'd rather have than C'Pep.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Marc Bulger. He's a lot like Hasselbeck. He's historically been amazingly consistent. He's played at a higher level than Hasselbeck, but that's been offset by his drastically increased injury risk. I think his receiving corps is declining (although Holt is still the man), but mostly, I'm worried about that offensive line. He was terrible this year. That whole offense was terrible this year. I think he's fast approaching QB2 territory.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
Agreed on Garrard and Rodgers. Rodgers is this year's version of last year's Schaub. He comes at a low cost and will eventually be starting in the NFL. And while he hasn't shown quite as much as Schaub had by this point in his career, I think his odds of success are as good as you can hope for from an untested first round QB. I rank him right alongside Trent Edwards and Brady Quinn as a fringe top 20 dynasty QB.
I'm a little torn on Hasselbeck and Bulger. I think they could both slip down the rankings in the coming years, but it's tough to argue against proven veterans. Yea, it's probably true that neither one of these guys will single-handedly elevate your team, but they've been pretty good in recent seasons. I think both guys belong in the 6-12 range. The values are pretty fluid in that range and there doesn't seem to be a great difference between those players.
School's back in, so I'm a little slow to reply on posts that merit a well-thought out response. I'll try to sit down and give the last few posts the attention they deserve as I get some free time tomorrow.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 14 2008, 09:18 PM)
F&L made a point a while back about people only saying players were underrated after they'd already gone hot, and saying they were overrated after they'd already gone cold. In the interest of forward-thinking analysis, I figured I'd chime in now on some value going forward. Looking through his rankings, I'll identify 3 players from each position who I believe are underrated, and 3 who I believe are overrated.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
nice post, of which i agree a lot with, but i disagree with both Hasselbeck and Favre. Favre is gonna give you top 10 QB numbers with upside of top 5 numbers, the only trouble is knowing how long he is gonna go for. So he is a great QB1, but it would be nice to have an above average QB2 for when Favre retires.
Hasselbeck doesnt ever seem to be drafted that high, or have that high of a value considering how consistent hes been. When people draft Hasselbeck, i dont think they are or should be expecting difference-making numbers, and that is why it is possible for him to be picked up later in the draft. If you are one of those people who likes to not pick up a QB until a later round, Hasselbeck seems to be the perfect guy.
QUOTE (awesomeness @ Jan 15 2008, 01:05 AM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 14 2008, 09:18 PM)
F&L made a point a while back about people only saying players were underrated after they'd already gone hot, and saying they were overrated after they'd already gone cold. In the interest of forward-thinking analysis, I figured I'd chime in now on some value going forward. Looking through his rankings, I'll identify 3 players from each position who I believe are underrated, and 3 who I believe are overrated.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
nice post, of which i agree a lot with, but i disagree with both Hasselbeck and Favre. Favre is gonna give you top 10 QB numbers with upside of top 5 numbers, the only trouble is knowing how long he is gonna go for. So he is a great QB1, but it would be nice to have an above average QB2 for when Favre retires.
Hasselbeck doesnt ever seem to be drafted that high, or have that high of a value considering how consistent hes been. When people draft Hasselbeck, i dont think they are or should be expecting difference-making numbers, and that is why it is possible for him to be picked up later in the draft. If you are one of those people who likes to not pick up a QB until a later round, Hasselbeck seems to be the perfect guy.
QB is a position where I feel pretty safe looking more than 2-3 years in advance, and when you go past 2 years, Favre's value starts dropping. If I think I have a serious shot at the superbowl next year, then Favre has value to me... but otherwise, he has literally no value to me whatsoever. In fact, Favre would probably have NEGATIVE value to me, since starting Favre will leave me with a worse rookie draft pick.
Even if I am competing for a superbowl next year, though... it's easy to lose sight of in light of the amazing year that Favre just had on the field, but he finished the season as the EIGHTH ranked fantasy QB. Shocking, but true. He's actually been consistently mediocre from a fantasy standpoint for a long time now. Over the last 4 years, he's passed 535, 613, 607, and 540 times... and doesn't have a single top-5 finish to show for it. In fact, Favre hasn't finished in the top 5 among fantasy QBs since 2001 (when he finished 5th). Before that, you have to go all the way back to 1998. And this is despite the fact that Favre never misses a game (so he can't blame his lower rankings on lost time, and his PPG numbers are *ALWAYS* worse than his season-ending rank would indicate). Over the last 4 years, he's finished 8th, 8th, 13th, and 6th. Yuck.
In other words, we're looking at a 39 year old QB who, despite having two of the top 12 seasons in NFL history in terms of passing attempts in the past 3 years has failed to crack the top 6 during that span. He's a guy who in a best-case scenario has been finishing 8th. And he's 39. And he's almost certainly gone after the next year or two.
In short... extremely old player with a very, very limited usage window mired in a long recent history of fantasy mediocrity. That's not the recipe for a top-12 fantasy QB, IMO. Hell, he should barely be cracking the fantasy top-10 in REDRAFT leagues at this point.
As far as Hasselbeck goes... he might present value in most leagues, but I was specifically commenting on F&L's rankings. In F&L's rankings, Hass is 8th, ahead of Cutler, Bulger, and Garrard. I'd drop him behind those three, leaving him as about the 11th ranked fantasy QB on my board.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 13 2008, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 13 2008, 04:50 PM)
The poster boy for this phenomenon next year is going to be Terrell Owens. People are going to take him as a top 10 dynasty WR using the reasoning, "Sure, he's old, but he'll help me win the title this year." It's the same reasoning owners used when they burned early picks on Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, Marshall Faulk, and Marvin Harrison when those guys were clearly approaching the twilight of their careers. I think taking this type of player early in a dynasty draft is a losing strategy when younger stars are still available.
I would be reluctant to take Owens over guys like Boldin, Marshall, Holt, and Burress. I own Santonio Holmes in two of my PPR dynasty leagues. If someone offered me Owens for Holmes, I would pass on the deal. Would Owens help me win a title next year? Maybe. But so will Holmes. And he'll also help me win a title in 2010.
I would be reluctant to take Owens over guys like Boldin, Marshall, Holt, and Burress. I own Santonio Holmes in two of my PPR dynasty leagues. If someone offered me Owens for Holmes, I would pass on the deal. Would Owens help me win a title next year? Maybe. But so will Holmes. And he'll also help me win a title in 2010.
I asked someone what he wanted for Gates in my dynasty league. He said a top-12 WR. I asked if he considered Owens a top-12 WR. He said yes, and I was on that like white on rice. Owens is going to be 35 next year, and, historically speaking, 35 is the death rattle for elite WRs. It sure looks right now like Owens is poised to buck the trend... but it's looked like a LOT of WRs were poised to buck the trend, and unless their name was Jerry Rice, they haven't (and even Jerry Rice only got 3 good seasons after 35). The floor really drops out in a hurry, and no one can see it coming.
The big thing to me isn't the loss of real value, it's the loss of trade value. F&L accused me earlier of buying and selling players like stocks, and I still think there's merit to that consideration. I mean, assume that I believe that Moss will outproduce Fitzgerald for the next three years... and then fall off of a cliff. Let's also assume that I believe that Moss's value will remain constant for the next 3 years, too. I would project Fitz to be the better dynasty prospect, but I'd keep Moss anyway, milk the extra production out of him, and then sell him for a Fitzgerald-type after I'd benefitted from the extra scoring for a couple of years. I'm not so much concerned with whether a player's PRODUCTION is going to drop over the next season as I am with whether his VALUE is going to drop over the next season. I'd rather miss out on some stellar production if I get a lot more exit value out of the deal.
Excellent points, exactly how i look at it. Loss of trade value is huge for me and is the primary reason i always trade RBs no later than 29 years old regardless of who they are or how good their numbers were the year before. Once they hit 30, their trade value drops through the floor even if they're still performing well. And if they hit a snag, their trade value is non existant. You suddenly have someone, who a year or two before was worth a top young stud, is now worth absolutely nothing.
What is everyone's take on Cutler? I would love to sell high and let someone else with visions of glory hold him for his "potential" but I don't think his stock is high enough right now to justify this so that drops him to a hold for me unless you can find an owner with QB trouble willing to overpay.
QUOTE (The Duff Man @ Jan 15 2008, 11:10 AM)
What is everyone's take on Cutler? I would love to sell high and let someone else with visions of glory hold him for his "potential" but I don't think his stock is high enough right now to justify this so that drops him to a hold for me unless you can find an owner with QB trouble willing to overpay.
I'm obviously biased, but I think Cutler is the best and most talented QB to come into the league since Ben Roethlisberger. He's not in the Palmer/Romo/Roeth tier yet, but he's got a better chance than anyone to step up into it.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 15 2008, 10:39 PM)
QUOTE (The Duff Man @ Jan 15 2008, 11:10 AM)
What is everyone's take on Cutler? I would love to sell high and let someone else with visions of glory hold him for his "potential" but I don't think his stock is high enough right now to justify this so that drops him to a hold for me unless you can find an owner with QB trouble willing to overpay.
I'm obviously biased, but I think Cutler is the best and most talented QB to come into the league since Ben Roethlisberger. He's not in the Palmer/Romo/Roeth tier yet, but he's got a better chance than anyone to step up into it.
Going into his third year he will have an emerging Stud WR, Marshall, as his primary target and a TE with great hands in Scheffler. If Denver solidifies their running game and the #2 WR slot, Cutler could begin to approach Romo type numbers in 08 or 09. I love this guy going forward.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 15 2008, 12:18 AM)
F&L made a point a while back about people only saying players were underrated after they'd already gone hot, and saying they were overrated after they'd already gone cold. In the interest of forward-thinking analysis, I figured I'd chime in now on some value going forward. Looking through his rankings, I'll identify 3 players from each position who I believe are underrated, and 3 who I believe are overrated.
QBs:
Underrated-
David Garrard. Finished 12th in PPG among QBs with at least 8 starts, despite being a first year starter on a run-heavy team. I view his situation as one that has a lot more room to improve than to regress (a declining Taylor means more pass attempts, and the WRs have nowhere to go but up). His efficiency stats are absurd, especially given his receiving corps, and it's not a one-year thing, either- Garrard ranked 10th in yards per attempt back in 2006. Unexpectedly enough, Garrard actually ties with Tom Brady for third in the NFL in yards per completion, meaning his label as a "game manager" isn't deserved- he's not just taking the safe underneath stuff here. Outside of the age and the amount of time spent as a backup in the NFL, David Garrard reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger in his first two seasons, at least from a statistical standpoint. Just with a little less gunslinging (meaning slightly lower ypa and significantly lower int%). I'm making a point to pay more attention to him next year, but what I saw this year was all positive. I'd put him over Favre, Bulger, and Hass.
Aaron Rodgers. I never thought I'd find myself on this bandwagon a couple of years ago, but here I am. He's had several years to learn the NFL, which is a massive advantage (see Garrard, David and Schaub, Matt). He's the heir apparent for a franchise with a great supporting cast. Most importantly, and the thing that separates him from JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (two guys who are also heirs apparent who are ranked ahead of Rodgers)... he's already shown something in the NFL. It's pretty much the definition of a small sample size, but the only players with a higher DVOA than Rodgers this year were Tom Brady, David Garrard, and Todd Collins. Yes, as I said, it's a small sample size... but he's still shown something. If I see someone play out of his mind in a small sample size, I'm not going to automatically conclude that he's very good... but I'm even more certainly not going to conclude that he's not very good. And QB25, in my mind, is firmly entrenched in "not very good" territory. Sure, you'll have to sit on him for a couple of years before you start seeing returns, but his cost is only going to rise from this point on, so now is the time to join me on the bandwagon. Especially if you already have a solid vet like Hasselbeck, Bulger, or McNabb manning your QB position.
Daunte Culpepper. I bring this one up from time to time, and I usually catch a lot of flak for it, but hear me out. The guy was arguably the biggest fantasy QB stud in history. He holds the NFL record for yards accounted for in a single season. Yes, he played with Moss, and yes, Moss makes players look better... but lots of other very good QBs have played with mind-blowing WRs and not come close to what Culpepper did. And, oh yeah, by the way... the season where he set the yardage record was also the season where Moss was hurt, ineffective, and didn't crack 1,000 yards. If you piece together all the halves that Culpepper played without Moss and pro-rate the numbers, they're better than his numbers WITH Moss in every statistical category. His leading receiver that season was Nate Burleson, who is perhaps best known for being the only WR in NFL history who had a team sign him to a $49 million contract to be their WR4. 2005 looked brutal, but in reality it was two brutal games to start the season (actually, one and a half brutal games), followed by Culpepper performing at roughly the same level he performed at with Moss on the team for a while, followed by an injury before everyone realized that Culpepper was performing at the same level he was performing at with Moss on the team. This year in Oakland he came in and actually didn't look like crap, which is an amazing accomplishment when you consider that he was in Oakland at the time. Culpepper finished the season with a respectable 1.5% DVOA, which becomes positively glowing when you look at the rest of the Oakland QBs (McCown's DVOA was -41.6% and Russell's was -48.0%). This tells me that Culpepper still has something left in the tank. Where he's ranked right now would make him one of the worst QB3s in the league, but in my opinion, he's one of the best QB3s in the league. Stellar upside, lots of reasons for hope, practically no cost. Don't count on him as a starter, or even as a primary backup, but if I had both of those positions filled nicely, there isn't a single QB I'd rather have than C'Pep.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Marc Bulger. He's a lot like Hasselbeck. He's historically been amazingly consistent. He's played at a higher level than Hasselbeck, but that's been offset by his drastically increased injury risk. I think his receiving corps is declining (although Holt is still the man), but mostly, I'm worried about that offensive line. He was terrible this year. That whole offense was terrible this year. I think he's fast approaching QB2 territory.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
QBs:
Underrated-
David Garrard. Finished 12th in PPG among QBs with at least 8 starts, despite being a first year starter on a run-heavy team. I view his situation as one that has a lot more room to improve than to regress (a declining Taylor means more pass attempts, and the WRs have nowhere to go but up). His efficiency stats are absurd, especially given his receiving corps, and it's not a one-year thing, either- Garrard ranked 10th in yards per attempt back in 2006. Unexpectedly enough, Garrard actually ties with Tom Brady for third in the NFL in yards per completion, meaning his label as a "game manager" isn't deserved- he's not just taking the safe underneath stuff here. Outside of the age and the amount of time spent as a backup in the NFL, David Garrard reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger in his first two seasons, at least from a statistical standpoint. Just with a little less gunslinging (meaning slightly lower ypa and significantly lower int%). I'm making a point to pay more attention to him next year, but what I saw this year was all positive. I'd put him over Favre, Bulger, and Hass.
Aaron Rodgers. I never thought I'd find myself on this bandwagon a couple of years ago, but here I am. He's had several years to learn the NFL, which is a massive advantage (see Garrard, David and Schaub, Matt). He's the heir apparent for a franchise with a great supporting cast. Most importantly, and the thing that separates him from JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (two guys who are also heirs apparent who are ranked ahead of Rodgers)... he's already shown something in the NFL. It's pretty much the definition of a small sample size, but the only players with a higher DVOA than Rodgers this year were Tom Brady, David Garrard, and Todd Collins. Yes, as I said, it's a small sample size... but he's still shown something. If I see someone play out of his mind in a small sample size, I'm not going to automatically conclude that he's very good... but I'm even more certainly not going to conclude that he's not very good. And QB25, in my mind, is firmly entrenched in "not very good" territory. Sure, you'll have to sit on him for a couple of years before you start seeing returns, but his cost is only going to rise from this point on, so now is the time to join me on the bandwagon. Especially if you already have a solid vet like Hasselbeck, Bulger, or McNabb manning your QB position.
Daunte Culpepper. I bring this one up from time to time, and I usually catch a lot of flak for it, but hear me out. The guy was arguably the biggest fantasy QB stud in history. He holds the NFL record for yards accounted for in a single season. Yes, he played with Moss, and yes, Moss makes players look better... but lots of other very good QBs have played with mind-blowing WRs and not come close to what Culpepper did. And, oh yeah, by the way... the season where he set the yardage record was also the season where Moss was hurt, ineffective, and didn't crack 1,000 yards. If you piece together all the halves that Culpepper played without Moss and pro-rate the numbers, they're better than his numbers WITH Moss in every statistical category. His leading receiver that season was Nate Burleson, who is perhaps best known for being the only WR in NFL history who had a team sign him to a $49 million contract to be their WR4. 2005 looked brutal, but in reality it was two brutal games to start the season (actually, one and a half brutal games), followed by Culpepper performing at roughly the same level he performed at with Moss on the team for a while, followed by an injury before everyone realized that Culpepper was performing at the same level he was performing at with Moss on the team. This year in Oakland he came in and actually didn't look like crap, which is an amazing accomplishment when you consider that he was in Oakland at the time. Culpepper finished the season with a respectable 1.5% DVOA, which becomes positively glowing when you look at the rest of the Oakland QBs (McCown's DVOA was -41.6% and Russell's was -48.0%). This tells me that Culpepper still has something left in the tank. Where he's ranked right now would make him one of the worst QB3s in the league, but in my opinion, he's one of the best QB3s in the league. Stellar upside, lots of reasons for hope, practically no cost. Don't count on him as a starter, or even as a primary backup, but if I had both of those positions filled nicely, there isn't a single QB I'd rather have than C'Pep.
Overrated-
Matt Hasselbeck. The good? 7th, 9th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 13th. Those are his fantasy finishes in his 6 seasons as a starter (pro-rating his numbers to 16 games). That's remarkable consistency. The bad? There wasn't a single difference-making season in there. Not one. In 4 of the 6 seasons, he's been one of the bottom-half fantasy starters. I don't know how much longer Holmgren will still be in town, I think his receiving corps has declined from years past, I think he's not going to be getting much help from his running game going forward, and his offensive line is also on its way down. In my opinion, that's a lot of risk for someone with so little upside. I'd take Cutler, Garrard, Schaub, and Bulger for him. Hass is pretty much the world's perfect QB2 in a dynasty setting, so a QB10-12 ranking seems just about right.
Marc Bulger. He's a lot like Hasselbeck. He's historically been amazingly consistent. He's played at a higher level than Hasselbeck, but that's been offset by his drastically increased injury risk. I think his receiving corps is declining (although Holt is still the man), but mostly, I'm worried about that offensive line. He was terrible this year. That whole offense was terrible this year. I think he's fast approaching QB2 territory.
Brett Favre. I think it's pretty clear right now why we're going to disagree on this one.
I appreciate the forward-thinking nature of your post. Nicely done.
Here are my thoughts on all of these guys:
David Garrard - I've moved him up again since you posted this. It pains me more than you know to admit this, but I couldn't have been more wrong about the JAX QB situation. It wasn't that Leftwich is terrible because he's not. I still believe he would be a significant upgrade for quite a few teams in this league. I just severely underestimated Garrard's ability and football IQ. He's not simply a good quarterback, he's a tremendous team leader and probably one of the smartest players in the league.
We both watch the Jags a lot, but I view his situation a lot differently than you do. You said that you see him as a guy who has a lot more room to improve than regress, and you pointed to a declining Fred Taylor and receiving production that has to go but up. I see him as a guy with impressive efficiency because of the dominance of the running game. You don't want Garrard passing a ton. You want him taking advantage of a strong running game to open up the passing game, which is what he's done this season. I don't think he's the type of QB to carry an offense with his arm, and that is why I think his ceiling is right about where he is now. It's not a bad place to be, but I wonder what will happen to his efficiency if the running game takes even a small step back from dominance.
Aaron Rodgers - We've discussed him quite a bit. Over the past year, he's gone from perceived first round bust and a guy in whom the Packers had little confidence to a guy who looks promising and should be ready to lead a good offense whenever he gets a chance. My ultimate take on Rodgers is the same as it was a couple of months ago: he's in the most unique QB position in fantasy football. His value rests almost entirely upon how large your league is. In leagues with large rosters, his value should be pretty high because they can afford to stash him for the nebulous amount of time it will take before he finally gets a shot. In smaller leagues, stashes are hard to keep in the corner of your roster through injuries, bye weeks, flavor-of-the-month waiver pick-ups, etc.
I saw a comparison to Schaub, which is fine. But do you believe Rodgers will be traded in the next year or so? Or he is fated to wait on the whims of Brett Favre?
Daunte Culpepper - I've moved him up a bit. There's a good chance he sucks for the rest of his career. But there's also a chance that he could take a starting job and make it extremely valuable for fantasy purposes. He's not a guy to ever count on, but he makes for an interesting stash ahead of QBs with much lower ceilings.
Still, I disagree with much of your language. You're severely overlooking how poorly he's quarterbacked the last couple of years and your info about his production with Moss and without Moss is more than misleading. It's just wrong. In fact, it's one of the most bizarre twistings of reality that I've seen attempted around here. I owned both Moss & Culpepper during their best years together in MIN, and I know that Culpepper's production without Moss was a fraction of what it was with him. I'm not sure why you would even attempt to morph that reality into something that's so strangely untrue.
Matt Hasselbeck - I agree with your premise here: not a ton of upside. However, I think we're in an era right now where you have a half-dozen reliable impact QBs (Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Brees, Romo) and then a few guys who are reliable without being seen as tremendous difference-makers (Hasselbeck, Favre and most years Bulger, McNabb). It seems that with the young QBs (Rivers, Eli, VY, Leinart) being so unreliable to the point where you don't want to start them, there aren't too many young guys sitting out there with enough upside to even approach what Hasselbeck already is right now. If you don't have one of the top 6 guys, then you better get somebody who is reliable weekly or you're in a deep competitive hole. That's one of the reasons I've been higher on guys like Favre and Hasselbeck this year than I would any other year. I wouldn't have ranked them that high in every year's QB landscape, but I think this is the state of the quarterbacks at the moment.
I did move Cutler ahead of him since the season is now over, and I've turned the page to next season. I'll have to go back to the drawing board on Garrard vs. Hasselbeck now that the Seahawks' season is done.
Brett Favre - You didn't say much on Favre above, but you did in your subsequent post. I think this is another one where you distorted the numbers quite a bit. He's another QB like Hasselbeck where I feel like you need to have a reliable starter if you don't have one of the Big 6, and Favre is one of the most reliable guys around. You have him as the 8th best QB scorer. In my league he finished 8th overall among all positions and tied for 5th among QBs. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference whether he was 5th or 8th because the 5th thru 8th QBs this season were basically the same QB for fantasy purposes. So the bottom line is that he allowed you stay competitive in almost all of your match-ups throughout the season while giving you an advantage in many of them.
You can point to his production the previous few seasons, but let's not ignore the obvious here. His weapons were basically limited to one, Donald Driver, and he was playing behind a greenhorn, oft-overwhelmed offensive line. The reason he produced so much better this season isn't because he suddenly captured the old magic again. It's because Jennings is healthy and has come on, James Jones has filled the void at WR3, and Donald Lee has become the best pass-catching TE Favre has had since Chmura. All of that behind an offensive line that has greatly improved over the last season and a half.
Favre may not put up a 100 QB rating and 30 TDs next season, but there's no reason to believe he can't stay one of the top 6-8 QBs in fantasy football...and it's possible he could surpass this year's numbers with the same cast back for another go 'round.
If I felt good enough about any of the young guys, I'd move them ahead of Favre. But I still have major questions about everybody that I have ranked below him.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Jan 17 2008, 04:22 PM)
I appreciate the forward-thinking nature of your post. Nicely done.
Here are my thoughts on all of these guys:
David Garrard - I've moved him up again since you posted this. It pains me more than you know to admit this, but I couldn't have been more wrong about the JAX QB situation. It wasn't that Leftwich is terrible because he's not. I still believe he would be a significant upgrade for quite a few teams in this league. I just severely underestimated Garrard's ability and football IQ. He's not simply a good quarterback, he's a tremendous team leader and probably one of the smartest players in the league.
We both watch the Jags a lot, but I view his situation a lot differently than you do. You said that you see him as a guy who has a lot more room to improve than regress, and you pointed to a declining Fred Taylor and receiving production that has to go but up. I see him as a guy with impressive efficiency because of the dominance of the running game. You don't want Garrard passing a ton. You want him taking advantage of a strong running game to open up the passing game, which is what he's done this season. I don't think he's the type of QB to carry an offense with his arm, and that is why I think his ceiling is right about where he is now. It's not a bad place to be, but I wonder what will happen to his efficiency if the running game takes even a small step back from dominance.
Aaron Rodgers - We've discussed him quite a bit. Over the past year, he's gone from perceived first round bust and a guy in whom the Packers had little confidence to a guy who looks promising and should be ready to lead a good offense whenever he gets a chance. My ultimate take on Rodgers is the same as it was a couple of months ago: he's in the most unique QB position in fantasy football. His value rests almost entirely upon how large your league is. In leagues with large rosters, his value should be pretty high because they can afford to stash him for the nebulous amount of time it will take before he finally gets a shot. In smaller leagues, stashes are hard to keep in the corner of your roster through injuries, bye weeks, flavor-of-the-month waiver pick-ups, etc.
I saw a comparison to Schaub, which is fine. But do you believe Rodgers will be traded in the next year or so? Or he is fated to wait on the whims of Brett Favre?
Daunte Culpepper - I've moved him up a bit. There's a good chance he sucks for the rest of his career. But there's also a chance that he could take a starting job and make it extremely valuable for fantasy purposes. He's not a guy to ever count on, but he makes for an interesting stash ahead of QBs with much lower ceilings.
Still, I disagree with much of your language. You're severely overlooking how poorly he's quarterbacked the last couple of years and your info about his production with Moss and without Moss is more than misleading. It's just wrong. In fact, it's one of the most bizarre twistings of reality that I've seen attempted around here. I owned both Moss & Culpepper during their best years together in MIN, and I know that Culpepper's production without Moss was a fraction of what it was with him. I'm not sure why you would even attempt to morph that reality into something that's so strangely untrue.
Matt Hasselbeck - I agree with your premise here: not a ton of upside. However, I think we're in an era right now where you have a half-dozen reliable impact QBs (Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Brees, Romo) and then a few guys who are reliable without being seen as tremendous difference-makers (Hasselbeck, Favre and most years Bulger, McNabb). It seems that with the young QBs (Rivers, Eli, VY, Leinart) being so unreliable to the point where you don't want to start them, there aren't too many young guys sitting out there with enough upside to even approach what Hasselbeck already is right now. If you don't have one of the top 6 guys, then you better get somebody who is reliable weekly or you're in a deep competitive hole. That's one of the reasons I've been higher on guys like Favre and Hasselbeck this year than I would any other year. I wouldn't have ranked them that high in every year's QB landscape, but I think this is the state of the quarterbacks at the moment.
I did move Cutler ahead of him since the season is now over, and I've turned the page to next season. I'll have to go back to the drawing board on Garrard vs. Hasselbeck now that the Seahawks' season is done.
Brett Favre - You didn't say much on Favre above, but you did in your subsequent post. I think this is another one where you distorted the numbers quite a bit. He's another QB like Hasselbeck where I feel like you need to have a reliable starter if you don't have one of the Big 6, and Favre is one of the most reliable guys around. You have him as the 8th best QB scorer. In my league he finished 8th overall among all positions and tied for 5th among QBs. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference whether he was 5th or 8th because the 5th thru 8th QBs this season were basically the same QB for fantasy purposes. So the bottom line is that he allowed you stay competitive in almost all of your match-ups throughout the season while giving you an advantage in many of them.
You can point to his production the previous few seasons, but let's not ignore the obvious here. His weapons were basically limited to one, Donald Driver, and he was playing behind a greenhorn, oft-overwhelmed offensive line. The reason he produced so much better this season isn't because he suddenly captured the old magic again. It's because Jennings is healthy and has come on, James Jones has filled the void at WR3, and Donald Lee has become the best pass-catching TE Favre has had since Chmura. All of that behind an offensive line that has greatly improved over the last season and a half.
Favre may not put up a 100 QB rating and 30 TDs next season, but there's no reason to believe he can't stay one of the top 6-8 QBs in fantasy football...and it's possible he could surpass this year's numbers with the same cast back for another go 'round.
If I felt good enough about any of the young guys, I'd move them ahead of Favre. But I still have major questions about everybody that I have ranked below him.
Here are my thoughts on all of these guys:
David Garrard - I've moved him up again since you posted this. It pains me more than you know to admit this, but I couldn't have been more wrong about the JAX QB situation. It wasn't that Leftwich is terrible because he's not. I still believe he would be a significant upgrade for quite a few teams in this league. I just severely underestimated Garrard's ability and football IQ. He's not simply a good quarterback, he's a tremendous team leader and probably one of the smartest players in the league.
We both watch the Jags a lot, but I view his situation a lot differently than you do. You said that you see him as a guy who has a lot more room to improve than regress, and you pointed to a declining Fred Taylor and receiving production that has to go but up. I see him as a guy with impressive efficiency because of the dominance of the running game. You don't want Garrard passing a ton. You want him taking advantage of a strong running game to open up the passing game, which is what he's done this season. I don't think he's the type of QB to carry an offense with his arm, and that is why I think his ceiling is right about where he is now. It's not a bad place to be, but I wonder what will happen to his efficiency if the running game takes even a small step back from dominance.
Aaron Rodgers - We've discussed him quite a bit. Over the past year, he's gone from perceived first round bust and a guy in whom the Packers had little confidence to a guy who looks promising and should be ready to lead a good offense whenever he gets a chance. My ultimate take on Rodgers is the same as it was a couple of months ago: he's in the most unique QB position in fantasy football. His value rests almost entirely upon how large your league is. In leagues with large rosters, his value should be pretty high because they can afford to stash him for the nebulous amount of time it will take before he finally gets a shot. In smaller leagues, stashes are hard to keep in the corner of your roster through injuries, bye weeks, flavor-of-the-month waiver pick-ups, etc.
I saw a comparison to Schaub, which is fine. But do you believe Rodgers will be traded in the next year or so? Or he is fated to wait on the whims of Brett Favre?
Daunte Culpepper - I've moved him up a bit. There's a good chance he sucks for the rest of his career. But there's also a chance that he could take a starting job and make it extremely valuable for fantasy purposes. He's not a guy to ever count on, but he makes for an interesting stash ahead of QBs with much lower ceilings.
Still, I disagree with much of your language. You're severely overlooking how poorly he's quarterbacked the last couple of years and your info about his production with Moss and without Moss is more than misleading. It's just wrong. In fact, it's one of the most bizarre twistings of reality that I've seen attempted around here. I owned both Moss & Culpepper during their best years together in MIN, and I know that Culpepper's production without Moss was a fraction of what it was with him. I'm not sure why you would even attempt to morph that reality into something that's so strangely untrue.
Matt Hasselbeck - I agree with your premise here: not a ton of upside. However, I think we're in an era right now where you have a half-dozen reliable impact QBs (Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Brees, Romo) and then a few guys who are reliable without being seen as tremendous difference-makers (Hasselbeck, Favre and most years Bulger, McNabb). It seems that with the young QBs (Rivers, Eli, VY, Leinart) being so unreliable to the point where you don't want to start them, there aren't too many young guys sitting out there with enough upside to even approach what Hasselbeck already is right now. If you don't have one of the top 6 guys, then you better get somebody who is reliable weekly or you're in a deep competitive hole. That's one of the reasons I've been higher on guys like Favre and Hasselbeck this year than I would any other year. I wouldn't have ranked them that high in every year's QB landscape, but I think this is the state of the quarterbacks at the moment.
I did move Cutler ahead of him since the season is now over, and I've turned the page to next season. I'll have to go back to the drawing board on Garrard vs. Hasselbeck now that the Seahawks' season is done.
Brett Favre - You didn't say much on Favre above, but you did in your subsequent post. I think this is another one where you distorted the numbers quite a bit. He's another QB like Hasselbeck where I feel like you need to have a reliable starter if you don't have one of the Big 6, and Favre is one of the most reliable guys around. You have him as the 8th best QB scorer. In my league he finished 8th overall among all positions and tied for 5th among QBs. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference whether he was 5th or 8th because the 5th thru 8th QBs this season were basically the same QB for fantasy purposes. So the bottom line is that he allowed you stay competitive in almost all of your match-ups throughout the season while giving you an advantage in many of them.
You can point to his production the previous few seasons, but let's not ignore the obvious here. His weapons were basically limited to one, Donald Driver, and he was playing behind a greenhorn, oft-overwhelmed offensive line. The reason he produced so much better this season isn't because he suddenly captured the old magic again. It's because Jennings is healthy and has come on, James Jones has filled the void at WR3, and Donald Lee has become the best pass-catching TE Favre has had since Chmura. All of that behind an offensive line that has greatly improved over the last season and a half.
Favre may not put up a 100 QB rating and 30 TDs next season, but there's no reason to believe he can't stay one of the top 6-8 QBs in fantasy football...and it's possible he could surpass this year's numbers with the same cast back for another go 'round.
If I felt good enough about any of the young guys, I'd move them ahead of Favre. But I still have major questions about everybody that I have ranked below him.
Rebuttal time. Not trying to tell you you're wrong, just wanted to address a few salient points.
You mentioned that Garrard's efficiency was good because of his running game, and you'd want his attempts to stay down. I argue that the same thing was said about Roethlisberger. Efficiency is partly dependent on situation, but a lot of it is an actual skill. More pass attempts is almost always a good thing. Maybe the difference between 550 and 600 does more harm than good, but when you only have about 400, more is good, even if the only way to get more is to have a worse running game. And it's not like the running game would be that much worse, since MJD would still be around- it just wouldn't be able to take on the sheer bulk of carries it can do now.
I don't believe that Rodgers will be traded within the next year or two. I don't think he'll have to. I don't think Favre will stick around for as long as you do.
On Culpepper... I don't think I'm overlooking how poorly he's played the past couple of years. I don't think he's played that poorly the past couple of years. This year, he was mediocre, which is pretty good for an Oakland QB. Last year, he was terrible, but he was also rushing back too early from an injury. The year before that, he was terrible in his first two games, and the same old Daunte Culpepper after that. Also, my facts aren't wrong, I just didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean his CAREER stats without Moss are better than his stats with, I meant that in 2004 his stats without Moss were better than his stats with. I did a big breakdown on it before this season, I'll pull it up and link to it if you want to see the actual numbers backing it up.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 17 2008, 10:07 PM)
Rebuttal time. Not trying to tell you you're wrong, just wanted to address a few salient points.
You mentioned that Garrard's efficiency was good because of his running game, and you'd want his attempts to stay down. I argue that the same thing was said about Roethlisberger. Efficiency is partly dependent on situation, but a lot of it is an actual skill. More pass attempts is almost always a good thing. Maybe the difference between 550 and 600 does more harm than good, but when you only have about 400, more is good, even if the only way to get more is to have a worse running game. And it's not like the running game would be that much worse, since MJD would still be around- it just wouldn't be able to take on the sheer bulk of carries it can do now.
I don't believe that Rodgers will be traded within the next year or two. I don't think he'll have to. I don't think Favre will stick around for as long as you do.
On Culpepper... I don't think I'm overlooking how poorly he's played the past couple of years. I don't think he's played that poorly the past couple of years. This year, he was mediocre, which is pretty good for an Oakland QB. Last year, he was terrible, but he was also rushing back too early from an injury. The year before that, he was terrible in his first two games, and the same old Daunte Culpepper after that. Also, my facts aren't wrong, I just didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean his CAREER stats without Moss are better than his stats with, I meant that in 2004 his stats without Moss were better than his stats with. I did a big breakdown on it before this season, I'll pull it up and link to it if you want to see the actual numbers backing it up.
You mentioned that Garrard's efficiency was good because of his running game, and you'd want his attempts to stay down. I argue that the same thing was said about Roethlisberger. Efficiency is partly dependent on situation, but a lot of it is an actual skill. More pass attempts is almost always a good thing. Maybe the difference between 550 and 600 does more harm than good, but when you only have about 400, more is good, even if the only way to get more is to have a worse running game. And it's not like the running game would be that much worse, since MJD would still be around- it just wouldn't be able to take on the sheer bulk of carries it can do now.
I don't believe that Rodgers will be traded within the next year or two. I don't think he'll have to. I don't think Favre will stick around for as long as you do.
On Culpepper... I don't think I'm overlooking how poorly he's played the past couple of years. I don't think he's played that poorly the past couple of years. This year, he was mediocre, which is pretty good for an Oakland QB. Last year, he was terrible, but he was also rushing back too early from an injury. The year before that, he was terrible in his first two games, and the same old Daunte Culpepper after that. Also, my facts aren't wrong, I just didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean his CAREER stats without Moss are better than his stats with, I meant that in 2004 his stats without Moss were better than his stats with. I did a big breakdown on it before this season, I'll pull it up and link to it if you want to see the actual numbers backing it up.
Thanks for replying.
I agree with you that the same argument was used against Roethlisberger. I fought against that argument because it was obvious to me that Roethlisberger was a HOF caliber talent at QB. Garrard is not. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference. It's subjective, I know, but that's how I see it when I watch them play. Roethlisberger is a much more dynamic passer. I've grown to like David Garrard a whole lot as a QB, but I think he passed better in 2007 than he ever will again.
Re: Culpepper's 2004 season. QB Scoring has gone up in my main dynasty league, but here's how Culpepper graded out "With Moss" vs. "Without Moss" in my league in 2004:
Moss missed Weeks 7-11 that year. So Culpepper's total points by week those five weeks: 3, 2, 6, 17, & 7. Total points by week with Moss in Weeks 1-6, then 12-17: 16, 7, 17, 22, 21, 8, 7, 5, 15, 11, & 9.
With Moss: 12.55 points per game
Without Moss: 7.0 points per game
In a league slanted to basic scoring like mine was, that's a major difference. He was MUCH more productive with Moss to the point of being a completely different QB. I realize my league's scoring was not the norm, so let me try to work this out with a normalized scoring system (4 pts per passing TD, 6 pts per rushing TD, 1 pt for every 25 yards passing, 1 pt per every 10 yards rushing, -1 per interception):
With Moss: 31, 20, 29, 38, 36, 19, 21, 17, 29, 25, 21 = 26 points per game
Without Moss: 11, 14, 12, 31, 19 = 17.4 points per game
As usual, Culpepper without Moss wasn't pretty. He was the most dominant fantasy player in the league with Moss and likely a disadvantage without him. I guess I'd like to see your link because what you're saying couldn't be further from the truth.
Just thinking out loud here...
Does anyone else feel that RBs like Ryan Grant, Kenny Watson, FWP, Earnest Graham, Fargas, etc. Help the value of "older" RBs like LT, Portis, Westbrook, Edge, and Jamal Lewis?
The reason I'd argue they do is we all like to look ahead in dynasty leagues, to ensure we always have legitimate starters at the key positions. Young RBs with potential but aren't top 10 yet - Lynch, White, Maroney, etc. derive at least some of their value from this concept. It wouldn't be outlandish to think someone would trade Westbrook for Lynch with the idea that they'll take a hit on points for the next year or two, but they'll have Lynch longer.
OTOH, if you have the ability to scope the waivers, take fliers on UDFAs, and get one or two right each year, you'll be much better off having BW now and a guy like Grant later. of course, this assumes you can work the waivers better than others.
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
Does anyone else feel that RBs like Ryan Grant, Kenny Watson, FWP, Earnest Graham, Fargas, etc. Help the value of "older" RBs like LT, Portis, Westbrook, Edge, and Jamal Lewis?
The reason I'd argue they do is we all like to look ahead in dynasty leagues, to ensure we always have legitimate starters at the key positions. Young RBs with potential but aren't top 10 yet - Lynch, White, Maroney, etc. derive at least some of their value from this concept. It wouldn't be outlandish to think someone would trade Westbrook for Lynch with the idea that they'll take a hit on points for the next year or two, but they'll have Lynch longer.
OTOH, if you have the ability to scope the waivers, take fliers on UDFAs, and get one or two right each year, you'll be much better off having BW now and a guy like Grant later. of course, this assumes you can work the waivers better than others.
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Jan 20 2008, 02:54 AM)
Thanks for replying.
I agree with you that the same argument was used against Roethlisberger. I fought against that argument because it was obvious to me that Roethlisberger was a HOF caliber talent at QB. Garrard is not. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference. It's subjective, I know, but that's how I see it when I watch them play. Roethlisberger is a much more dynamic passer. I've grown to like David Garrard a whole lot as a QB, but I think he passed better in 2007 than he ever will again.
I agree with you that the same argument was used against Roethlisberger. I fought against that argument because it was obvious to me that Roethlisberger was a HOF caliber talent at QB. Garrard is not. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference. It's subjective, I know, but that's how I see it when I watch them play. Roethlisberger is a much more dynamic passer. I've grown to like David Garrard a whole lot as a QB, but I think he passed better in 2007 than he ever will again.
I totally agree that Garrard isn't the talent that Roethlisberger is. I still think that more attempts are better, and I think with even minor upgrades to the WR corps we could see Garrard pass just as well as he did this year. Get him a TO or a Moss and watch his numbers fly through the roof.
QUOTE
Re: Culpepper's 2004 season. QB Scoring has gone up in my main dynasty league, but here's how Culpepper graded out "With Moss" vs. "Without Moss" in my league in 2004:
Moss missed Weeks 7-11 that year. So Culpepper's total points by week those five weeks: 3, 2, 6, 17, & 7. Total points by week with Moss in Weeks 1-6, then 12-17: 16, 7, 17, 22, 21, 8, 7, 5, 15, 11, & 9.
With Moss: 12.55 points per game
Without Moss: 7.0 points per game
In a league slanted to basic scoring like mine was, that's a major difference. He was MUCH more productive with Moss to the point of being a completely different QB. I realize my league's scoring was not the norm, so let me try to work this out with a normalized scoring system (4 pts per passing TD, 6 pts per rushing TD, 1 pt for every 25 yards passing, 1 pt per every 10 yards rushing, -1 per interception):
With Moss: 31, 20, 29, 38, 36, 19, 21, 17, 29, 25, 21 = 26 points per game
Without Moss: 11, 14, 12, 31, 19 = 17.4 points per game
As usual, Culpepper without Moss wasn't pretty. He was the most dominant fantasy player in the league with Moss and likely a disadvantage without him. I guess I'd like to see your link because what you're saying couldn't be further from the truth.
Moss missed Weeks 7-11 that year. So Culpepper's total points by week those five weeks: 3, 2, 6, 17, & 7. Total points by week with Moss in Weeks 1-6, then 12-17: 16, 7, 17, 22, 21, 8, 7, 5, 15, 11, & 9.
With Moss: 12.55 points per game
Without Moss: 7.0 points per game
In a league slanted to basic scoring like mine was, that's a major difference. He was MUCH more productive with Moss to the point of being a completely different QB. I realize my league's scoring was not the norm, so let me try to work this out with a normalized scoring system (4 pts per passing TD, 6 pts per rushing TD, 1 pt for every 25 yards passing, 1 pt per every 10 yards rushing, -1 per interception):
With Moss: 31, 20, 29, 38, 36, 19, 21, 17, 29, 25, 21 = 26 points per game
Without Moss: 11, 14, 12, 31, 19 = 17.4 points per game
As usual, Culpepper without Moss wasn't pretty. He was the most dominant fantasy player in the league with Moss and likely a disadvantage without him. I guess I'd like to see your link because what you're saying couldn't be further from the truth.
I did a much finer breakdown than that, because I thought it was silly to credit games where Moss suited up, took the field for a handful of snaps, and then went into the locker rooms as games where Culpepper played with Moss.
Here is a thread where I discuss Culpepper extensively before the season. Obviously I was really high on him, and I'm not any lower on him after the year he had (because all of the positives are still true and he looked much better coming back from the knee injury). Here are some relevant quotes:
QUOTE
Daunte Culpepper was the #1 fantasy QB in 4 of his first 5 seasons as a starter (and if you prorate his numbers in the fifth season, he would have finished #2, behind only Kurt Warner in his 4800, 36 TD season). That is insane. You can credit it all to Randy Moss, but consider what happened in 2004- Moss got injured and was only targeted 86 times all season... and Daunte Culpepper still completed 69.2% of his passes at 8.6 yards per attempt for 36 TDs and 11 INTs (one of the greatest QB seasons in NFL history). He was literally 5 completed passes away from becoming the first QB *IN NFL HISTORY* to attempt 500 passes and complete 70%. If you think that's all the result of a gimpy, ineffective WR (who, by the way, wasn't even the greatest WR in NFL history), then you're wrong. Daunte Culpepper was CRAZY talented. You now claim that all of that talent is magically gone, so I ask again... where did it go?
QUOTE
Culpepper played on teams with superior talent? In 2004, he had one offensive teammate make the pro bowl with him- Matt Birk. Furthermore, according to Pro-Football-Reference, he only had two other offensive teammates on the entire team who have made the pro bowl even once in their entire career- Randy Moss (who was injured), and Michael Bennett (who was injured, and a 3rd stringer, to boot). No other offensive player on the entire 2004 Minnesota Vikings roster had ever before made a pro bowl, and none has made one since. Hardly the sign of great teammates, if you ask me. His running game accounted for 1417 yards rushing once you discount his own scrambling yards- that would have been good for 30th in the league- and not one of his RBs lasted the whole season. His "top notch receivers" were a seriously injured Randy Moss (finished the season with less than 800 yards receiving) and Nate Burleson, who was Seattle's #4 WR last season. Despite all of this, Culpepper set an NFL RECORD for combined passing/rushing yardage, came 5 completions away from becoming the first person to attempt 500 passes and complete 70% in NFL history, had the 5th most single-season passing TDs in NFL history, posted a 3.5:1 TD:INT ratio, and basically just had one of the top 5 QB seasons in the history of the national football league.
Many QBs have played with better WRs than Culpepper, behind better o-lines than Culpepper, for better teams than Culpepper, and have never come anywhere NEAR those numbers. Peyton Manning was playing behind one of the best O-lines in the league, with the best WR tandem in the league, on one of the best teams in the league, and Culpepper still outscored him that year. That season wasn't an example of the "stars aligning" (unless you think one of the stars that had to align was Moss getting seriously injured and losing effectiveness, and another star that had to align was all four of C'Pep's RBs getting injured, and another star that had to align was for Minny to surround him with sucky players all over the rest of the offense). That season was an example of a supremely talented player dominating the league in a way that happens once or twice a decade. Crediting that all to Randy Moss is just silly. Randy Moss hasn't done ANYTHING since he left Culpepper. Heck, he barely did anything in 2004 when he had Culpepper. Moss was targeted 87 times that season. Randy Moss was not the reason for Daunte Culpepper's 2004.
Many QBs have played with better WRs than Culpepper, behind better o-lines than Culpepper, for better teams than Culpepper, and have never come anywhere NEAR those numbers. Peyton Manning was playing behind one of the best O-lines in the league, with the best WR tandem in the league, on one of the best teams in the league, and Culpepper still outscored him that year. That season wasn't an example of the "stars aligning" (unless you think one of the stars that had to align was Moss getting seriously injured and losing effectiveness, and another star that had to align was all four of C'Pep's RBs getting injured, and another star that had to align was for Minny to surround him with sucky players all over the rest of the offense). That season was an example of a supremely talented player dominating the league in a way that happens once or twice a decade. Crediting that all to Randy Moss is just silly. Randy Moss hasn't done ANYTHING since he left Culpepper. Heck, he barely did anything in 2004 when he had Culpepper. Moss was targeted 87 times that season. Randy Moss was not the reason for Daunte Culpepper's 2004.
QUOTE
Pro-rate the numbers Culpepper put up without Moss. That's still 3772 yards passing, 29 TDs, and 375 yards rushing. That is still a studly fantasy season. In other words, Daunte Culpepper, throwing to Nate Burleson (Seattle's #4 WR) and Marcus Robinson (Minnesota's current... what, #5 WR?), with no running game worth mentioning, was still on pace to put up the equivalent of a 4500 yard, 30 TD season (remember 1 rushing yard = 2 passing yards). Think about that for a second. If I take Culpepper as the 37th QB off the board, you know that I am going to pray every night that he shows as little talent as he showed in Minnesota without Randy Moss. I mean, Burleson/Robinson are PUTRID, and that running game was so mind-blowing wretched that Culpepper was the team's leading rusher in 2 of the 5 games (MeMo put up 138 in one game, Onterrio Smith put up 80 in another, and outside of those two games, no Minnesota RB got more than 30 yards in a game). I mean, seriously... YIKES. That offensive talent was just plain awful, and yet if you pro-rate the numbers C'Pep put up in those 5 games without Moss, he would have scored about 350 points, which would have been good enough to make him QB#2 last year, QB#1 in 2005, QB#2 in 2004, QB#1 in 2003, or QB#3 in 2002 (right behind Daunte Culpepper).
Here is another thread where I discuss Culpepper in detail, including the following quote which includes Culpepper's numbers from the second half of the game where Randy Moss got injured in the first half (and therefore never saw the field in the second)
QUOTE
The point remains that with absolutely no surrounding talent whatsoever, without his HoF WR, C'Pep was on pace for a phenominal season (credit him with the 250/3 he threw in the half that Moss missed and he was on pace for 4145/35/8, and THAT'S IGNORING HIS RUSHING NUMBERS, which would probably be another 300-400 yards).
I can't find the thread where I did the whole convoluted half-by-half breakdown with Moss and without Moss, because I spent a lot of time talking about Culpepper before the season. I'll keep looking for it.
QUOTE (FUBAR @ Jan 20 2008, 07:47 AM)
Just thinking out loud here...
Does anyone else feel that RBs like Ryan Grant, Kenny Watson, FWP, Earnest Graham, Fargas, etc. Help the value of "older" RBs like LT, Portis, Westbrook, Edge, and Jamal Lewis?
The reason I'd argue they do is we all like to look ahead in dynasty leagues, to ensure we always have legitimate starters at the key positions. Young RBs with potential but aren't top 10 yet - Lynch, White, Maroney, etc. derive at least some of their value from this concept. It wouldn't be outlandish to think someone would trade Westbrook for Lynch with the idea that they'll take a hit on points for the next year or two, but they'll have Lynch longer.
OTOH, if you have the ability to scope the waivers, take fliers on UDFAs, and get one or two right each year, you'll be much better off having BW now and a guy like Grant later. of course, this assumes you can work the waivers better than others.
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
Does anyone else feel that RBs like Ryan Grant, Kenny Watson, FWP, Earnest Graham, Fargas, etc. Help the value of "older" RBs like LT, Portis, Westbrook, Edge, and Jamal Lewis?
The reason I'd argue they do is we all like to look ahead in dynasty leagues, to ensure we always have legitimate starters at the key positions. Young RBs with potential but aren't top 10 yet - Lynch, White, Maroney, etc. derive at least some of their value from this concept. It wouldn't be outlandish to think someone would trade Westbrook for Lynch with the idea that they'll take a hit on points for the next year or two, but they'll have Lynch longer.
OTOH, if you have the ability to scope the waivers, take fliers on UDFAs, and get one or two right each year, you'll be much better off having BW now and a guy like Grant later. of course, this assumes you can work the waivers better than others.
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
This is what i tried to do last year. My only warning to you, is to be careful on which old geezers you get.
Marvin Harrison, Kitna, and older IDP players caused my downfall.
QUOTE (FUBAR @ Jan 20 2008, 10:47 AM)
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
Why not stay young, be competitive for years, dominate now, and work the waivers all the same time?
I like the idea of secure assets in a dynasty league. And while it's true that there's no such thing as a sure thing, I'd much rather go into a season with a core of talented young players than cross my fingers and hope that I'm lucky enough to make the right waiver moves each season.
Ah, should have known I'd find it as soon as I hit submit.
Here's the thread.
Here's the post:
So, if you buy the whole "decoy" argument and use only the games where Randy Moss wasn't on the field, Culpepper was on pace for 4145/41/4.5. In the games where Randy Moss actually set foot on the field, Culpepper was on pace for 4877/38/13. I was wrong, though- his stats weren't better in every category, they were actually noticeably worse in yards. They were better in TDs and INTs, though, and I suspect the comp% and YPAs would be similar (because he attempted fewer passes per game with Moss out than with him in). Culpepper's rushing numbers were slightly better, too, although he didn't have any rushing TDs (something I consider a sample-size fluke, since he only had 2 rushing TDs on the season, anyway, so it's no surprise that neither fell in the 3.5 game span).
Here's the thread.
Here's the post:
QUOTE
Randy Moss appeared in the week 8 game, where he was the target of one pass (which he failed to catch). He was also on the field in week 7, although he wasn't targeted once. I'm so terribly, terribly glad you brought this up, jurb, because you're absolutely right- just the mere PRESENCE of Randy Moss on the football field projects a supernatural aura that causes Culpepper to play far above and beyond his normal mortal capabilities, so including these two games in Culpepper's pro-rated numbers was a gross oversight on my part. Let's take these two games out and then re-prorate the numbers based entirely on games where Randy "Jesus" Moss wasn't on the field- namely, the latter half of week 6, and all of weeks 9, 10, and 11.
Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!
Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!
I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 35+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy [/Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).
Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!
Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!
I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 35+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy [/Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).
So, if you buy the whole "decoy" argument and use only the games where Randy Moss wasn't on the field, Culpepper was on pace for 4145/41/4.5. In the games where Randy Moss actually set foot on the field, Culpepper was on pace for 4877/38/13. I was wrong, though- his stats weren't better in every category, they were actually noticeably worse in yards. They were better in TDs and INTs, though, and I suspect the comp% and YPAs would be similar (because he attempted fewer passes per game with Moss out than with him in). Culpepper's rushing numbers were slightly better, too, although he didn't have any rushing TDs (something I consider a sample-size fluke, since he only had 2 rushing TDs on the season, anyway, so it's no surprise that neither fell in the 3.5 game span).
Hard to get excited about Culpepper seeing as he hasn't even been able to keep the starting job in Miami or Oakland. If he can't emerge as the starter on the worst teams in the league then it seems unlikely that he has much long-term value. I think his success in Minnesota was the perfect synergy of the right passer in the right system with the right receiver at the right time. But if Culpepper were truly a worthwhile QB, you'd think he would've performed better these past two years.
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 20 2008, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (FUBAR @ Jan 20 2008, 10:47 AM)
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
Why not stay young, be competitive for years, dominate now, and work the waivers all the same time?
I like the idea of secure assets in a dynasty league. And while it's true that there's no such thing as a sure thing, I'd much rather go into a season with a core of talented young players than cross my fingers and hope that I'm lucky enough to make the right waiver moves each season.
Of course, if I can do that, I'm all for it. What I'm saying is simply when given a choice between an older player who produces at a higher level, say Clinton Portis, I'll take him over younger players who produce lesser stats but generally get drafted around the same time, say Reggie Bush or MJD (just as examples). I've been prone to get caught up in the "my team is younger, therefore better" mentality before, I'm realizing that it's a mistake. There will always be RBs you can get on the waivers who will produce, so age is becoming less of a factor to me.
QUOTE (FUBAR @ Jan 20 2008, 08:09 PM)
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 20 2008, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (FUBAR @ Jan 20 2008, 10:47 AM)
I used to be of the "stay young and continue to be competitive for years" mindset, but recently I'm thinking "why not take the old geezers, dominate now and work the waivers later"?
Why not stay young, be competitive for years, dominate now, and work the waivers all the same time?
I like the idea of secure assets in a dynasty league. And while it's true that there's no such thing as a sure thing, I'd much rather go into a season with a core of talented young players than cross my fingers and hope that I'm lucky enough to make the right waiver moves each season.
Of course, if I can do that, I'm all for it. What I'm saying is simply when given a choice between an older player who produces at a higher level, say Clinton Portis, I'll take him over younger players who produce lesser stats but generally get drafted around the same time, say Reggie Bush or MJD (just as examples). I've been prone to get caught up in the "my team is younger, therefore better" mentality before, I'm realizing that it's a mistake. There will always be RBs you can get on the waivers who will produce, so age is becoming less of a factor to me.
It's a double-edged sword. Old players can hit the wall quickly and as soon as they show signs of decline, their value takes a huge dive (see: Harrison, Alexander).
As always, the trick is knowing who to buy, who to sell, and when.
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 20 2008, 03:19 PM)
Hard to get excited about Culpepper seeing as he hasn't even been able to keep the starting job in Miami or Oakland. If he can't emerge as the starter on the worst teams in the league then it seems unlikely that he has much long-term value. I think his success in Minnesota was the perfect synergy of the right passer in the right system with the right receiver at the right time. But if Culpepper were truly a worthwhile QB, you'd think he would've performed better these past two years.
Two years ago he was injured and not himself. I agree I would have liked to see him get more action this year, but he got some, and he was clearly better than McCown in the action that he did get.
F&L I'm interested in seeing the updated rankings in regards to Jacobs and Bradshaw. As of now Jacobs tier 3 and Bradshaw tier 7. Bradshaw sure has been impressive in the playoffs, better footwork, speed, picking the hole than Jacobs, and he can pound it inside not just a scatback. I'm sure it will be a RBBC next year but can see Bradshaw being the feature and Jacobs being the change of pace.
As of today I'm not sure which one I would rather have in a dynasty.
As of today I'm not sure which one I would rather have in a dynasty.
I've never seen Jacobs as a long-term starter. He's a novelty act. Not much more.
QUOTE (EBF @ Jan 21 2008, 12:03 AM)
I've never seen Jacobs as a long-term starter. He's a novelty act. Not much more.
We don't know whether Bradshaw can stay healthy for a whole season (of course we know that Jacobs can NOT), but I am very impressed by Bradshaw. On that TD that was called back he showed great instinct, quickness, and elusiveness. On the TD he scored it was an up the gut, tought it out and push kind of TD. I agree with the previous poster that Bradshaw is not just a scat back.
Eli is a big question here in terms of how much credit does he get for a 4 week period (but a great four week span). That said, I believe Eli is/will be a better NFL QB than fantasy QB. He will have some games with great numbers, but between his natural inconsistency and the running games ability to take over some games, I think he wins more than the stats may show.
THat said, how much lower than the top 10 QBs can you put Manning as of right now? He does seem to be far more comfortable in his own skin and is playing relaxed football while being a leader.
THat said, how much lower than the top 10 QBs can you put Manning as of right now? He does seem to be far more comfortable in his own skin and is playing relaxed football while being a leader.
I'm definitely more impressed with Rivers and Eli after the playoffs. They showed a little bit of "it". "It" doesn't show up in the stats, but I think it is important in evaluating QBs. I picked up on Roethlisberger because I thought he had it - albeit more of it as shown by the Super Bowl ring.
I think it makes sense to move up Rivers and Eli. Both must have been highly touted for some reason. They grew up in football families. They've been under extreme pressure, but are starting to mature after facing the pressure.
I think it makes sense to move up Rivers and Eli. Both must have been highly touted for some reason. They grew up in football families. They've been under extreme pressure, but are starting to mature after facing the pressure.
QUOTE (gheemony @ Jan 21 2008, 01:11 AM)
I'm definitely more impressed with Rivers and Eli after the playoffs. They showed a little bit of "it". "It" doesn't show up in the stats, but I think it is important in evaluating QBs. I picked up on Roethlisberger because I thought he had it - albeit more of it as shown by the Super Bowl ring.
I think it makes sense to move up Rivers and Eli. Both must have been highly touted for some reason. They grew up in football families. They've been under extreme pressure, but are starting to mature after facing the pressure.
I think it makes sense to move up Rivers and Eli. Both must have been highly touted for some reason. They grew up in football families. They've been under extreme pressure, but are starting to mature after facing the pressure.
With the strong play of these QB's in the postseason, do the receivers (Burress, Toomer, Chambers, Jackson) get bumped up as well?
QUOTE (LILB811 @ Jan 21 2008, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE (gheemony @ Jan 21 2008, 01:11 AM)
I'm definitely more impressed with Rivers and Eli after the playoffs. They showed a little bit of "it". "It" doesn't show up in the stats, but I think it is important in evaluating QBs. I picked up on Roethlisberger because I thought he had it - albeit more of it as shown by the Super Bowl ring.
I think it makes sense to move up Rivers and Eli. Both must have been highly touted for some reason. They grew up in football families. They've been under extreme pressure, but are starting to mature after facing the pressure.
I think it makes sense to move up Rivers and Eli. Both must have been highly touted for some reason. They grew up in football families. They've been under extreme pressure, but are starting to mature after facing the pressure.
With the strong play of these QB's in the postseason, do the receivers (Burress, Toomer, Chambers, Jackson) get bumped up as well?
Jackson gets a bump on his own; Toomer is going to be 34, his best days are behind him and Smith is catching up quick.
I'd probably bump Chambers up a little, but with Gates, Chambers, Jackson and a few other decent WRs on the team - although no great ones, I can't bump him too high.
I'm not sure on Plax, I asked in another thread, but will here too - he may be a good sell high right now. Or after he's the Super Bowl MVP
F&L
Longtime fan of the post first time contributer.
I fear I am not as technical as some of your other posters, but I am curious as to why you have MJD as tier 1 (RB#7). While you must know I am also optimistic about him but, your rankings are considerably higher than the norm I am seeing.
We have all heard the negatives; too small & not a full time back......
What are you seeing there that others are missing?
He reminds my a lot of Westbrook and that's a good thing.
BTW Sons of the Tundra is comming along nicely.
Longtime fan of the post first time contributer.
I fear I am not as technical as some of your other posters, but I am curious as to why you have MJD as tier 1 (RB#7). While you must know I am also optimistic about him but, your rankings are considerably higher than the norm I am seeing.
We have all heard the negatives; too small & not a full time back......
What are you seeing there that others are missing?
He reminds my a lot of Westbrook and that's a good thing.
BTW Sons of the Tundra is comming along nicely.
QUOTE (streamkeeper @ Jan 21 2008, 04:23 PM)
F&L
Longtime fan of the post first time contributer.
I fear I am not as technical as some of your other posters, but I am curious as to why you have MJD as tier 1 (RB#7). While you must know I am also optimistic about him but, your rankings are considerably higher than the norm I am seeing.
We have all heard the negatives; too small & not a full time back......
What are you seeing there that others are missing?
He reminds my a lot of Westbrook and that's a good thing.
BTW Sons of the Tundra is comming along nicely.
Longtime fan of the post first time contributer.
I fear I am not as technical as some of your other posters, but I am curious as to why you have MJD as tier 1 (RB#7). While you must know I am also optimistic about him but, your rankings are considerably higher than the norm I am seeing.
We have all heard the negatives; too small & not a full time back......
What are you seeing there that others are missing?
He reminds my a lot of Westbrook and that's a good thing.
BTW Sons of the Tundra is comming along nicely.
I'm sure F&L will respond to this, but I'd just give a short answer for you. Aside from going back and looking as I believe there are quite a few posts about him, the main reason for his ranking is "upside".
I was a doubter heading into this season and I have since come around. The kid is just simply ultra talented and has performed at an almost elite level despite limited touches. There simply is no reason to believe he couldn't handle the full load. If he gets it, which may happen in the near future, he has the talent and potential to crack the top 3 in FF with ease. That's essentially why.
Look at the guys ranked below him and find a guy that has a realistic shot at finishing in the top 3. Aside from LJ, Portis, and maybe Lynch, I don't see it. There are reasons why to rank LJ as low as he is, and Portis and Lynch are right below him. Bottomline, you want to get as many elite talents on your team as you can and MJD has already shown he can definitely be that with an increased workload.
All the guys below him are good and solid and are better NOW, but just don't have that potential to win your season like MJD can. I'm pretty sure that's what he's gonna tell ya.
Curious the sell high outlook for Randy Moss what can a team get to get younger pick wise and WR/RB type players.
The Patriots have to rank pretty high on the Dynasty scale.
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment