QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 5 2007, 09:58 AM) 
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 5 2007, 09:35 AM)
I would like to get some perspective on another player. Any input is appreciated.
Luke McCown
I watched that game the other day thanks to Directv's Sunday Ticket. He looked great in that game...
The McCown kids can play decently... Luke looks better than his brother by a mile.
Will Garcia be there next year and beyond, how is his contract?
Does Luke merit watching in a deep dynasty league or was this a one game wonder thing?
If Garcia is going to be there for 2 or 3 years then its not an issue, since he is not losing his job.
Just not sure what the situation is there.
Luke McCown
I watched that game the other day thanks to Directv's Sunday Ticket. He looked great in that game...
The McCown kids can play decently... Luke looks better than his brother by a mile.
Will Garcia be there next year and beyond, how is his contract?
Does Luke merit watching in a deep dynasty league or was this a one game wonder thing?
If Garcia is going to be there for 2 or 3 years then its not an issue, since he is not losing his job.
Just not sure what the situation is there.
The knock on the McCowns has always been "big arm, small head". I really question his long-term dynasty potential. He's bounced around forever and has yet to make the barest of splashes. He hadn't thrown a pass in 3 years prior to Garcia getting hurt. It's a credit to him that he continues to make the league, but I don't think he's even in the same group as someone like Frerotte, a journeyman who you feel really comfortable with as your backup.
Rich Gannon has demonstrated that really anything is possible. Journeymen can become league MVPs if they're in the right system. Problem is, Gannon showed us SOMETHING at some point during his career- he put up acceptable numbers in both Minn and Kansas (although his ypa was very, very pedestrian) before blowing up in Oakland. If I were to gamble on a career backup who might earn a starting job and become a fantasy force, I wouldn't look at either McCown- I'd focus on Frerotte or Rattay (who is an unquestioned talent who could be a star in this league, in my opinion, if he could just stay healthy).
He is only 26 years old...a little early to be considered a "journeyman" quarterback. This is only his 4th year in the league, and while Garcia is still signed for 08, they might like what they see in Luke to groom him for 09.
With all of the Lions offensive issues, do we think Stanton gets a chance to start next year?
QUOTE (valhallan @ Dec 5 2007, 02:03 PM)
With all of the Lions offensive issues, do we think Stanton gets a chance to start next year?
It's hard to have much of a clue. With so little experience, will he even be ready to start the season as the #2 over some journeyman like J.T. O'Sullivan?
I've soured on Kitna's fantasy potential over the past few weeks, but it's still tough to believe he won't be opening 2008 as the Lions' starter. If he goes down with injury, I'm not sure if Stanton would be ready to step in much less take over the job.
Any Lions homers have a good feel for Stanton's progress?
QUOTE (jonboltz @ Dec 5 2007, 10:09 AM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 5 2007, 09:58 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 5 2007, 09:35 AM)
I would like to get some perspective on another player. Any input is appreciated.
Luke McCown
I watched that game the other day thanks to Directv's Sunday Ticket. He looked great in that game...
The McCown kids can play decently... Luke looks better than his brother by a mile.
Will Garcia be there next year and beyond, how is his contract?
Does Luke merit watching in a deep dynasty league or was this a one game wonder thing?
If Garcia is going to be there for 2 or 3 years then its not an issue, since he is not losing his job.
Just not sure what the situation is there.
Luke McCown
I watched that game the other day thanks to Directv's Sunday Ticket. He looked great in that game...
The McCown kids can play decently... Luke looks better than his brother by a mile.
Will Garcia be there next year and beyond, how is his contract?
Does Luke merit watching in a deep dynasty league or was this a one game wonder thing?
If Garcia is going to be there for 2 or 3 years then its not an issue, since he is not losing his job.
Just not sure what the situation is there.
The knock on the McCowns has always been "big arm, small head". I really question his long-term dynasty potential. He's bounced around forever and has yet to make the barest of splashes. He hadn't thrown a pass in 3 years prior to Garcia getting hurt. It's a credit to him that he continues to make the league, but I don't think he's even in the same group as someone like Frerotte, a journeyman who you feel really comfortable with as your backup.
Rich Gannon has demonstrated that really anything is possible. Journeymen can become league MVPs if they're in the right system. Problem is, Gannon showed us SOMETHING at some point during his career- he put up acceptable numbers in both Minn and Kansas (although his ypa was very, very pedestrian) before blowing up in Oakland. If I were to gamble on a career backup who might earn a starting job and become a fantasy force, I wouldn't look at either McCown- I'd focus on Frerotte or Rattay (who is an unquestioned talent who could be a star in this league, in my opinion, if he could just stay healthy).
He is only 26 years old...a little early to be considered a "journeyman" quarterback. This is only his 4th year in the league, and while Garcia is still signed for 08, they might like what they see in Luke to groom him for 09.
To back up what SSOG said about "big arm, small head", there has to be something about McCown that has given Gruden reason for pause. I caught much of Sunday's game too, and I came away much more impressed with McCown than I expected. After a very productive pre-season and last week's impressive game, I can't help but wonder how Gruden had McCown behind Gradkowski on the depth chart before last week. What was it about McCown that Gruden didn't like? Or was it more about wanting to give Gradkowski another shot?
Either way, it should have been obvious that McCown can sustain a passing attack and generate offense while Gradkowski simply struggles with both. I'm guessing there's some weakness we don't know about, but whatever it was didn't hold him back last week or during the pre-season. I think he's a much better use of a roster spot (as well as a better QB) than a guy like Tim Rattay or Gus Frerotte. There's some NFL starter ability here.
Re: the journeyman talk. He was acquired in April of 2006 from the Browns for a 6th round pick. I had a fuzzy memory of his time in Cleveland, but I found a some old Rotoworld blurbs that give the impression that he wasn't given a fair shake there:
QUOTE
4/26/05 - The Browns selected LA. Tech QB Luke McCown with the 106th pick of the NFL Draft.
This is one of the rare times that pre-draft hype came true. The Browns said they were interested in McCown as a long-term replacement for Jeff Garcia, and they drafted him. He's a similar player to Garcia, but bigger. He's the brother of Arizona QB Josh McCown.
5/16/05 -Fourth-round draft pick Luke McCown was impressive in his first workouts with the Cleveland Browns.
McCown, if he progresses, will be groomed to be the QB-of-the-future in Cleveland in two seasons. He's a solid late pick in rookie dynasty drafts.
7/30/05 - The Browns reached an agreement with fourth-round pick, QB Luke McCown.
McCown has skills similar to his athletic brother in Arizona. He will have all the chance in the world to earn heir-apparent status behind Jeff Garcia.
12/1/05 - Luke McCown is expected to make his first NFL start on Sunday.
We're big fans of the La. Tech grad and think he may have a real future in the league. But opening against the Patriots with an injured offensive line is a recipe for disaster.
12/5/05 - Luke McCown completed completed 20-of-34 passes for 277 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions in week 13.
McCown was awful early, but really settled in, albeit with the game out of control. His running ability kept a number of plays alive. He has a solid chance at starting the rest of the season, and has long-term fantasy upside.
12/6/05 - Coach Terry Robiskie said it's too early to say whether Luke McCown will start at QB next week.
Why not start him? McCown showed a lot of potential this season and the Browns have to be curious how good he can be. McCown was said to have the potential to be "the quarterback of the future."
12/27/05 - Luke McCown completed 9-of-16 passes for 161 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions in a week 16 loss.
We're past feeling sorry for this kid: the Browns may be doing permanent damage. Only one more week of punishment: it's unlikely Kelly Holcomb will play next week.
12/30/05 - Luke McCown looks unlikely to start in week 17.
Kelly Holcomb should be ready to go. When Bill Parcells has talked about not wanting to inflict long-term "damage" by playing Drew Henson this season, he's talking about situations like McCown. It was a rough introduction for a rough, but promising player.
This is one of the rare times that pre-draft hype came true. The Browns said they were interested in McCown as a long-term replacement for Jeff Garcia, and they drafted him. He's a similar player to Garcia, but bigger. He's the brother of Arizona QB Josh McCown.
5/16/05 -Fourth-round draft pick Luke McCown was impressive in his first workouts with the Cleveland Browns.
McCown, if he progresses, will be groomed to be the QB-of-the-future in Cleveland in two seasons. He's a solid late pick in rookie dynasty drafts.
7/30/05 - The Browns reached an agreement with fourth-round pick, QB Luke McCown.
McCown has skills similar to his athletic brother in Arizona. He will have all the chance in the world to earn heir-apparent status behind Jeff Garcia.
12/1/05 - Luke McCown is expected to make his first NFL start on Sunday.
We're big fans of the La. Tech grad and think he may have a real future in the league. But opening against the Patriots with an injured offensive line is a recipe for disaster.
12/5/05 - Luke McCown completed completed 20-of-34 passes for 277 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions in week 13.
McCown was awful early, but really settled in, albeit with the game out of control. His running ability kept a number of plays alive. He has a solid chance at starting the rest of the season, and has long-term fantasy upside.
12/6/05 - Coach Terry Robiskie said it's too early to say whether Luke McCown will start at QB next week.
Why not start him? McCown showed a lot of potential this season and the Browns have to be curious how good he can be. McCown was said to have the potential to be "the quarterback of the future."
12/27/05 - Luke McCown completed 9-of-16 passes for 161 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions in a week 16 loss.
We're past feeling sorry for this kid: the Browns may be doing permanent damage. Only one more week of punishment: it's unlikely Kelly Holcomb will play next week.
12/30/05 - Luke McCown looks unlikely to start in week 17.
Kelly Holcomb should be ready to go. When Bill Parcells has talked about not wanting to inflict long-term "damage" by playing Drew Henson this season, he's talking about situations like McCown. It was a rough introduction for a rough, but promising player.
The overriding feeling from his time with Cleveland was that he was set up for failure.
Oh, and
at "Coach Terry Robiskie." Has it really only been two years? I have a shot to pick up Lorenzo Booker this week on the waiver wire. Is there any chance he becomes something more than a NFL 3rd down back? I thought he had Travis Minor written all over him when he was drafted. It hasn't helped that he's been persona non grata in Miami's offense since the season started.
I'm sure there's no way he ends up sustaining some team's rushing attack down the road, but can he do what Leon Washington does now? What are the chances? Was he considered a better prospect than Washington was coming into the league?
I'm sure there's no way he ends up sustaining some team's rushing attack down the road, but can he do what Leon Washington does now? What are the chances? Was he considered a better prospect than Washington was coming into the league?
Here is the link to the Lorenzo Booker thread at the beginning of the year. Those folks know more about him then I do. The consensus seemed to be that he did not have a bright future, but there were a couple of people that believed in his ability and thought that he could perform in the NFL. I'd say read it and come to your own decision.
Great thread, hope I can help a little...
Great thread, hope I can help a little...
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 6 2007, 12:39 AM)
QUOTE (valhallan @ Dec 5 2007, 02:03 PM)
With all of the Lions offensive issues, do we think Stanton gets a chance to start next year?
It's hard to have much of a clue. With so little experience, will he even be ready to start the season as the #2 over some journeyman like J.T. O'Sullivan?
I've soured on Kitna's fantasy potential over the past few weeks, but it's still tough to believe he won't be opening 2008 as the Lions' starter. If he goes down with injury, I'm not sure if Stanton would be ready to step in much less take over the job.
Any Lions homers have a good feel for Stanton's progress?
Until recently, I thought exactly what you just wrote. The Lions love Kitna's leadership. I have to think right now that he will begin the 2008 season as the starter. But there is so much talk and speculation about Martz possibly being gone after this season that this is not the lock I thought it was last month. Kitna's play has deteriorated of late. It's not all his fault, but some of it is. He is nothing but an average talent, but they love his leadership. But that can only carry him and the team so far; eventually he will be replaced. The Lions can only go so far with Kitna.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Dec 6 2007, 07:42 AM)
Until recently, I thought exactly what you just wrote. The Lions love Kitna's leadership. I have to think right now that he will begin the 2008 season as the starter. But there is so much talk and speculation about Martz possibly being gone after this season that this is not the lock I thought it was last month. Kitna's play has deteriorated of late. It's not all his fault, but some of it is. He is nothing but an average talent, but they love his leadership. But that can only carry him and the team so far; eventually he will be replaced. The Lions can only go so far with Kitna.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
No doubt Kitna is a nothing but an average talent...if that. I had over-ranked him earlier in the season due strictly to Martz' passing offense and the high ceiling potential of his weapons.
Questions related to your post:
Even if Martz is gone after this season, I was under the impression that Marinelli is as much of a fan of Jon Kitna as Martz is.
Is that not the case? Have you inferred anything from Marinelli that would indicate he's not as high on Kitna as he had been previously?
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 6 2007, 09:24 AM)
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Dec 6 2007, 07:42 AM)
Until recently, I thought exactly what you just wrote. The Lions love Kitna's leadership. I have to think right now that he will begin the 2008 season as the starter. But there is so much talk and speculation about Martz possibly being gone after this season that this is not the lock I thought it was last month. Kitna's play has deteriorated of late. It's not all his fault, but some of it is. He is nothing but an average talent, but they love his leadership. But that can only carry him and the team so far; eventually he will be replaced. The Lions can only go so far with Kitna.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
No doubt Kitna is a nothing but an average talent...if that. I had over-ranked him earlier in the season due strictly to Martz' passing offense and the high ceiling potential of his weapons.
Questions related to your post:
Even if Martz is gone after this season, I was under the impression that Marinelli is as much of a fan of Jon Kitna as Martz is.
Is that not the case? Have you inferred anything from Marinelli that would indicate he's not as high on Kitna as he had been previously?
Marinelli is a fan of Kitna's leadership, as much or more than Martz. But reading between the lines lately, my feeling is that Marinelli is frustrated with the overall lack of talent on this team. He has made some comments recently indicating his frustration with the level of play of some players. I don't think Kitna's play is a big issue to Marinelli right now, and part of the reason is the lack of options. Whether that impacts Kitna next year remains to be seen. I do think he starts the season in 2008, but I also think there will be a leash, unlike this year. Right now, Kitna is all we have, and as bad as he has played lately, he still gives the Lions the best chance to win, which is what Marinelli is all about. We saw that last year when Kitna played every snap for a 3-13 team. I'm not so sure Kitna will give them the best chance to win next year if he plays like this, and Stanton progresses.
With the way I am thinking right now, my gut says Stanton will be a starter by midseason. Strictly a gut feeling, partially based on the things I hear and read around here. If Kitna plays next year like he has this year, I can't imagine Stanton not getting a chance to play. But I don't think it is at the start of the year.
I'm a buyer on Stanton right now for the above reasons.
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Dec 6 2007, 10:25 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 6 2007, 09:24 AM)
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Dec 6 2007, 07:42 AM)
Until recently, I thought exactly what you just wrote. The Lions love Kitna's leadership. I have to think right now that he will begin the 2008 season as the starter. But there is so much talk and speculation about Martz possibly being gone after this season that this is not the lock I thought it was last month. Kitna's play has deteriorated of late. It's not all his fault, but some of it is. He is nothing but an average talent, but they love his leadership. But that can only carry him and the team so far; eventually he will be replaced. The Lions can only go so far with Kitna.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
Stanton has not practiced, but he sits in on meetings, game planning, etc. Martz completely tore down and rebuilt his mechanics during training camp. They seem to think another offseason will ready him for 2008. While I don't expect him to start, I think there is a chance...while last month, I thought the chances were nonexistent. I expect him to be the #2 next year no matter what else happens. I think he will start at some point during the season.
No doubt Kitna is a nothing but an average talent...if that. I had over-ranked him earlier in the season due strictly to Martz' passing offense and the high ceiling potential of his weapons.
Questions related to your post:
Even if Martz is gone after this season, I was under the impression that Marinelli is as much of a fan of Jon Kitna as Martz is.
Is that not the case? Have you inferred anything from Marinelli that would indicate he's not as high on Kitna as he had been previously?
Marinelli is a fan of Kitna's leadership, as much or more than Martz. But reading between the lines lately, my feeling is that Marinelli is frustrated with the overall lack of talent on this team. He has made some comments recently indicating his frustration with the level of play of some players. I don't think Kitna's play is a big issue to Marinelli right now, and part of the reason is the lack of options. Whether that impacts Kitna next year remains to be seen. I do think he starts the season in 2008, but I also think there will be a leash, unlike this year. Right now, Kitna is all we have, and as bad as he has played lately, he still gives the Lions the best chance to win, which is what Marinelli is all about. We saw that last year when Kitna played every snap for a 3-13 team. I'm not so sure Kitna will give them the best chance to win next year if he plays like this, and Stanton progresses.
With the way I am thinking right now, my gut says Stanton will be a starter by midseason. Strictly a gut feeling, partially based on the things I hear and read around here. If Kitna plays next year like he has this year, I can't imagine Stanton not getting a chance to play. But I don't think it is at the start of the year.
I'm a buyer on Stanton right now for the above reasons.
Thanks for the insight. I brought up the question assuming Kitna would start '08, but it seemed changes could be afoot by mid-season. Nice to hear similar thoughts from someone who is closer to the situation.
There have been a number of young QBs in recent years that have taken over for aging vets and for those of us in 2QB leagues, it's imperative to spot those guys and get them before their value skyrockets.
I just can't decide between Stanton or Luke McCown to roster for next year...
Stanton's offense is better, but I dont know what he can do and if he will be any good. Whereas I saw Luke play and was really impressed.... decisions like this are hard.
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
Stanton's offense is better, but I dont know what he can do and if he will be any good. Whereas I saw Luke play and was really impressed.... decisions like this are hard.
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
Joey Galloway in tier6 seems pretty low to me. Yeah hes old, but he produces respectable numbers and it doesnt seem to matter who his qb is.
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 6 2007, 12:27 PM)
I just can't decide between Stanton or Luke McCown to roster for next year...
Stanton's offense is better, but I dont know what he can do and if he will be any good. Whereas I saw Luke play and was really impressed.... decisions like this are hard.
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
Stanton's offense is better, but I dont know what he can do and if he will be any good. Whereas I saw Luke play and was really impressed.... decisions like this are hard.
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
I have both and prefer McCown, and felt the same even prior to his performance on Sunday. The key difference to me is that Tampa is a much more stable situation than Detroit. You know Gruden will be there be there for a while and as long as he likes Luke, there will be an opportunity down the road. While Stanton appears to be the next in line for an opportunity in Detroit, we have no idea how the team could get shaken up in the off-season.
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 6 2007, 12:27 PM)
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
You mean McCown deserves to be bumped ahead of guys like Grossman who we know aren't NFL-starter caliber? I could see that. What I saw out of McCown was impressive, but it was also only for one half of one game (he didn't do squat in the 2nd half). Still, he at least hasn't proven that he's without a doubt not starting caliber like Grossman has. I'll revisit this in the coming weeks as we close out the season.
Would you rather have McCown or a guy like Losman who may get traded to a team that will give him another chance? Or Boller who might go into the season as the starter?
Also, I see that you're implying that Caddy being back with a damaged knee is a good thing. Whether he was more talented or not, that offense runs much better with Earnest Graham toting the ball.
QUOTE (Little Big Head @ Dec 6 2007, 12:36 PM)
Joey Galloway in tier6 seems pretty low to me. Yeah hes old, but he produces respectable numbers and it doesnt seem to matter who his qb is.
I've had this debate with myself about him. He is productive, but he's also terribly inconsistent. I wouldn't want to rely on him weekly as a starter, so how valuable is that to me?
(Oh, and it matters when the QB is Gradkowski)
I'll take another look, but he's going to be another year older and the season is almost over.
QUOTE (valhallan @ Dec 6 2007, 12:37 PM)
I have both and prefer McCown, and felt the same even prior to his performance on Sunday. The key difference to me is that Tampa is a much more stable situation than Detroit. You know Gruden will be there be there for a while and as long as he likes Luke, there will be an opportunity down the road. While Stanton appears to be the next in line for an opportunity in Detroit, we have no idea how the team could get shaken up in the off-season.
You see McCown as the unquestioned heir to the QB mantle under Gruden if/when Garcia retires or is forced out?
That's quite a turnaround for a guy who was behind Bruce Gradkowski in Gruden's own mind just two weeks ago.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I gotta believe Gruden will keep bringing in QBs whereas Stanton will probably be handed a genuine opportunity to sink or swim at some point.
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 6 2007, 11:27 AM)
I just can't decide between Stanton or Luke McCown to roster for next year...
Stanton's offense is better, but I dont know what he can do and if he will be any good. Whereas I saw Luke play and was really impressed.... decisions like this are hard.
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
Stanton's offense is better, but I dont know what he can do and if he will be any good. Whereas I saw Luke play and was really impressed.... decisions like this are hard.
F&L - Based on what we saw of Luke and Garcia's age and potential to have minor injuries, I think Luke deserves to be bumped up some. I base this on gut feeling and hunch only. Caddy will be back there next year and thier o-line looks great etc.
I'll chime in with my 2 cents....
Keep this in mind: You said you saw Luke play and were really impressed. That was just 1 game, against the Saints, arguably one of the worst, if not the worst pass DEF in the game. I think they make alot of QB's look really good. Do you recall any of Luke's earlier performances w/ the Browns? You should be weighing those performances, as well as his inability to break in to any games the following few years as some indication that last weeks game may have been an outlier of sorts. If you had to make this decision today, I'd say you go with Stanton hands down. If you have a few more weeks, and Luke follows up with subsequent strong outings...maybe then I'd revist his value to determine if something had clicked.
I agree with your points about Tampa having a relatively strong running game/o-line which certainly helps, but I think one key thing you are leaving out is that Gruden loves to stockpile QB's. I'd say next year could bring a strong QB competition with Garcia if healthy, Gradkowski who I think Gruden still wants to believe in, maybe Simms and who knows who else Gruden may want to bring in. All that adds up to a situation where I find it hard to see Luke thriving in unless something has truely clicked in his game.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 6 2007, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE (valhallan @ Dec 6 2007, 12:37 PM)
I have both and prefer McCown, and felt the same even prior to his performance on Sunday. The key difference to me is that Tampa is a much more stable situation than Detroit. You know Gruden will be there be there for a while and as long as he likes Luke, there will be an opportunity down the road. While Stanton appears to be the next in line for an opportunity in Detroit, we have no idea how the team could get shaken up in the off-season.
You see McCown as the unquestioned heir to the QB mantle under Gruden if/when Garcia retires or is forced out?
That's quite a turnaround for a guy who was behind Bruce Gradkowski in Gruden's own mind just two weeks ago.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I gotta believe Gruden will keep bringing in QBs whereas Stanton will probably be handed a genuine opportunity to sink or swim at some point.
No, I don't see him as the unquestioned heir but if I had to keep one or the other I would lean slightly toward McCown.
I don't really understand why Gradkowski being 2nd on the depth chart automatically means Gruden likes him better than McCown. It could be simply that Gruden was more comfortable having Gradkowski as the guy that would come in if Garcia were to be injured during a game. When it came time for someone other than Garcia to take first team snaps in practice, McCown was the guy. (We saw this with some other team very recently, but it escapes me..)
I'll admit I've never seen Stanton play, so I'm basing most of my opinion of him on apparent situation rather than talent. However, I did see McCown in Cleveland and thought he could grow into starter material down the road AND I like his situation in Tampa. So, those factors put McCown ahead in my mind.
Good thought-provoking list. Nice work.
Beck seems pretty low to me. He's young, a current starter and a likely 2008 starter. Granted he has looked shaky so far, but two of his three games were on the road against Pittsburgh - the best defense in the league period, and Philly - who made Tom Brady look average. Plus, he has basically NO weapons to work with right now. Chambers is gone, Ginn is not ready, Ronnie Brown is out etc. What do you really expect from the guy at this stage?
You almost have to assume his situation will get considerably better because it is very difficult to imagine how it could get worse. I can tell you there is no way in heck I'd trade him for a 37.5 year old Garcia in a dynasty league. That would be insane.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't trade him for Favre, who is in tier 3. Have people forgotten Favre's last 3 or 4 years?
Would much rather have him than 35 year old Kitna who may very well have just a couple of games left in his career as a starter.
Like a lot of young guys, he could completely bust, but at least he has a chance to be solid or even great a couple of years from now. A bunch of the guys above him don't, and some of them aren't even worth much more than he is right now.
Norwood also seems low to me. I have Ernest Graham in one league and hope for the best from him, but he's 28 and has never done ANYTHING in the NFL until this year. I'd trade him for Norwood in a heartbeat, and he's two tiers higher.
Beck seems pretty low to me. He's young, a current starter and a likely 2008 starter. Granted he has looked shaky so far, but two of his three games were on the road against Pittsburgh - the best defense in the league period, and Philly - who made Tom Brady look average. Plus, he has basically NO weapons to work with right now. Chambers is gone, Ginn is not ready, Ronnie Brown is out etc. What do you really expect from the guy at this stage?
You almost have to assume his situation will get considerably better because it is very difficult to imagine how it could get worse. I can tell you there is no way in heck I'd trade him for a 37.5 year old Garcia in a dynasty league. That would be insane.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't trade him for Favre, who is in tier 3. Have people forgotten Favre's last 3 or 4 years?
Would much rather have him than 35 year old Kitna who may very well have just a couple of games left in his career as a starter.
Like a lot of young guys, he could completely bust, but at least he has a chance to be solid or even great a couple of years from now. A bunch of the guys above him don't, and some of them aren't even worth much more than he is right now.
Norwood also seems low to me. I have Ernest Graham in one league and hope for the best from him, but he's 28 and has never done ANYTHING in the NFL until this year. I'd trade him for Norwood in a heartbeat, and he's two tiers higher.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Good thought-provoking list. Nice work.
Beck seems pretty low to me. He's young, a current starter and a likely 2008 starter. Granted he has looked shaky so far, but two of his three games were on the road against Pittsburgh - the best defense in the league period, and Philly - who made Tom Brady look average. Plus, he has basically NO weapons to work with right now. Chambers is gone, Ginn is not ready, Ronnie Brown is out etc. What do you really expect from the guy at this stage?
Beck seems pretty low to me. He's young, a current starter and a likely 2008 starter. Granted he has looked shaky so far, but two of his three games were on the road against Pittsburgh - the best defense in the league period, and Philly - who made Tom Brady look average. Plus, he has basically NO weapons to work with right now. Chambers is gone, Ginn is not ready, Ronnie Brown is out etc. What do you really expect from the guy at this stage?
Thanks, Schneikes
You present quite the convincing argument for Beck up above.
Actually, the reasons why I have him low are the ones you just stated. He has looked extremely shaky so far, his team is awful and shows no promise of going anywhere soon, and he has no weapons. It's a simple equation: bad QB + no weapons = very little value no matter how old he is.QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Quite honestly, I wouldn't trade him for Favre, who is in tier 3. Have people forgotten Favre's last 3 or 4 years?
Surely, you can't be serious? I would have to imagine that the vast majority of Favre owners have started Favre weekly this season. In other words, he's helping them win. That's value. John Beck may never help you win a fantasy match-up the rest of his career. Seriously.
Nobody has forgotten Favre's last three years. I think most of us realize he and the Packers went through a rebuilding process with Driver as his only reliable WR, an overhauled offensive line, and an overall lack of NFL caliber talent throughout the roster. Now that he is surrounded by legit talent, playing well, and in my opinion likely to play well for one more year, he has significant value as a top 6-8 starting QB.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Like a lot of young guys, he could completely bust, but at least he has a chance to be solid or even great a couple of years from now. A bunch of the guys above him don't, and some of them aren't even worth much more than he is right now.
I think you're overvaluing youth way too much, which is ironic when you consider Beck is the oldest QB to come into the league since Chris Weinke. You don't need to be young at every roster spot in dynasty league. You simply need to maintain balance, especially in your nucleus.
As EBF and Oz pointed out earlier this week on page 26, all too often owners in dynasty leagues get fixated on age. Does it matter how young Beck or Croyle are if we deduce that they clearly are not special, and we don't expect them to ever become fantasy difference makers?
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Norwood also seems low to me. I have Ernest Graham in one league and hope for the best from him, but he's 28 and has never done ANYTHING in the NFL until this year. I'd trade him for Norwood in a heartbeat, and he's two tiers higher.
My thoughts on Norwood are all over the place here, but if you're new to the thread I don't expect you to weed through 27 pages to find them. Where was that Norwood post? OK...found it. Check post #824 on page 17 for an in-depth Norwood critique from mid-October.
Reader's Digest version: I don't believe he's ever going to be a full-time starting RB in the NFL. He's always going to be paired with another back because, despite his speed game, he can't sustain a rushing attack. Interestingly, I was covering the ATL/STL game this week, and announcer Tony Boselli pointed out that the Falcons staff and Rams D-coordinator Jim Haslett said the exact same thing to him. The Falcons staff doesn't think he can run between the tackles, and they don't believe his body can withstand a full workload.
I hear you on Earnest Graham being nothing more than a role player before this year. If you want more explanation on his ranking, read back over the past few pages when you get time. I'm highly skeptical that he's going to be able to hold off competition down the line, but he's winning games for owners now. That counts for something. He's also winning over his head coach for the starting RB job going into 2008. That counts for even more.
I love youth as much as the next guy. But I tend to emphasize young players with difference-making potential. If I don't believe a guy is special, it's hard to rank him above a vet who is producing weekly to help fantasy teams win their matchups. Jerious Norwood may never have a stretch of reliability in his career like the stretch Graham has been putting up for 6-7 weeks. And if Graham keeps convincing Gruden that he's "the real deal," there's no reason to believe that Graham can't stay productive as the presumed starter going into next season.
Beck- I think he is just about right where he should be. Look at who is he with -- Tarvaris, Rodgers, Warner, Garcia. Two guys that are producing, and two young guys (who incidently are both in better current and future situations).
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
QUOTE (jonboltz @ Dec 6 2007, 03:34 PM)
Beck- I think he is just about right where he should be. Look at who is he with -- Tarvaris, Rodgers, Warner, Garcia. Two guys that are producing, and two young guys (who incidently are both in better current and future situations).
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Wow, its amazing the diversity of valuation, which is why it is percieved value that is so critical to understand in this crazy FF game. I would take Stanton or ASmith in a heartbeat over Grossman. I dropped Grossman from my dynasty team after week 3. He has zero dynasty value IMO.
QUOTE (Brewzers @ Dec 6 2007, 06:10 PM)
QUOTE (jonboltz @ Dec 6 2007, 03:34 PM)
Beck- I think he is just about right where he should be. Look at who is he with -- Tarvaris, Rodgers, Warner, Garcia. Two guys that are producing, and two young guys (who incidently are both in better current and future situations).
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Wow, its amazing the diversity of valuation, which is why it is percieved value that is so critical to understand in this crazy FF game. I would take Stanton or ASmith in a heartbeat over Grossman. I dropped Grossman from my dynasty team after week 3. He has zero dynasty value IMO.
Stanton had injury issues in college, then went out and got injured and IR'd his first year. Not to mention the fact that frankly he wasn't a particularly good college QB. A very solid junior season followed by an awful senior campaign. There are plenty of examples of 2nd/3rd Round QBs that frankly never amount to anything. At this point, it's more likely than not (imho) that Stanton is one of those QBs.
I like Alex Smith a good deal, but after making progress his 2nd year, injuries and poor play have clouded his value. I'd take him over Rex because he is still 23 and SF has a lot at stake with him.
Grossman has ZERO dynasty value? Really? Did you not play fantasy football last year? For as bad as he was at times, he still had SEVEN games with 100+ QB rating in his first-year as starter. 23 TDs and qb13 in my league, and is still 27 and currently starting in the NFL. And frankly, his year last year was better than Smith and most likely better than any year Stanton will ever have.
QUOTE (Brewzers @ Dec 6 2007, 06:10 PM)
QUOTE (jonboltz @ Dec 6 2007, 03:34 PM)
Beck- I think he is just about right where he should be. Look at who is he with -- Tarvaris, Rodgers, Warner, Garcia. Two guys that are producing, and two young guys (who incidently are both in better current and future situations).
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Wow, its amazing the diversity of valuation, which is why it is percieved value that is so critical to understand in this crazy FF game. I would take Stanton or ASmith in a heartbeat over Grossman. I dropped Grossman from my dynasty team after week 3. He has zero dynasty value IMO.
I wouldn't touch Rex Grossman if he was given to me free with a $20 bill attached. He's simply odious.
Alex Smith: I've never been big on him, but I might gamble on his atrocious season being due in part to a bum shoulder.
Either way, I'd rather roll the dice with Stanton who may have two wide receivers more dominant than Fitzgerald & Boldin by the time he gets his chance.
I'm looking for upside in a corner-of-the-roster QB prospect. Grossman, in my opinion, is a lousy QB plagued with accuracy issues, way too much inconsistency, mental mistakes galore, and far too easily rattled by a pass rush. There's more downside than upside here. Alex Smith may have a tad bit of upside left considering his #1 overall draft pick pedigree. But he's now thrown up two of the worst passing season of all time in his three seasons in the league. I think I'd let him sit on the waiver wire as well.
I'd take Grossman over Smith, especially with a free $20.
I see no positives in Alex Smith so far, and while I guess there are factors to explain some of that away, and his #1 overall spot giving him more chances, I don't see him being able to do anything long-term.
Grossman could get enoguh things straightened out, and be productive, I think alot of it is mental there, and it could suddenly "click".
Looking for a franchise QB - I take Stanton over Smith at least, I don't know if he will suck. Probably over Grossman as well.
I see no positives in Alex Smith so far, and while I guess there are factors to explain some of that away, and his #1 overall spot giving him more chances, I don't see him being able to do anything long-term.
Grossman could get enoguh things straightened out, and be productive, I think alot of it is mental there, and it could suddenly "click".
Looking for a franchise QB - I take Stanton over Smith at least, I don't know if he will suck. Probably over Grossman as well.
QUOTE (jonboltz @ Dec 6 2007, 05:30 PM)
QUOTE (Brewzers @ Dec 6 2007, 06:10 PM)
QUOTE (jonboltz @ Dec 6 2007, 03:34 PM)
Beck- I think he is just about right where he should be. Look at who is he with -- Tarvaris, Rodgers, Warner, Garcia. Two guys that are producing, and two young guys (who incidently are both in better current and future situations).
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Stanton- too high for him. With his injury, there is no telling if he will ever be given a chance. Honest question -- you have Stanton and are offered a trade for Alex Smith or Rex Grossman? I'd take either of those trades in a second and not look back.
Rex- I'd move him up to tier5. This guy is still a starting QB in this league, is 27, and frankly for all of his awful games, he had SEVEN games of 100+ QB rating (coupled with like 2-3 sub-10 games). This is more than I can say for a lot of the guys that he is paired with (Lefty, Losman, Boller)
Wow, its amazing the diversity of valuation, which is why it is percieved value that is so critical to understand in this crazy FF game. I would take Stanton or ASmith in a heartbeat over Grossman. I dropped Grossman from my dynasty team after week 3. He has zero dynasty value IMO.
Stanton had injury issues in college, then went out and got injured and IR'd his first year. Not to mention the fact that frankly he wasn't a particularly good college QB. A very solid junior season followed by an awful senior campaign. There are plenty of examples of 2nd/3rd Round QBs that frankly never amount to anything. At this point, it's more likely than not (imho) that Stanton is one of those QBs.
I like Alex Smith a good deal, but after making progress his 2nd year, injuries and poor play have clouded his value. I'd take him over Rex because he is still 23 and SF has a lot at stake with him.
Grossman has ZERO dynasty value? Really? Did you not play fantasy football last year? For as bad as he was at times, he still had SEVEN games with 100+ QB rating in his first-year as starter. 23 TDs and qb13 in my league, and is still 27 and currently starting in the NFL. And frankly, his year last year was better than Smith and most likely better than any year Stanton will ever have.
OK, zero might be a bit harsh, but lets just say I don't want Rex on my dynasty team. I'm guessing most of his 100+ passer rating games came in the first half of last year. That was before defenses figured out that you could blitz and watch him fade like a cheap shirt.
Honestly, I chose to roster Troy Smith over Rex Grossman. I'll take my chances with a young project with the odds against him succeeding versus Grossman who looks too much like Tim Couch and Joey Harrington to me.
In all of this, its interesting to see how percieved values differ.
QUOTE (Brewzers @ Dec 6 2007, 09:20 PM)
OK, zero might be a bit harsh
No, you were right the first time. He has a better chance of hurting your team than he does helping.
Well with the injury it is all moot now...
Devin Hester: four catches on this drive 
for 58 yards and very close to a TD.
I hadn't been taking him seriously as an offensive player, but I guess it's high time to put him in the rankings.
Todd Collins playing better than I've ever seen Jason Campbell play.
for 58 yards and very close to a TD.I hadn't been taking him seriously as an offensive player, but I guess it's high time to put him in the rankings.
Todd Collins playing better than I've ever seen Jason Campbell play.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 6 2007, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Good thought-provoking list. Nice work.
Beck seems pretty low to me. He's young, a current starter and a likely 2008 starter. Granted he has looked shaky so far, but two of his three games were on the road against Pittsburgh - the best defense in the league period, and Philly - who made Tom Brady look average. Plus, he has basically NO weapons to work with right now. Chambers is gone, Ginn is not ready, Ronnie Brown is out etc. What do you really expect from the guy at this stage?
Beck seems pretty low to me. He's young, a current starter and a likely 2008 starter. Granted he has looked shaky so far, but two of his three games were on the road against Pittsburgh - the best defense in the league period, and Philly - who made Tom Brady look average. Plus, he has basically NO weapons to work with right now. Chambers is gone, Ginn is not ready, Ronnie Brown is out etc. What do you really expect from the guy at this stage?
Thanks, Schneikes
You present quite the convincing argument for Beck up above.
Actually, the reasons why I have him low are the ones you just stated. He has looked extremely shaky so far, his team is awful and shows no promise of going anywhere soon, and he has no weapons. It's a simple equation: bad QB + no weapons = very little value no matter how old he is.QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Quite honestly, I wouldn't trade him for Favre, who is in tier 3. Have people forgotten Favre's last 3 or 4 years?
Surely, you can't be serious? I would have to imagine that the vast majority of Favre owners have started Favre weekly this season. In other words, he's helping them win. That's value. John Beck may never help you win a fantasy match-up the rest of his career. Seriously.
Nobody has forgotten Favre's last three years. I think most of us realize he and the Packers went through a rebuilding process with Driver as his only reliable WR, an overhauled offensive line, and an overall lack of NFL caliber talent throughout the roster. Now that he is surrounded by legit talent, playing well, and in my opinion likely to play well for one more year, he has significant value as a top 6-8 starting QB.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Like a lot of young guys, he could completely bust, but at least he has a chance to be solid or even great a couple of years from now. A bunch of the guys above him don't, and some of them aren't even worth much more than he is right now.
I think you're overvaluing youth way too much, which is ironic when you consider Beck is the oldest QB to come into the league since Chris Weinke. You don't need to be young at every roster spot in dynasty league. You simply need to maintain balance, especially in your nucleus.
As EBF and Oz pointed out earlier this week on page 26, all too often owners in dynasty leagues get fixated on age. Does it matter how young Beck or Croyle are if we deduce that they clearly are not special, and we don't expect them to ever become fantasy difference makers?
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 6 2007, 02:06 PM)
Norwood also seems low to me. I have Ernest Graham in one league and hope for the best from him, but he's 28 and has never done ANYTHING in the NFL until this year. I'd trade him for Norwood in a heartbeat, and he's two tiers higher.
My thoughts on Norwood are all over the place here, but if you're new to the thread I don't expect you to weed through 27 pages to find them. Where was that Norwood post? OK...found it. Check post #824 on page 17 for an in-depth Norwood critique from mid-October.
Reader's Digest version: I don't believe he's ever going to be a full-time starting RB in the NFL. He's always going to be paired with another back because, despite his speed game, he can't sustain a rushing attack. Interestingly, I was covering the ATL/STL game this week, and announcer Tony Boselli pointed out that the Falcons staff and Rams D-coordinator Jim Haslett said the exact same thing to him. The Falcons staff doesn't think he can run between the tackles, and they don't believe his body can withstand a full workload.
I hear you on Earnest Graham being nothing more than a role player before this year. If you want more explanation on his ranking, read back over the past few pages when you get time. I'm highly skeptical that he's going to be able to hold off competition down the line, but he's winning games for owners now. That counts for something. He's also winning over his head coach for the starting RB job going into 2008. That counts for even more.
I love youth as much as the next guy. But I tend to emphasize young players with difference-making potential. If I don't believe a guy is special, it's hard to rank him above a vet who is producing weekly to help fantasy teams win their matchups. Jerious Norwood may never have a stretch of reliability in his career like the stretch Graham has been putting up for 6-7 weeks. And if Graham keeps convincing Gruden that he's "the real deal," there's no reason to believe that Graham can't stay productive as the presumed starter going into next season.
I suppose you've been through all of this many times, but yeah, I'm definitely on the youth side of the fence. A year and a half ago, Favre went for a 3rd round pick in one of my leagues and that DID represent his true value at the time because frankly, he sucked. He wasn't worth starting most weeks and he was old. Granted that turned out to be a steal, but now he's 38, the current season is basically over, and we don't even know for sure he's coming back next year. He's looked very good this year overall, but even at his best he's not going to give you consistently dominating performances. What is the POSSIBILITY of one or MAX two years at mid-grade starter worth? Not much to me relative to the possibility of 10-15 years of starter material. Would you be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of this year? I wouldn't. Would you be shocked if he plays next year and looks more like 2005/2006 Favre than 2007 Favre? I wouldn't. Would you be surprised at any point to see Favre finally NOT just shake off one of those vicious hits? Honestly, with the abuse he's taken over the years it's a miracle he suits up at all and seriously: God bless him for it. But it won't last forever, and I don't think it will last long.
What was Derek Anderson worth early this year (remember when he played for terrible team and was tossing up INTs left and right? Sound familiar?) What was Romo worth a couple of years ago? Garrard? Shaub? Were any of those guys "clearly not special" at any point? I bet they were. But they were young, got their chance, and went off. Most don't, some do.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 10:29 AM)
I suppose you've been through all of this many times, but yeah, I'm definitely on the youth side of the fence. A year and a half ago, Favre went for a 3rd round pick in one of my leagues and that DID represent his true value at the time because frankly, he sucked. He wasn't worth starting most weeks and he was old. Granted that turned out to be a steal, but now he's 38, the current season is basically over, and we don't even know for sure he's coming back next year. He's looked very good this year overall, but even at his best he's not going to give you consistently dominating performances. What is the POSSIBILITY of one or MAX two years at mid-grade starter worth? Not much to me relative to the possibility of 10-15 years of starter material. Would you be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of this year? I wouldn't. Would you be shocked if he plays next year and looks more like 2005/2006 Favre than 2007 Favre? I wouldn't. Would you be surprised at any point to see Favre finally NOT just shake off one of those vicious hits? Honestly, with the abuse he's taken over the years it's a miracle he suits up at all and seriously: God bless him for it. But it won't last forever, and I don't think it will last long.
Favre didn't suck. I said it then, and I'll say it now: some people can't look at a situation and understand his production is going to be drastically different in a rebuilding process with a poor line and pedestrian receiving options than it will be with talented receivers and a solid line.
I play 17 weeks, and for most people the most important weeks are coming up now. As a legit top tier starter (he's 7th in total points amongst all positions in both of my leauges), he still has a lot of value for owners who are doing what they're supposed to be doing in dynasty leagues: gunning for a championship.
Yes, I would be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of the year. Yes, I would be shocked if Favre played next year and looked more like 2006 Favre than 2007 Favre. Yes, I would be very surprised to see Favre go down with a season-ending injury considering he's the most durable player in the history of the game. I don't deal in miracles.
I don't think John Beck has anywhere close to 10-15 years of starter material, so I'm not going to rank him that way. If you're expecting a development curve with him, I think you're on thin ice. At 26 years old, he's on Weinke's heels -- meaning there's a good chance he's already done all the developing he's going to do. He may be as good now as he's ever going to be.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 10:29 AM)
What was Derek Anderson worth early this year (remember when he played for terrible team and was tossing up INTs left and right? Sound familiar?) What was Romo worth a couple of years ago? Garrard? Shaub? Were any of those guys "clearly not special" at any point? I bet they were. But they were young, got their chance, and went off. Most don't, some do.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
Oh, so you're the one in the league with 75-man rosters? How else can you carry all the non-special 2nd string, 3rd string and practice squadders that maybe, couldbe, hopeso, cross-your-fingers, end up as Tony Romo or Derek Anderson some day? There are so many candidates that you would have to collect them to give yourself a chance to hit the lottery.
Where were McNair, Green, or Plummer at the start of the season? Right about where Grossman is now. That threesome is nowhere near Brett Favre. They weren't solid starters, they weren't putting up points, and they were helping their teams lose. That's worse than worthless, and the exact opposite of Favre. Favre is a solid starter, he is putting up points, and he's helping his fantasy teams win. Do you understand the difference? The only thing they have in common with Favre in dynasty leagues is veteran status.
I had Kitna too high. I admit that. I explained the reasons for it. I saw a two year window with Martz' passing offense, two dominantly talented WRs, and two above average slot receivers. I thought two seasons of 4000 yards + 25 TDs was a good possibility. I gave the Lions too much credit, I didn't anticipate Calvin Johnson's season-long back issues, and I was wrong. Yet I'd still take what's left of Jon Kitna over the next couple of seasons than John Beck.
The reason it's a DYNASTY is for your team to win year-in and year-out. It's not called a DYNASTY because you get credit for having a youthful roster full of prospects. The idea is to win.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 5 2007, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 4 2007, 10:02 PM)
I am a Titan's homer and live outside of Nashville. Here's my two cents on the Titans RB's.
Lendale is in a good spot because he doesn't fumble, he always gets 2 or 3 yards or more, and he eats the clock up.
In fact, Lendale really never gets caught in the backfield if you have watched the games. VY running definitely helps the RB to get that 3 yards no matter what though... Defenses have to respect Vince's ability to run so they can't play up the line as they might otherwise. So, on the one hand I would say that Lendale benefits from being slightly overweight and running downhill on a team that has Vince. But, there also the times when he makes a cut and gets to the next level. Usually at least once a game he gets into the secondary.
As a Titan's fan I do wonder what a faster shiftier back could do in our offense though. For example, the way that Addai runs, being able to careen off hits for 10 yards, if he had our O-line and defenses playing back a bit to guard against a Vince run, he could get 150 a game easy.
All that being said, I don't think that Chris Henry will overtake Lendale until an injury sometime next year. Fisher is so loyal to his guys. He won't take a workhorse like Lendale's job from him unless injury opens that door. I have Henry in a Dynasty league and I am holding for good until he gets his shot. I think that by next year, when he gets a chance to have 30 carries it will be a case of just not being able to move him back to backup.
Brown won't be here next year.
Lendale is in a good spot because he doesn't fumble, he always gets 2 or 3 yards or more, and he eats the clock up.
In fact, Lendale really never gets caught in the backfield if you have watched the games. VY running definitely helps the RB to get that 3 yards no matter what though... Defenses have to respect Vince's ability to run so they can't play up the line as they might otherwise. So, on the one hand I would say that Lendale benefits from being slightly overweight and running downhill on a team that has Vince. But, there also the times when he makes a cut and gets to the next level. Usually at least once a game he gets into the secondary.
As a Titan's fan I do wonder what a faster shiftier back could do in our offense though. For example, the way that Addai runs, being able to careen off hits for 10 yards, if he had our O-line and defenses playing back a bit to guard against a Vince run, he could get 150 a game easy.
All that being said, I don't think that Chris Henry will overtake Lendale until an injury sometime next year. Fisher is so loyal to his guys. He won't take a workhorse like Lendale's job from him unless injury opens that door. I have Henry in a Dynasty league and I am holding for good until he gets his shot. I think that by next year, when he gets a chance to have 30 carries it will be a case of just not being able to move him back to backup.
Brown won't be here next year.
I think Benm has a good read on this situation. We can quote DVOA for RBs all we want, but I'm not sure it accounts for a RB's ability to sustain a rushing attack in a conservative offense under a head coach averse to change.
My take on LenDale was that he was a great bet to build value going into this season. He did that. However, once he was seen as a reliable starting-caliber fantasy RB by Week 9, that's when he was extremely overvalued. He was a sell high the moment you could find somebody who wanted to count on him as anything more than depth.
I've watched him run several times this season, and he's not as talented as I originally thought he was. On the other hand, unlike more talented tweener backs like Jerious Norwood and Leon Washington who can't sustain a team's rushing attack, LenDale can. Sure, he needs his team to have the lead to have value, but he can move the chains as long as it's a close game or the Titans are ahead. It's just tough to count on that if he's anything more than a RB3 for you.
...and LenDale still rates extremely high on the knucklehead scale.
Re: Chris Brown. I agree with benm that he won't be back with the Titans. He'll probably end up in a timeshare somewhere, but last year's lack of interest in free agency should be a reminder that he's not a guy with much dynasty value.
Re: Chris Henry. I was impressed with his work in short doses, but that doesn't mean that he has what it takes to push LenDale aside to take over as the Titans starting RB. Can he handle the full load? I have no idea, but I'm inclined to disbelieve on this one until I see more of his game.
Thanks for the comments, guys. 2 good posts there.
I bolded the part that's bugging me. I always thought FO's stats valued precisely that kind of runner. Their stat for Success Rate (SR) especially does this. Here's an excerpt from FO's description, with a couple of salient points bolded.
"And I said to Sean, "I wish I could do something like that for football, to point out to people how often running backs run for bad plays. With a pass, you know when it is incomplete, but with a running back you can run for 2-3 yards over and over on first down, and you’ll rack up the stats even though you haven’t really helped the team. Those runs are really ‘outs’ because they aren’t much better than an incomplete pass, and a lot of times a running back will have a lot of these little pointless gains but look really great because of a few highlight reel runs." From this conversation came the idea of "running back batting average," a statistic that could be used to measure the consistency of a running back by treating all runs as either hits or outs. The length of the run wouldn’t matter; the only important question was whether the run was a "success" or not."
Every defense of Lendale White that I see makes the case for his ability to get consistent yards or, as F&L says above, sustain drives (and I'm not really accusing anyone here of making a zealous defense of the guy). The implication is that ypc undervalues White, so we need to understand that his consistent short gains move the chains, even if he doesn't break many big runs (which is what keeps his ypc down). If that's true, then White should have a high SR, because SR just scores a hit or miss for the RB's ability to gain a certain percentage of yards on each play. For example, a RB that runs for 1, 1, and 80 on 3 1st&10s scores worse than a RB that runs 1, 4, and 4 on the same 3 1st&10s, even though the former gained 73 more yards. But White's SR is only 45%, good for 27th out of 47 RBs with 75+ carries. We already know White's ypc is poor, his receiving stats are poor, his DVOA is poor, but this is supposed to be the skill he can hang his hat on, and he's below the median at that as well.
In a recent audible podcast, Faletti observed that White's not hitting the hole as hard as decisively as he did at USC. That seems accurate to me, but I can't explain it. The Titans have a good OL and their other 2 RBs have put up good stats when they've carried the ball - Brown in fact ranks 1st currently in SR - so it can't be tentativeness due to a lack of holes. Could he be having trouble reading the holes or picking his lanes? And, do we really think that Fisher and Chow see White's performance as so valuable? It could just be that he has to be the guy because of defects in the other RBs' games. Brown is fragile and Henry is a rookie learning on the job (not to mention the fact that Henry's failed drug test came right around the time he was starting to get some carries, and pretty much wiped out his chance of contributing this year), in which case the job will be totally up for grabs in the offseason, and not necessarily White's to lose.
The key is that Favre >>>>>> McNair, Green, and Plummer.
After Favre went to GB (excludes only his 1 year in ATL), his lowest finish in FF rankings was in 2005. He was 13th overall amongst QB's. While he was 10th & 11th in 2002 & 2003, repsectively, he was 6th in 2004, and 8th in 2006.
That would match up to Plummer's BEST years, and be not to far off McNair & Green's best stretches.
At the end of the year, you look up and he's startable, maybe not an above-average starter, but he's better than a ton of guys, and there is value in that, especially when he has proven the ability to be an above average starter.
I don't think there was a moment in time where Plummer would've netted you Favre straight up. With Green & McNair there was a window of time they were better than Favre, but it was reasonably close and the window of time was short.
Favre's issues has been about situation, not a lack of talent - yet.
After Favre went to GB (excludes only his 1 year in ATL), his lowest finish in FF rankings was in 2005. He was 13th overall amongst QB's. While he was 10th & 11th in 2002 & 2003, repsectively, he was 6th in 2004, and 8th in 2006.
That would match up to Plummer's BEST years, and be not to far off McNair & Green's best stretches.
At the end of the year, you look up and he's startable, maybe not an above-average starter, but he's better than a ton of guys, and there is value in that, especially when he has proven the ability to be an above average starter.
I don't think there was a moment in time where Plummer would've netted you Favre straight up. With Green & McNair there was a window of time they were better than Favre, but it was reasonably close and the window of time was short.
Favre's issues has been about situation, not a lack of talent - yet.
QUOTE (J R @ Dec 7 2007, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 5 2007, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 4 2007, 10:02 PM)
I am a Titan's homer and live outside of Nashville. Here's my two cents on the Titans RB's.
Lendale is in a good spot because he doesn't fumble, he always gets 2 or 3 yards or more, and he eats the clock up.
In fact, Lendale really never gets caught in the backfield if you have watched the games. VY running definitely helps the RB to get that 3 yards no matter what though... Defenses have to respect Vince's ability to run so they can't play up the line as they might otherwise. So, on the one hand I would say that Lendale benefits from being slightly overweight and running downhill on a team that has Vince. But, there also the times when he makes a cut and gets to the next level. Usually at least once a game he gets into the secondary.
As a Titan's fan I do wonder what a faster shiftier back could do in our offense though. For example, the way that Addai runs, being able to careen off hits for 10 yards, if he had our O-line and defenses playing back a bit to guard against a Vince run, he could get 150 a game easy.
All that being said, I don't think that Chris Henry will overtake Lendale until an injury sometime next year. Fisher is so loyal to his guys. He won't take a workhorse like Lendale's job from him unless injury opens that door. I have Henry in a Dynasty league and I am holding for good until he gets his shot. I think that by next year, when he gets a chance to have 30 carries it will be a case of just not being able to move him back to backup.
Brown won't be here next year.
Lendale is in a good spot because he doesn't fumble, he always gets 2 or 3 yards or more, and he eats the clock up.
In fact, Lendale really never gets caught in the backfield if you have watched the games. VY running definitely helps the RB to get that 3 yards no matter what though... Defenses have to respect Vince's ability to run so they can't play up the line as they might otherwise. So, on the one hand I would say that Lendale benefits from being slightly overweight and running downhill on a team that has Vince. But, there also the times when he makes a cut and gets to the next level. Usually at least once a game he gets into the secondary.
As a Titan's fan I do wonder what a faster shiftier back could do in our offense though. For example, the way that Addai runs, being able to careen off hits for 10 yards, if he had our O-line and defenses playing back a bit to guard against a Vince run, he could get 150 a game easy.
All that being said, I don't think that Chris Henry will overtake Lendale until an injury sometime next year. Fisher is so loyal to his guys. He won't take a workhorse like Lendale's job from him unless injury opens that door. I have Henry in a Dynasty league and I am holding for good until he gets his shot. I think that by next year, when he gets a chance to have 30 carries it will be a case of just not being able to move him back to backup.
Brown won't be here next year.
I think Benm has a good read on this situation. We can quote DVOA for RBs all we want, but I'm not sure it accounts for a RB's ability to sustain a rushing attack in a conservative offense under a head coach averse to change.
My take on LenDale was that he was a great bet to build value going into this season. He did that. However, once he was seen as a reliable starting-caliber fantasy RB by Week 9, that's when he was extremely overvalued. He was a sell high the moment you could find somebody who wanted to count on him as anything more than depth.
I've watched him run several times this season, and he's not as talented as I originally thought he was. On the other hand, unlike more talented tweener backs like Jerious Norwood and Leon Washington who can't sustain a team's rushing attack, LenDale can. Sure, he needs his team to have the lead to have value, but he can move the chains as long as it's a close game or the Titans are ahead. It's just tough to count on that if he's anything more than a RB3 for you.
...and LenDale still rates extremely high on the knucklehead scale.
Re: Chris Brown. I agree with benm that he won't be back with the Titans. He'll probably end up in a timeshare somewhere, but last year's lack of interest in free agency should be a reminder that he's not a guy with much dynasty value.
Re: Chris Henry. I was impressed with his work in short doses, but that doesn't mean that he has what it takes to push LenDale aside to take over as the Titans starting RB. Can he handle the full load? I have no idea, but I'm inclined to disbelieve on this one until I see more of his game.
Thanks for the comments, guys. 2 good posts there.
I bolded the part that's bugging me. I always thought FO's stats valued precisely that kind of runner. Their stat for Success Rate (SR) especially does this. Here's an excerpt from FO's description, with a couple of salient points bolded.
"And I said to Sean, "I wish I could do something like that for football, to point out to people how often running backs run for bad plays. With a pass, you know when it is incomplete, but with a running back you can run for 2-3 yards over and over on first down, and you’ll rack up the stats even though you haven’t really helped the team. Those runs are really ‘outs’ because they aren’t much better than an incomplete pass, and a lot of times a running back will have a lot of these little pointless gains but look really great because of a few highlight reel runs." From this conversation came the idea of "running back batting average," a statistic that could be used to measure the consistency of a running back by treating all runs as either hits or outs. The length of the run wouldn’t matter; the only important question was whether the run was a "success" or not."
Every defense of Lendale White that I see makes the case for his ability to get consistent yards or, as F&L says above, sustain drives (and I'm not really accusing anyone here of making a zealous defense of the guy). The implication is that ypc undervalues White, so we need to understand that his consistent short gains move the chains, even if he doesn't break many big runs (which is what keeps his ypc down). If that's true, then White should have a high SR, because SR just scores a hit or miss for the RB's ability to gain a certain percentage of yards on each play. For example, a RB that runs for 1, 1, and 80 on 3 1st&10s scores worse than a RB that runs 1, 4, and 4 on the same 3 1st&10s, even though the former gained 73 more yards. But White's SR is only 45%, good for 27th out of 47 RBs with 75+ carries. We already know White's ypc is poor, his receiving stats are poor, his DVOA is poor, but this is supposed to be the skill he can hang his hat on, and he's below the median at that as well.
In a recent audible podcast, Faletti observed that White's not hitting the hole as hard as decisively as he did at USC. That seems accurate to me, but I can't explain it. The Titans have a good OL and their other 2 RBs have put up good stats when they've carried the ball - Brown in fact ranks 1st currently in SR - so it can't be tentativeness due to a lack of holes. Could he be having trouble reading the holes or picking his lanes? And, do we really think that Fisher and Chow see White's performance as so valuable? It could just be that he has to be the guy because of defects in the other RBs' games. Brown is fragile and Henry is a rookie learning on the job (not to mention the fact that Henry's failed drug test came right around the time he was starting to get some carries, and pretty much wiped out his chance of contributing this year), in which case the job will be totally up for grabs in the offseason, and not necessarily White's to lose.
Thanks for that analysis JR. Not only because I have a vested interest in the TEN RB situation, but also becuase I am a fan of footballoutsiders, and was unaware of the success rate (SR) metric. I'll have to go over there and do some reading. I don't use all the stats blindly, but it is always nice to have another tool to consider when evaluating players.
QUOTE (the_sig @ Dec 7 2007, 03:38 PM)
QUOTE (J R @ Dec 7 2007, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 5 2007, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 4 2007, 10:02 PM)
I am a Titan's homer and live outside of Nashville. Here's my two cents on the Titans RB's.
Lendale is in a good spot because he doesn't fumble, he always gets 2 or 3 yards or more, and he eats the clock up.
In fact, Lendale really never gets caught in the backfield if you have watched the games. VY running definitely helps the RB to get that 3 yards no matter what though... Defenses have to respect Vince's ability to run so they can't play up the line as they might otherwise. So, on the one hand I would say that Lendale benefits from being slightly overweight and running downhill on a team that has Vince. But, there also the times when he makes a cut and gets to the next level. Usually at least once a game he gets into the secondary.
As a Titan's fan I do wonder what a faster shiftier back could do in our offense though. For example, the way that Addai runs, being able to careen off hits for 10 yards, if he had our O-line and defenses playing back a bit to guard against a Vince run, he could get 150 a game easy.
All that being said, I don't think that Chris Henry will overtake Lendale until an injury sometime next year. Fisher is so loyal to his guys. He won't take a workhorse like Lendale's job from him unless injury opens that door. I have Henry in a Dynasty league and I am holding for good until he gets his shot. I think that by next year, when he gets a chance to have 30 carries it will be a case of just not being able to move him back to backup.
Brown won't be here next year.
Lendale is in a good spot because he doesn't fumble, he always gets 2 or 3 yards or more, and he eats the clock up.
In fact, Lendale really never gets caught in the backfield if you have watched the games. VY running definitely helps the RB to get that 3 yards no matter what though... Defenses have to respect Vince's ability to run so they can't play up the line as they might otherwise. So, on the one hand I would say that Lendale benefits from being slightly overweight and running downhill on a team that has Vince. But, there also the times when he makes a cut and gets to the next level. Usually at least once a game he gets into the secondary.
As a Titan's fan I do wonder what a faster shiftier back could do in our offense though. For example, the way that Addai runs, being able to careen off hits for 10 yards, if he had our O-line and defenses playing back a bit to guard against a Vince run, he could get 150 a game easy.
All that being said, I don't think that Chris Henry will overtake Lendale until an injury sometime next year. Fisher is so loyal to his guys. He won't take a workhorse like Lendale's job from him unless injury opens that door. I have Henry in a Dynasty league and I am holding for good until he gets his shot. I think that by next year, when he gets a chance to have 30 carries it will be a case of just not being able to move him back to backup.
Brown won't be here next year.
I think Benm has a good read on this situation. We can quote DVOA for RBs all we want, but I'm not sure it accounts for a RB's ability to sustain a rushing attack in a conservative offense under a head coach averse to change.
My take on LenDale was that he was a great bet to build value going into this season. He did that. However, once he was seen as a reliable starting-caliber fantasy RB by Week 9, that's when he was extremely overvalued. He was a sell high the moment you could find somebody who wanted to count on him as anything more than depth.
I've watched him run several times this season, and he's not as talented as I originally thought he was. On the other hand, unlike more talented tweener backs like Jerious Norwood and Leon Washington who can't sustain a team's rushing attack, LenDale can. Sure, he needs his team to have the lead to have value, but he can move the chains as long as it's a close game or the Titans are ahead. It's just tough to count on that if he's anything more than a RB3 for you.
...and LenDale still rates extremely high on the knucklehead scale.
Re: Chris Brown. I agree with benm that he won't be back with the Titans. He'll probably end up in a timeshare somewhere, but last year's lack of interest in free agency should be a reminder that he's not a guy with much dynasty value.
Re: Chris Henry. I was impressed with his work in short doses, but that doesn't mean that he has what it takes to push LenDale aside to take over as the Titans starting RB. Can he handle the full load? I have no idea, but I'm inclined to disbelieve on this one until I see more of his game.
Thanks for the comments, guys. 2 good posts there.
I bolded the part that's bugging me. I always thought FO's stats valued precisely that kind of runner. Their stat for Success Rate (SR) especially does this. Here's an excerpt from FO's description, with a couple of salient points bolded.
"And I said to Sean, "I wish I could do something like that for football, to point out to people how often running backs run for bad plays. With a pass, you know when it is incomplete, but with a running back you can run for 2-3 yards over and over on first down, and you’ll rack up the stats even though you haven’t really helped the team. Those runs are really ‘outs’ because they aren’t much better than an incomplete pass, and a lot of times a running back will have a lot of these little pointless gains but look really great because of a few highlight reel runs." From this conversation came the idea of "running back batting average," a statistic that could be used to measure the consistency of a running back by treating all runs as either hits or outs. The length of the run wouldn’t matter; the only important question was whether the run was a "success" or not."
Every defense of Lendale White that I see makes the case for his ability to get consistent yards or, as F&L says above, sustain drives (and I'm not really accusing anyone here of making a zealous defense of the guy). The implication is that ypc undervalues White, so we need to understand that his consistent short gains move the chains, even if he doesn't break many big runs (which is what keeps his ypc down). If that's true, then White should have a high SR, because SR just scores a hit or miss for the RB's ability to gain a certain percentage of yards on each play. For example, a RB that runs for 1, 1, and 80 on 3 1st&10s scores worse than a RB that runs 1, 4, and 4 on the same 3 1st&10s, even though the former gained 73 more yards. But White's SR is only 45%, good for 27th out of 47 RBs with 75+ carries. We already know White's ypc is poor, his receiving stats are poor, his DVOA is poor, but this is supposed to be the skill he can hang his hat on, and he's below the median at that as well.
In a recent audible podcast, Faletti observed that White's not hitting the hole as hard as decisively as he did at USC. That seems accurate to me, but I can't explain it. The Titans have a good OL and their other 2 RBs have put up good stats when they've carried the ball - Brown in fact ranks 1st currently in SR - so it can't be tentativeness due to a lack of holes. Could he be having trouble reading the holes or picking his lanes? And, do we really think that Fisher and Chow see White's performance as so valuable? It could just be that he has to be the guy because of defects in the other RBs' games. Brown is fragile and Henry is a rookie learning on the job (not to mention the fact that Henry's failed drug test came right around the time he was starting to get some carries, and pretty much wiped out his chance of contributing this year), in which case the job will be totally up for grabs in the offseason, and not necessarily White's to lose.
Thanks for that analysis JR. Not only because I have a vested interest in the TEN RB situation, but also becuase I am a fan of footballoutsiders, and was unaware of the success rate (SR) metric. I'll have to go over there and do some reading. I don't use all the stats blindly, but it is always nice to have another tool to consider when evaluating players.
I think the SR stat and the points you make about Henry and Brown doing better are just what I was getting at in a round about way. With our o-line and having a running QB that commands respect and staying back off the line a little, you would think that LW could do better. I honestly think that Henry will be the guy in 08. He is faster with better vision and should maximize the yards available. Benson could do what Lendale does on our team... And Benson is a turd.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 10:29 AM)
I suppose you've been through all of this many times, but yeah, I'm definitely on the youth side of the fence. A year and a half ago, Favre went for a 3rd round pick in one of my leagues and that DID represent his true value at the time because frankly, he sucked. He wasn't worth starting most weeks and he was old. Granted that turned out to be a steal, but now he's 38, the current season is basically over, and we don't even know for sure he's coming back next year. He's looked very good this year overall, but even at his best he's not going to give you consistently dominating performances. What is the POSSIBILITY of one or MAX two years at mid-grade starter worth? Not much to me relative to the possibility of 10-15 years of starter material. Would you be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of this year? I wouldn't. Would you be shocked if he plays next year and looks more like 2005/2006 Favre than 2007 Favre? I wouldn't. Would you be surprised at any point to see Favre finally NOT just shake off one of those vicious hits? Honestly, with the abuse he's taken over the years it's a miracle he suits up at all and seriously: God bless him for it. But it won't last forever, and I don't think it will last long.
Favre didn't suck. I said it then, and I'll say it now: some people can't look at a situation and understand his production is going to be drastically different in a rebuilding process with a poor line and pedestrian receiving options than it will be with talented receivers and a solid line.
I play 17 weeks, and for most people the most important weeks are coming up now. As a legit top tier starter (he's 7th in total points amongst all positions in both of my leauges), he still has a lot of value for owners who are doing what they're supposed to be doing in dynasty leagues: gunning for a championship.
Yes, I would be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of the year. Yes, I would be shocked if Favre played next year and looked more like 2006 Favre than 2007 Favre. Yes, I would be very surprised to see Favre go down with a season-ending injury considering he's the most durable player in the history of the game. I don't deal in miracles.
I don't think John Beck has anywhere close to 10-15 years of starter material, so I'm not going to rank him that way. If you're expecting a development curve with him, I think you're on thin ice. At 26 years old, he's on Weinke's heels -- meaning there's a good chance he's already done all the developing he's going to do. He may be as good now as he's ever going to be.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 10:29 AM)
What was Derek Anderson worth early this year (remember when he played for terrible team and was tossing up INTs left and right? Sound familiar?) What was Romo worth a couple of years ago? Garrard? Shaub? Were any of those guys "clearly not special" at any point? I bet they were. But they were young, got their chance, and went off. Most don't, some do.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
Oh, so you're the one in the league with 75-man rosters? How else can you carry all the non-special 2nd string, 3rd string and practice squadders that maybe, couldbe, hopeso, cross-your-fingers, end up as Tony Romo or Derek Anderson some day? There are so many candidates that you would have to collect them to give yourself a chance to hit the lottery.
Where were McNair, Green, or Plummer at the start of the season? Right about where Grossman is now. That threesome is nowhere near Brett Favre. They weren't solid starters, they weren't putting up points, and they were helping their teams lose. That's worse than worthless, and the exact opposite of Favre. Favre is a solid starter, he is putting up points, and he's helping his fantasy teams win. Do you understand the difference? The only thing they have in common with Favre in dynasty leagues is veteran status.
I had Kitna too high. I admit that. I explained the reasons for it. I saw a two year window with Martz' passing offense, two dominantly talented WRs, and two above average slot receivers. I thought two seasons of 4000 yards + 25 TDs was a good possibility. I gave the Lions too much credit, I didn't anticipate Calvin Johnson's season-long back issues, and I was wrong. Yet I'd still take what's left of Jon Kitna over the next couple of seasons than John Beck.
The reason it's a DYNASTY is for your team to win year-in and year-out. It's not called a DYNASTY because you get credit for having a youthful roster full of prospects. The idea is to win.
We shall see about Favre. He's made a habit (Hell, a CAREER) of proving people like me wrong. All I am saying is that I do look at the out-years in a dynasty league and Favre isn't in that picture for me.
As for 75 man rosters, you don't need that for a 26 year old NFL starter to be on a team somewhere. No, you can't carry them all (but of course you knew that), but you carry a few (or at the very least one) guy like that to backup your current starter. They might not turn into a Derek Anderson/Romo. But some of them absolutely will - it happens every year. If that's a lottery, I'll take a couple of tickets at the price of a 38 year old QB. Maybe I'll get a Grossman, but maybe an Anderson, maybe a BRADY.
As for McNair etc I asked where you had them (or would have had them) at the beginning of LAST year, before they fell off the cliff (not this year when they were falling down the other side). Because a cliff it is, and that is the point. Like right after Trent Green threw for 4000 yards and 4600 the year before that. It's not that their skills just disappear (in most cases). A lot of the time it's just an injury or two that a 24 year old can easily come back from and a 34 (or 38) year old can't. Even aside from the natural aging process, I think NFL hits add up over time. Trent Green was DEFINITELY helping fantasy teams win in 2005 and had all kinds of dynasty value at 35/36 according to the current Favre evaluation. Then, all of the sudden, he wasn't worth squat, and that happens way more often than you are acknowledging. Look at Rich Gannon. One year at age 36/37, he's setting records, the next year he's GONE and ruining fantasy teams' seasons. You prefer to talk about true legends more like Favre? How bout Steve Young? He goes from leading the league in passing yards and TDs in 1998 (at 37) and then GONE. Joe Montana dominated the league at 34. Next year he was injured, Young (a lottery ticket) took over, and Joe never posted decent fantasy numbers again. Warren Moon was AMAZING in '95 (at 34). He played for 5 more years, but after that one amazing year, he would not have been a decent fantasy option again.
I'm well aware that the idea is to win. IMO you do that over the long haul with a BALANCE of youth (or lottery tickets as you call them) and solid vets. That DOESN'T mean (again, IMO), that 38 year old QBs are worth 10x more than rookies because they look 10x better THAT YEAR.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 10:29 AM)
I suppose you've been through all of this many times, but yeah, I'm definitely on the youth side of the fence. A year and a half ago, Favre went for a 3rd round pick in one of my leagues and that DID represent his true value at the time because frankly, he sucked. He wasn't worth starting most weeks and he was old. Granted that turned out to be a steal, but now he's 38, the current season is basically over, and we don't even know for sure he's coming back next year. He's looked very good this year overall, but even at his best he's not going to give you consistently dominating performances. What is the POSSIBILITY of one or MAX two years at mid-grade starter worth? Not much to me relative to the possibility of 10-15 years of starter material. Would you be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of this year? I wouldn't. Would you be shocked if he plays next year and looks more like 2005/2006 Favre than 2007 Favre? I wouldn't. Would you be surprised at any point to see Favre finally NOT just shake off one of those vicious hits? Honestly, with the abuse he's taken over the years it's a miracle he suits up at all and seriously: God bless him for it. But it won't last forever, and I don't think it will last long.
Favre didn't suck. I said it then, and I'll say it now: some people can't look at a situation and understand his production is going to be drastically different in a rebuilding process with a poor line and pedestrian receiving options than it will be with talented receivers and a solid line.
I play 17 weeks, and for most people the most important weeks are coming up now. As a legit top tier starter (he's 7th in total points amongst all positions in both of my leauges), he still has a lot of value for owners who are doing what they're supposed to be doing in dynasty leagues: gunning for a championship.
Yes, I would be shocked if Favre hung it up at the end of the year. Yes, I would be shocked if Favre played next year and looked more like 2006 Favre than 2007 Favre. Yes, I would be very surprised to see Favre go down with a season-ending injury considering he's the most durable player in the history of the game. I don't deal in miracles.
I don't think John Beck has anywhere close to 10-15 years of starter material, so I'm not going to rank him that way. If you're expecting a development curve with him, I think you're on thin ice. At 26 years old, he's on Weinke's heels -- meaning there's a good chance he's already done all the developing he's going to do. He may be as good now as he's ever going to be.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 10:29 AM)
What was Derek Anderson worth early this year (remember when he played for terrible team and was tossing up INTs left and right? Sound familiar?) What was Romo worth a couple of years ago? Garrard? Shaub? Were any of those guys "clearly not special" at any point? I bet they were. But they were young, got their chance, and went off. Most don't, some do.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
On the other hand, where was McNair on your list at the beginning of 2006? How bout Green? Plummer? Solid starters, putting up nice points and helping their teams right? Worth more than any young pup who didn't look "special" in his first 3 games? Where was Kitna at the beginning of THIS year? What tier?
Again, I don't KNOW Beck will do ANYTHING in the NFL. But he could, and to judge him on his first couple of games in ridiculously difficult circumstances is shortsighted. He's not going to play Pittsburgh and Philly every week, Ginn WILL improve, Brown WILL be back, and Miami at least should get him some playmakers this year - their defense is fine. It does not take long in the NFL for teams to change significantly their ability to produce fantasy points for a variety of reasons. And if it takes TWO years instead of one? OK, I've got a better starter anyway for now - that's why it's a DYNASTY.
Oh, so you're the one in the league with 75-man rosters? How else can you carry all the non-special 2nd string, 3rd string and practice squadders that maybe, couldbe, hopeso, cross-your-fingers, end up as Tony Romo or Derek Anderson some day? There are so many candidates that you would have to collect them to give yourself a chance to hit the lottery.
Where were McNair, Green, or Plummer at the start of the season? Right about where Grossman is now. That threesome is nowhere near Brett Favre. They weren't solid starters, they weren't putting up points, and they were helping their teams lose. That's worse than worthless, and the exact opposite of Favre. Favre is a solid starter, he is putting up points, and he's helping his fantasy teams win. Do you understand the difference? The only thing they have in common with Favre in dynasty leagues is veteran status.
I had Kitna too high. I admit that. I explained the reasons for it. I saw a two year window with Martz' passing offense, two dominantly talented WRs, and two above average slot receivers. I thought two seasons of 4000 yards + 25 TDs was a good possibility. I gave the Lions too much credit, I didn't anticipate Calvin Johnson's season-long back issues, and I was wrong. Yet I'd still take what's left of Jon Kitna over the next couple of seasons than John Beck.
The reason it's a DYNASTY is for your team to win year-in and year-out. It's not called a DYNASTY because you get credit for having a youthful roster full of prospects. The idea is to win.
We shall see about Favre. He's made a habit (Hell, a CAREER) of proving people like me wrong. All I am saying is that I do look at the out-years in a dynasty league and Favre isn't in that picture for me.
As for 75 man rosters, you don't need that for a 26 year old NFL starter to be on a team somewhere. No, you can't carry them all (but of course you knew that), but you carry a few (or at the very least one) guy like that to backup your current starter. They might not turn into a Derek Anderson/Romo. But some of them absolutely will - it happens every year. If that's a lottery, I'll take a couple of tickets at the price of a 38 year old QB. Maybe I'll get a Grossman, but maybe an Anderson, maybe a BRADY.
As for McNair etc I asked where you had them (or would have had them) at the beginning of LAST year, before they fell off the cliff (not this year when they were falling down the other side). Because a cliff it is, and that is the point. Like right after Trent Green threw for 4000 yards and 4600 the year before that. It's not that their skills just disappear (in most cases). A lot of the time it's just an injury or two that a 24 year old can easily come back from and a 34 (or 38) year old can't. Even aside from the natural aging process, I think NFL hits add up over time. Trent Green was DEFINITELY helping fantasy teams win in 2005 and had all kinds of dynasty value at 35/36 according to the current Favre evaluation. Then, all of the sudden, he wasn't worth squat, and that happens way more often than you are acknowledging. Look at Rich Gannon. One year at age 36/37, he's setting records, the next year he's GONE and ruining fantasy teams' seasons. You prefer to talk about true legends more like Favre? How bout Steve Young? He goes from leading the league in passing yards and TDs in 1998 (at 37) and then GONE. Joe Montana dominated the league at 34. Next year he was injured, Young (a lottery ticket) took over, and Joe never posted decent fantasy numbers again. Warren Moon was AMAZING in '95 (at 34). He played for 5 more years, but after that one amazing year, he would not have been a decent fantasy option again.
I'm well aware that the idea is to win. IMO you do that over the long haul with a BALANCE of youth (or lottery tickets as you call them) and solid vets. That DOESN'T mean (again, IMO), that 38 year old QBs are worth 10x more than rookies because they look 10x better THAT YEAR.
I can guarantee you that Beck isn't Brady.
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 7 2007, 05:52 PM)
I can guarantee you that Beck isn't Brady.
Careful out on that limb!
I sure could have used you in 2000 when you knew Brady was going to be the best NFL QB of all time as a 6th round pick. Especially after the first two games he started where he threw for 127 yards per game and 0 TDs with two lost fumbles.
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 7 2007, 05:52 PM)
I can guarantee you that Beck isn't Brady.
Umm....that's a pretty safe bet, but what's the point of it? I mean...by this reasoning you'd NEVER get a Brady like player because you're too busy stocking up on the proven vets. That seems like a nice way to consistantly finish on the playoff bubble, but NEVER win your league.
Loolking at it another way...I absolutely, positively GAURENTEE you will never win the lottery...if you never play the lottery.
Speaking of very early careers...
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 06:23 PM)
Speaking of very early careers...
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Every defense of Lendale White that I see makes the case for his ability to get consistent yards or, as F&L says above, sustain drives (and I'm not really accusing anyone here of making a zealous defense of the guy). The implication is that ypc undervalues White, so we need to understand that his consistent short gains move the chains, even if he doesn't break many big runs (which is what keeps his ypc down). If that's true, then White should have a high SR, because SR just scores a hit or miss for the RB's ability to gain a certain percentage of yards on each play. For example, a RB that runs for 1, 1, and 80 on 3 1st&10s scores worse than a RB that runs 1, 4, and 4 on the same 3 1st&10s, even though the former gained 73 more yards. But White's SR is only 45%, good for 27th out of 47 RBs with 75+ carries. We already know White's ypc is poor, his receiving stats are poor, his DVOA is poor, but this is supposed to be the skill he can hang his hat on, and he's below the median at that as well.
I want to pose this question. When breaking down these stats do they account for how many times a back carries the ball on average in each game? A back who is getting the ball 15-20 or so times per game may break down differently than a bacl like LW who may get the ball 25 +/- times in one game and 10 or less in another.
I own White and I agree in the few games I have seen he seems to not run with a lot of authority or vision. I also did not watch a lot of his college games but it seems to me if he can get his confidence back that he could regain the vision and run with the authority he previously had.
I think that it is hard to account for all the variables when creating statistics. I agree that White has not shown that he is a stud but there have been games when he has been pretty effective on a team with a weak passing offense.
I want to pose this question. When breaking down these stats do they account for how many times a back carries the ball on average in each game? A back who is getting the ball 15-20 or so times per game may break down differently than a bacl like LW who may get the ball 25 +/- times in one game and 10 or less in another.
I own White and I agree in the few games I have seen he seems to not run with a lot of authority or vision. I also did not watch a lot of his college games but it seems to me if he can get his confidence back that he could regain the vision and run with the authority he previously had.
I think that it is hard to account for all the variables when creating statistics. I agree that White has not shown that he is a stud but there have been games when he has been pretty effective on a team with a weak passing offense.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 05:16 PM)
As for 75 man rosters, you don't need that for a 26 year old NFL starter to be on a team somewhere. No, you can't carry them all (but of course you knew that), but you carry a few (or at the very least one) guy like that to backup your current starter. They might not turn into a Derek Anderson/Romo. But some of them absolutely will - it happens every year. If that's a lottery, I'll take a couple of tickets at the price of a 38 year old QB. Maybe I'll get a Grossman, but maybe an Anderson, maybe a BRADY.
But that's exactly my point. Beck isn't worth much because there are plenty of his species out there available on the cheap or even for free on the waiver wire. None of the guys you mentioned (Anderson, Romo, Brady) were highly valued early round picks like Beck. As a general rule, people weren't stashing them on their roster and counting on them. You didn't have to trade anything or give up anything of value. You just had to get lucky and be the first to your waiver wire after their first good game...or after the news that they were in line to replace the injured/ineffective starter. That's completely different than placing a high value on a recent high draft pick and stashing him on your roster.
The problem with your stance is exactly that: these guys are everywhere. You can't stash them all. I'm not saying don't stash a couple of them. I usually pick out a couple myself. But most of them are going to fail. They're not worth as much as the guy putting up Top Tier numbers to help you win right now. Favre is valuable because there are a limited number of guys you can rely on to produce weekly. John Beck isn't valuable, and the reason is because you can find a John Beck in bargain bins all over the place.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 05:16 PM)
As for McNair etc I asked where you had them (or would have had them) at the beginning of LAST year, before they fell off the cliff (not this year when they were falling down the other side). Because a cliff it is, and that is the point. Like right after Trent Green threw for 4000 yards and 4600 the year before that. It's not that their skills just disappear (in most cases). A lot of the time it's just an injury or two that a 24 year old can easily come back from and a 34 (or 38) year old can't. Even aside from the natural aging process, I think NFL hits add up over time. Trent Green was DEFINITELY helping fantasy teams win in 2005 and had all kinds of dynasty value at 35/36 according to the current Favre evaluation. Then, all of the sudden, he wasn't worth squat, and that happens way more often than you are acknowledging. Look at Rich Gannon. One year at age 36/37, he's setting records, the next year he's GONE and ruining fantasy teams' seasons. You prefer to talk about true legends more like Favre? How bout Steve Young? He goes from leading the league in passing yards and TDs in 1998 (at 37) and then GONE. Joe Montana dominated the league at 34. Next year he was injured, Young (a lottery ticket) took over, and Joe never posted decent fantasy numbers again. Warren Moon was AMAZING in '95 (at 34). He played for 5 more years, but after that one amazing year, he would not have been a decent fantasy option again.
I didn't have any of those guys high LAST year. It was easy to see that the Chiefs' offense was cratering. Favre's is not. I'm aware of the cliff issue, but you can't be afraid to roll with a guy who is producing. You can always back him up with a younger talent and ensure you have a solid back-up plan for when he retires or becomes unreliable. I have Tom Brady in both leagues, so it's not like I need another starter. Still, I'd much rather have Favre than John Beck. I don't think I'd take John Beck if he was sitting on the waiver wire. Now that I think about it, no, I wouldn't cut anybody on my roster to carry John Beck.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 05:16 PM)
I'm well aware that the idea is to win. IMO you do that over the long haul with a BALANCE of youth (or lottery tickets as you call them) and solid vets. That DOESN'T mean (again, IMO), that 38 year old QBs are worth 10x more than rookies because they look 10x better THAT YEAR.
Oh, come on. I'm not calling all youth lottery tickets, and you know it. I called John Beck a lottery ticket because he's a 26-year-old, thoroughly unimpressive rookie QB on a team with little-to-no weapons and no hopes of helping you any time soon. He's a lottery ticket because he's available cheaply and highly unlikely to pay off in a big way.
You like to point out all of the Trent Greens that cratered and fell off a cliff, but I don't see any mention of the innumerable Losman's, Harrington's, Grossman's, and Simms' scattered along the way like roadkill.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 7 2007, 06:10 PM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 7 2007, 05:52 PM)
I can guarantee you that Beck isn't Brady.
Umm....that's a pretty safe bet, but what's the point of it? I mean...by this reasoning you'd NEVER get a Brady like player because you're too busy stocking up on the proven vets. That seems like a nice way to consistantly finish on the playoff bubble, but NEVER win your league.
Loolking at it another way...I absolutely, positively GAURENTEE you will never win the lottery...if you never play the lottery.
I don't think anybody is talking about stockpiling vets. We're (I'm) saying that a player like John Beck is much more freely available. Ergo, he isn't worth much.
A guy who is a top 5 performer at QB is not freely available. Ergo, he has significant value.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 06:23 PM)
Speaking of very early careers...
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Link to Losman's first 3 games? Grossman's first 3 games? Alex Smith's stats?
at comparing a guy's stats to a Tier 1 starter's after 3 games. Why didn't you pick Akili Smith's first 3 games? Oh, he's a bust. That wouldn't prove your point. You could take any first time starter and compare his production to a Top Tier's first 3 games. What's the point of the exercise? You could choose either a successful QB or a 1st round bust on one hand, and you could choose a 2nd round pick or an UFA on the other hand. Why stop at John Beck? Why not compare Brodie Croyle to Peyton Manning or JaMarcus Russell to Cade McNown?If you're going to be successful in a competitive dynasty league, your best asset is an ability to come to a quick, decisive judgment on young players like John Beck. You're not going to be right every time, but you simply don't have the roster space to toy around with each one. If I come to the quick, decisive judgment that a young player is nothing special, then I feel comfortable moving on to another young player who may in fact be special. If I'm hitching my wagon to John Beck, whom I don't believe in, then that's one less promising star I can stash on my roster.
QUOTE (J R @ Dec 7 2007, 03:21 PM)
Thanks for the comments, guys. 2 good posts there.
I bolded the part that's bugging me. I always thought FO's stats valued precisely that kind of runner. Their stat for Success Rate (SR) especially does this. Here's an excerpt from FO's description, with a couple of salient points bolded.
"And I said to Sean, "I wish I could do something like that for football, to point out to people how often running backs run for bad plays. With a pass, you know when it is incomplete, but with a running back you can run for 2-3 yards over and over on first down, and you’ll rack up the stats even though you haven’t really helped the team. Those runs are really ‘outs’ because they aren’t much better than an incomplete pass, and a lot of times a running back will have a lot of these little pointless gains but look really great because of a few highlight reel runs." From this conversation came the idea of "running back batting average," a statistic that could be used to measure the consistency of a running back by treating all runs as either hits or outs. The length of the run wouldn’t matter; the only important question was whether the run was a "success" or not."
Every defense of Lendale White that I see makes the case for his ability to get consistent yards or, as F&L says above, sustain drives (and I'm not really accusing anyone here of making a zealous defense of the guy). The implication is that ypc undervalues White, so we need to understand that his consistent short gains move the chains, even if he doesn't break many big runs (which is what keeps his ypc down). If that's true, then White should have a high SR, because SR just scores a hit or miss for the RB's ability to gain a certain percentage of yards on each play. For example, a RB that runs for 1, 1, and 80 on 3 1st&10s scores worse than a RB that runs 1, 4, and 4 on the same 3 1st&10s, even though the former gained 73 more yards. But White's SR is only 45%, good for 27th out of 47 RBs with 75+ carries. We already know White's ypc is poor, his receiving stats are poor, his DVOA is poor, but this is supposed to be the skill he can hang his hat on, and he's below the median at that as well.
In a recent audible podcast, Faletti observed that White's not hitting the hole as hard as decisively as he did at USC. That seems accurate to me, but I can't explain it. The Titans have a good OL and their other 2 RBs have put up good stats when they've carried the ball - Brown in fact ranks 1st currently in SR - so it can't be tentativeness due to a lack of holes. Could he be having trouble reading the holes or picking his lanes? And, do we really think that Fisher and Chow see White's performance as so valuable? It could just be that he has to be the guy because of defects in the other RBs' games. Brown is fragile and Henry is a rookie learning on the job (not to mention the fact that Henry's failed drug test came right around the time he was starting to get some carries, and pretty much wiped out his chance of contributing this year), in which case the job will be totally up for grabs in the offseason, and not necessarily White's to lose.
I bolded the part that's bugging me. I always thought FO's stats valued precisely that kind of runner. Their stat for Success Rate (SR) especially does this. Here's an excerpt from FO's description, with a couple of salient points bolded.
"And I said to Sean, "I wish I could do something like that for football, to point out to people how often running backs run for bad plays. With a pass, you know when it is incomplete, but with a running back you can run for 2-3 yards over and over on first down, and you’ll rack up the stats even though you haven’t really helped the team. Those runs are really ‘outs’ because they aren’t much better than an incomplete pass, and a lot of times a running back will have a lot of these little pointless gains but look really great because of a few highlight reel runs." From this conversation came the idea of "running back batting average," a statistic that could be used to measure the consistency of a running back by treating all runs as either hits or outs. The length of the run wouldn’t matter; the only important question was whether the run was a "success" or not."
Every defense of Lendale White that I see makes the case for his ability to get consistent yards or, as F&L says above, sustain drives (and I'm not really accusing anyone here of making a zealous defense of the guy). The implication is that ypc undervalues White, so we need to understand that his consistent short gains move the chains, even if he doesn't break many big runs (which is what keeps his ypc down). If that's true, then White should have a high SR, because SR just scores a hit or miss for the RB's ability to gain a certain percentage of yards on each play. For example, a RB that runs for 1, 1, and 80 on 3 1st&10s scores worse than a RB that runs 1, 4, and 4 on the same 3 1st&10s, even though the former gained 73 more yards. But White's SR is only 45%, good for 27th out of 47 RBs with 75+ carries. We already know White's ypc is poor, his receiving stats are poor, his DVOA is poor, but this is supposed to be the skill he can hang his hat on, and he's below the median at that as well.
In a recent audible podcast, Faletti observed that White's not hitting the hole as hard as decisively as he did at USC. That seems accurate to me, but I can't explain it. The Titans have a good OL and their other 2 RBs have put up good stats when they've carried the ball - Brown in fact ranks 1st currently in SR - so it can't be tentativeness due to a lack of holes. Could he be having trouble reading the holes or picking his lanes? And, do we really think that Fisher and Chow see White's performance as so valuable? It could just be that he has to be the guy because of defects in the other RBs' games. Brown is fragile and Henry is a rookie learning on the job (not to mention the fact that Henry's failed drug test came right around the time he was starting to get some carries, and pretty much wiped out his chance of contributing this year), in which case the job will be totally up for grabs in the offseason, and not necessarily White's to lose.
Good post.
I don't see how we disagree on LenDale White at all. Neither of us think he's a valuable dynasty RB right now. I guess you take issue with my statement that Fisher sees LenDale as rushing attack sustainer vs. Football Outsiders' DVOA stats. To which I would say that Jeff Fisher isn't necessarily concerned with DVOA or SR in his rushing attack. I think he's looking for a guy who can take the ball 30 times and burn the clock when the game is close. Football Outsiders doesn't have a stat for that trait, but I think Fisher sees that quality in LenDale White. I know he doesn't see Chris Brown as that guy, and I doubt he sees Henry as a 30-carry guy.
There's a difference between LenDale White's ability to keep pounding his head into the pile to protect a lead as opposed to what a back like Reggie Bush or Jerious Norwood bring to the table. I imagine Fisher would find a way to get the ball into Bush/Norwood's hands, but Fisher's philosophy is always going to leave him looking for the next Eddie George to take the ball, ram his way into the pile, and chew the clock. I agree that LenDale White could easily be shoved aside if they found a back who could do his job better, but I think he fits what Fisher is looking for in a RB more than Chris Henry does.
In other words, I don't think there's anything special about LenDale White. The only positive attribute in my mind is the ability to take the ball and chew the clock with a lead, and most NFL teams don't even place a high priority on that. Most rightly prefer playmakers. But Jeff Fisher prefers a 3-to-4 yards at a time clock chewer...and he's been very successful with his hit-em-in-the-face brand of football, so who am I to question his philosophy?
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
But that's exactly my point. Beck isn't worth much because there are plenty of his species out there available on the cheap or even for free on the waiver wire. None of the guys you mentioned (Anderson, Romo, Brady) were highly valued early round picks like Beck. As a general rule, people weren't stashing them on their roster and counting on them. You didn't have to trade anything or give up anything of value. You just had to get lucky and be the first to your waiver wire after their first good game...or after the news that they were replacing the starters. That's completely different than placing a high value on them and stashing them until they get their shot.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. You are essentially just saying he's not valuable because he's not valuable. You can call getting Anderson lucky if you want, but if you are the guy willing to dump McNair for Anderson BEFORE Anderson blows up, that's just a good evaluation of a couple of players. These lower tier guys usually do come down to who you are willing to stash at the end of your bench and who you aren't and are often what makes a good dynasty team a good dynasty team. It doesn't really matter for this discussion as far as I can figure, but just for the record, Beck was drafted and kept in all three of the dynasty league I am in (some were larger rosters, some smaller).
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
The problem with your stance is exactly that: these guys are everywhere. You can't stash them all. I'm not saying don't stash a couple of them. I usually pick out a couple myself. But most of them are going to fail. They're not worth as much as the guy putting up Top Tier numbers to help you win right now. Favre is valuable because there are a limited number of guys you can rely on to produce weekly. John Beck isn't valuable, and the reason is because you can find a John Beck in bargain bins all over the place.
Of course most will fail. All of the guys we have been talking about were in that "likely to fail" category. It doesn't mean they don't have value. It just means you have to figure out what they could do vs the probability of it actually happening. Yes, you can Beck very cheaply now, but isn't that EXACTLY what we are talking about? Which guys are worth getting and keeping and which aren't? For Favre I guess there may be a fundamental problem with our disagreement. I readily admit that to some teams this year, Favre has more value than John Beck, even in a dynasty. If you have no top tier starter and are in the playoff hunt, and you think Favre is a significant upgrade over your other mid-tier options he's quite valuable to you (this year). But that doesn't describe most teams in most leagues. More than half of the teams in any given year won't make the playoffs (with Favre or without), and then out of the remainder, a fair amount of teams have better QBs or equivalent QBs. So what is Favre's value for the purpose of this discussion (your list)? To me, it should be Favre's value to some sort of average or combination of the teams in typical leagues. But you seem to focus on a small portion of each league's team and focus in his value to THEM.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
I didn't have any of those guys high LAST year. It was easy to see that the Chiefs' offense was cratering. Favre's is not. I'm aware of the cliff issue, but you can't be afraid to roll with a guy who is producing. You can always back him up with a younger talent and ensure you have a solid back-up plan for when he retires or becomes unreliable. I have Tom Brady in both leagues, so it's not like I need another starter. Still, I'd much rather have Favre than John Beck. I don't think I'd take John Beck if he was sitting on the waiver wire.
If you accurately predicted the extent of Chief's (and Green's) demise (I agree it was obvious they were on a downward trajectory) more power to you. My guess is (based on your Favre opinion) that while Green wasn't top-tier, he was WELL above many of the younger guys who are now reasonably valuable. I hope you did the same for all of the cliff-divers, and I hope Romo wasn't the kind of guy you wouldn't drop Green for when he was on the wire.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
Oh, come on. I'm not calling all youth lottery tickets, and you know it. I called John Beck a lottery ticket because he's a 26-year-old, thoroughly unimpressive rookie QB on a team with little to no weapons and no hopes up helping you any time soon. He's a lottery ticket because he's available cheaply and highly unlikely to pay off in a big way.
You keep mentioning 26 like it's crazy that he's older than the average rookie. It's unusual, but it happens. Romo was 26 when he first started for example. You are also kind of harping on the no-weapon thing. But as I said and you haven't really denied or addressed, things change quickly in the NFL. Ginn should improve as a weapon, Brown will be back, and the team will probably focus on offense this offseason. Given the fact that IF he is a decent QB, he will be in the league for 10+ more seasons, his having few weapons in his rookie season isn't that big a concern to me. As for not paying off in a big way, the same was said of a lot of guys that have significant value right now.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
You like to point out all of the Trent Greens that cratered and fell off a cliff, but I don't see any mention of the innumerable Losman's, Harrington's, Grossman's, and Simms' scattered along the way like roadkill.
I actually have admitted several times that Beck could easily go the way of Grossman and the like, and I don't deny it now. My point is just that we shouldn't assume the guy has no potential based on a couple of early games in tough times. I don't want to put him in tier one or two, I just think he is the kind of guy that I'd much rather have than a lot of older journeymen (no, Favre is not a journeyman) currently ahead of him . The fact that he is currently starting AND very likely to start 2008 AND relatively young AND has shown SOME signs of being a decent player (mostly pre-season) gives him some reasonable value to me. Most of the wire-trash you keep talking about don't have those distinctions.
But, it's your list after all, so I will be done here. I do enjoy your thread, and hope you don't think I'm trying to crap on it. Just making my case for a guy (really, a KIND of guy vs other kinds of players) I think should be higher.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 04:59 PM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 7 2007, 05:52 PM)
I can guarantee you that Beck isn't Brady.
Careful out on that limb!
I sure could have used you in 2000 when you knew Brady was going to be the best NFL QB of all time as a 6th round pick. Especially after the first two games he started where he threw for 127 yards per game and 0 TDs with two lost fumbles.
I see from sig that you like to take opposing views and argue...I don't have the patience to do that with you. There is no way for me to win the argument with you. I would have to come up with snappy witty posts for 2 or 3 years till we saw what Beck did.
However, Brady is one in a million... Beck, in my humble opinion, is NOT the guy to match or exceed one of the best QB's in the history of football. Someone picked Beck up off waivers in my league the other day. He may be a starter for them for 5 or 6 years... who knows. It's just kind of lame argument to take one of the best ever QB's and say that because a guy hasn't proven he can't be that good, he can be that good. It is circular logic.
I can't tell you he won't be as good because it hasn't happened yet. You can tell me he has the chance to be that good because it hasn't happened yet.
I guess I could say to you, "you may die of a brain aneurism sometime in the next year." You can't tell me I am wrong till the year is up... Lame argument. You are 1 in a million not going to die of a aneurism in the next year.
ick.. I am tired of this. I am glad that Beck is rostered in my league. It leaves others open that I can keep my eye on.
I need another glass of wine, my brain hurts.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 09:12 PM)
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 06:23 PM)
Speaking of very early careers...
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Here are the combined stats for a player's first 3 games started:
683 yards, 8 ints, 2 TD
Name that player.
Another:
711 yards, 5 int, 2 TD
Obviously no one special in that group.
Hint: they are both with Brady in Tier 1
Point I am beating to death here is that 3 games started in a rookie year against tough defenses on the road with a crappy team does NOT tell you whether a guy is worth anything or not.
Link to Losman's first 3 games? Grossman's first 3 games? Alex Smith's stats?
at comparing a guy's stats to a Tier 1 starter's after 3 games. Why didn't you pick Akili Smith's first 3 games? Oh, he's a bust. That wouldn't prove your point. You could take any first time starter and compare his production to a Top Tier's first 3 games. What's the point of the exercise? You could choose either a successful QB or a 1st round bust on one hand, and you could choose a 2nd round pick or an UFA on the other hand. Why stop at John Beck? Why not compare Brodie Croyle to Peyton Manning or JaMarcus Russell to Cade McNown?If you're going to be successful in a competitive dynasty league, your best asset is an ability to come to a quick, decisive judgment on young players like John Beck. You're not going to be right every time, but you simply don't have the roster space to toy around with each one. If I come to the quick, decisive judgment that a young player is nothing special, then I feel comfortable moving on to another young player who may in fact be special. If I'm hitching my wagon to John Beck, whom I don't believe in, then that's one less promising star I can stash on my roster.
Just noticed this one.
Of course I picked excellent QBs. The reason I did that was not to point that bad starts yield great QBs. Bad starts yield TERRIBLE QBs all too often. What I hoped to point out (and apparently failed) was that bad starts (particularly in bad situations) mean absolutely squat.
For fun though I looked up Akili and McNown. Smith's first three starts (or what I guess were his 1st three starts) were better than Palmer's or Manning's. McNown was about the same.
F&L - Please devote brain power to the rankings and other worthwhile dialogue. It is impossible to win some arguments.
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment