Portis should at the very least move up to the top of tier 2. His rushing numbers will only go up next year with a healthy offensive line. TD's should roughly stay the same. Just my humble opinion.
You're doing a great job, F&L. Keep it up.
You're doing a great job, F&L. Keep it up.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 31 2007, 02:10 AM) 
I vote for option #4- Sample sizes are a #####.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
Bingo. As I indicated in the other thread, you just can't think short term in this hobby. Making lasting decisions based on a couple of games when you have a whole body of contrary evidence to look at will get you killed. We've all seen people in our leagues who lack patience and make a knee-jerk decision based on every up or down blip, and those people end up looking up in the standings in the long run most of the time. Dropping him down the rankings at all based on a few recent games is only something to be done by impatient and weak FF players.
Peterson is a special player who will have a special career, barring serious injury. You don't stress about every possible negative that could hurt his numbers. I don't even care about trying to decipher why he just had this recent stretch. I don't care why, because this year is over and next year is brand new. I trust in the talent. A beautiful song has its high and its low notes; it isn't one long monotone. Peterson will have his low notes, but he's still the guy that set the NFL rushing record as a rookie, and he's still the best RB to come into this league in a long time.
Just pumping this up as the best dynasty thread on the innerwebs right now. Again.
Travis Henry to be released this off-season?
Pierre Thomas with a bigger role in 2008?
QUOTE
"It would be a surprise" if Travis Henry was back with the Broncos next year, according to the Denver Post.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Pierre Thomas with a bigger role in 2008?
QUOTE
The New Orleans Times-Picayune suggests that Pierre Thomas could be the Saints' "answer" at running back in 2008.
This seems a bit far fetched, but Thomas' strong performance in Week 17 has given New Orleans options. He was the first Saint to ever amass both 100 yards receiving and rushing in the same game. If Deuce McAllister (knee) doesn't rehab well, Thomas is an early-down option for 2008.
This seems a bit far fetched, but Thomas' strong performance in Week 17 has given New Orleans options. He was the first Saint to ever amass both 100 yards receiving and rushing in the same game. If Deuce McAllister (knee) doesn't rehab well, Thomas is an early-down option for 2008.
QUOTE (War Ensemble @ Dec 31 2007, 08:28 AM)
Portis should at the very least move up to the top of tier 2. His rushing numbers will only go up next year with a healthy offensive line. TD's should roughly stay the same. Just my humble opinion.
You're doing a great job, F&L. Keep it up.
You're doing a great job, F&L. Keep it up.
Thanks, War Ensemble.
You've been nothing if not consistent on Clinton Portis all along -- ever since the 2nd post on page one of this thread from back in October of 2006.
He closed out the year with a flurry, so I've moved him up in the updated blog rankings. But I still can't put him up in the elite tier...
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 31 2007, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (War Ensemble @ Dec 31 2007, 08:28 AM)
Portis should at the very least move up to the top of tier 2. His rushing numbers will only go up next year with a healthy offensive line. TD's should roughly stay the same. Just my humble opinion.
You're doing a great job, F&L. Keep it up.
You're doing a great job, F&L. Keep it up.
Thanks, War Ensemble.
You've been nothing if not consistent on Clinton Portis all along -- ever since the 2nd post on page one of this thread from back in October of 2006.
He closed out the year with a flurry, so I've moved him up in the updated blog rankings. But I still can't put him up in the elite tier...
Is that a compliment? I'm fluent in English, but that doesn't make sense, though I think I know what you mean.
I'm not a Skins fan (Raiders), but I am a fan of Portis as an NFL player, he's been my keeper since I drafted him in '06 and I've been closely following his every move in the NFL for at least the last 4 seasons. I don't think there's a single player I observe/analyze as much as I do with Portis. I think there are a lot people who don't value this guy accurately, especially in dynasty.
He's had some problems early on this year because he wasn't in gameshape and there has been a stretch of disappointing games, but that can be attributed to the lack of solid O-line play. Their line missed several players due to injuries all year. When you take everything in consideration, I don't see how he shouldn't at the very least be a top 10 pick next year, maybe more. He's proven that '06 was a one off thing (injuries), Betts is obviously not a factor, he led the league in carries and with a healthy O-line his ypc should definitely go up which should net considerably more rushing yards. I expect the TDs to roughly stay the same since he's clearly the #1 goalline option, with little competition from Sellers and/or Betts.
I was kinda thinking the same thing about Thomas after seeing him play. The kid most certainly did not embarrass himself with his opportunity. In this day and age of letting older, injured rb's go due to salary cap Deuce could be cut loose.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 31 2007, 05:25 AM)
Right now, I can get top-10 WR value for Owens. Next year, I almost certainly won't be able to. As a result, I really think it's time to move Owens, especially when you can get someone in return who I think would stand a reasonable chance to produce at a level comparable, if slightly inferior, to Owens'. To pick someone ranked below Owens right now... let's say Torry Holt. Torry Holt should easily be good for 1200 yards and 8-10 scores next year. If you take Owens average season over the past 8 years (and I'm not pro-rating out to 16 games here, because Owens has only played 16 games twice in the past 9 years), he's averaged 1220 yards and 12.4 TDs. Even if you expect no age-related decline (or Terry Glenn-related decline) from Owens' per-season averages, the only difference between that and Holt is 2-4 TDs. I believe that Owens will trade like a top-10 WR right now, and probably like a top-20 WR next year, while Holt will probably trade like a top-10 WR both this year and next. If you could trade Owens for Holt straight up, would you? I know I would- in my mind, those 2-4 extra TDs aren't worth the value loss from WR10 to WR20.
I know that you have Owens only marginally ahead of Holt, but I still think this illustrates our value difference, because I have Holt comfortably ahead of Owens right now.
And this is ignoring the historical aging trends of the WR position. As I mentioned, history paints a pretty bleak picture for WRs after their 35th birthday. 11 WRs have scored 150+ points at 34, but only 8 have done so at 35 or older (and three of those were Jerry Rice). This despite the fact that there have been 41 "relevant" 34-year-old WRs (with relevant being defined as having 30+ catches), but 50 "relevant" WRs aged 35 or older. Owens might defy aging patterns, but not forever. His value has nowhere to go but down and is unlikely to remain steady, which pretty much defines a "sell high" for me.
I know that you have Owens only marginally ahead of Holt, but I still think this illustrates our value difference, because I have Holt comfortably ahead of Owens right now.
And this is ignoring the historical aging trends of the WR position. As I mentioned, history paints a pretty bleak picture for WRs after their 35th birthday. 11 WRs have scored 150+ points at 34, but only 8 have done so at 35 or older (and three of those were Jerry Rice). This despite the fact that there have been 41 "relevant" 34-year-old WRs (with relevant being defined as having 30+ catches), but 50 "relevant" WRs aged 35 or older. Owens might defy aging patterns, but not forever. His value has nowhere to go but down and is unlikely to remain steady, which pretty much defines a "sell high" for me.
Terrell Owens stats per week in my main dynasty league: 14, 9, 6, 0, 0, 8, 11, 14, 17, 31, 8, 13, 0, 0, 7 for a total of 138. Second highest scorer among WRs at 9.2 points per week.
Torry Holt stats per week in the same league: 9, 8, 2, 2, 10, 0, 4, 10, 5, 9, 2, 11, 4, 6, 0, 4 for a total of 86. Ranked 14th among WRs at 5.4 points per week.
That's a significant difference, and I would imagine it's a similar story with all scoring systems.
I'm not as concerned with trade value as opposed to actual value if I'm not planning on trading him in the next couple of years. I guess we just have different philosophies here. If I have a guy who is a difference maker, and there aren't many of them at any position, then I'm keeping him and going for the gold while I have an advantage over the rest of the teams in the league. If I can get a definite difference maker in return, then I'm all over it. But I don't see Torry Holt as a difference maker.
For the majority of players in the league, TDs are unreliable from season-to-season, but there are a handful of players who can be relied on to get in the end zone on a regular basis. And their value is elite because of that ability to get in the end zone more than the other players at their position. The difference between T.O. and Torry Holt or Anquan Boldin is that T.O. is good for 12-14 TDs the next couple of seasons while those other guys are lucky to get 10. You pooh-poohed that difference, but I think it's a major one over the course of any fantasy season.
Bottom line for me: my goal isn't to trade players around like stocks. My goal is to win championships. T.O. helps me towards my goal more than Torry Holt does.
QUOTE (sparkky @ Dec 31 2007, 11:44 AM)
I was kinda thinking the same thing about Thomas after seeing him play. The kid most certainly did not embarrass himself with his opportunity. In this day and age of letting older, injured rb's go due to salary cap Deuce could be cut loose.
Right, I agree with that line of thinking. Yet it was just a week ago that we had this blurb on Deuce McAllister:
QUOTE
Saints coach Sean Payton says the team plans to bring back Deuce McAllister next season.
"Good backs like him are hard to come by," Payton said. He's returning from his second ACL tear and will be due $3.6 million next season, but the Saints' struggles without him show his value. The Saints are optimistic he'll be ready for training camp, and will give him every chance to make the team.
"Good backs like him are hard to come by," Payton said. He's returning from his second ACL tear and will be due $3.6 million next season, but the Saints' struggles without him show his value. The Saints are optimistic he'll be ready for training camp, and will give him every chance to make the team.
QUOTE (Couch Potato @ Dec 31 2007, 09:13 AM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 31 2007, 02:10 AM)
I vote for option #4- Sample sizes are a #####.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
Bingo. As I indicated in the other thread, you just can't think short term in this hobby. Making lasting decisions based on a couple of games when you have a whole body of contrary evidence to look at will get you killed. We've all seen people in our leagues who lack patience and make a knee-jerk decision based on every up or down blip, and those people end up looking up in the standings in the long run most of the time. Dropping him down the rankings at all based on a few recent games is only something to be done by impatient and weak FF players.
Peterson is a special player who will have a special career, barring serious injury. You don't stress about every possible negative that could hurt his numbers. I don't even care about trying to decipher why he just had this recent stretch. I don't care why, because this year is over and next year is brand new. I trust in the talent. A beautiful song has its high and its low notes; it isn't one long monotone. Peterson will have his low notes, but he's still the guy that set the NFL rushing record as a rookie, and he's still the best RB to come into this league in a long time.
Well said, Couch Potato.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 31 2007, 09:59 AM)
Travis Henry to be released this off-season?
Pierre Thomas with a bigger role in 2008?
QUOTE
"It would be a surprise" if Travis Henry was back with the Broncos next year, according to the Denver Post.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Pierre Thomas with a bigger role in 2008?
QUOTE
The New Orleans Times-Picayune suggests that Pierre Thomas could be the Saints' "answer" at running back in 2008.
This seems a bit far fetched, but Thomas' strong performance in Week 17 has given New Orleans options. He was the first Saint to ever amass both 100 yards receiving and rushing in the same game. If Deuce McAllister (knee) doesn't rehab well, Thomas is an early-down option for 2008.
This seems a bit far fetched, but Thomas' strong performance in Week 17 has given New Orleans options. He was the first Saint to ever amass both 100 yards receiving and rushing in the same game. If Deuce McAllister (knee) doesn't rehab well, Thomas is an early-down option for 2008.
Henry Dynasty owner here.
Frankly I'd be happy to see him cut from Denver. I'd rather see that happen and have him sign on somewhere else for a 1 year RBBC deal honestly. With all the distractions his drug situation brought this year, any ideas on what teams would be desperate enough to sign him for a year if he were cut?
I tried in vain to move him during this past season, and realize his current trade value amongst astute owners is near zero. Any ideas from fellow FBG's on if Henry was to be cut, what timeframe that may occur? Does he have any bonus/roster $$ coming due that may influence the timing of his departure?
QUOTE (the_sig @ Dec 31 2007, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 31 2007, 09:59 AM)
Travis Henry to be released this off-season?
Pierre Thomas with a bigger role in 2008?
QUOTE
"It would be a surprise" if Travis Henry was back with the Broncos next year, according to the Denver Post.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Pierre Thomas with a bigger role in 2008?
QUOTE
The New Orleans Times-Picayune suggests that Pierre Thomas could be the Saints' "answer" at running back in 2008.
This seems a bit far fetched, but Thomas' strong performance in Week 17 has given New Orleans options. He was the first Saint to ever amass both 100 yards receiving and rushing in the same game. If Deuce McAllister (knee) doesn't rehab well, Thomas is an early-down option for 2008.
This seems a bit far fetched, but Thomas' strong performance in Week 17 has given New Orleans options. He was the first Saint to ever amass both 100 yards receiving and rushing in the same game. If Deuce McAllister (knee) doesn't rehab well, Thomas is an early-down option for 2008.
Henry Dynasty owner here.
Frankly I'd be happy to see him cut from Denver. I'd rather see that happen and have him sign on somewhere else for a 1 year RBBC deal honestly. With all the distractions his drug situation brought this year, any ideas on what teams would be desperate enough to sign him for a year if he were cut?
I tried in vain to move him during this past season, and realize his current trade value amongst astute owners is near zero. Any ideas from fellow FBG's on if Henry was to be cut, what timeframe that may occur? Does he have any bonus/roster $$ coming due that may influence the timing of his departure?
with or without Henry, I think the lesson learned this season is to just simply stay clear of the Denver RB situation,and you'll be a better man for it!
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 31 2007, 10:59 AM)
Travis Henry to be released this off-season?
QUOTE
"It would be a surprise" if Travis Henry was back with the Broncos next year, according to the Denver Post.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
Henry was third on the depth chart for the season finale, as Selvin Young carried the load. Andre Hall backed Young up. Henry would be somewhat expensive to release, however, so don't be assured that he's out in Denver.
I'd be glad to see it. I was down on the Henry signing in the first place, but after all of the glowing reports during training camps and the strong start to the season, I was definitely changing my mind. I should have stuck to my guns.
QUOTE (Tanner9919 @ Dec 31 2007, 03:16 PM)
with or without Henry, I think the lesson learned this season is to just simply stay clear of the Denver RB situation,and you'll be a better man for it!
That's not true, there's often good value to be had in the Denver RBs. The trick is to make sure you own Denver's starting RB at the beginning of the season, and their backup RB at the end.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 31 2007, 11:46 AM)
Bottom line for me: my goal isn't to trade players around like stocks. My goal is to win championships. T.O. helps me towards my goal more than Torry Holt does.
Chalk it up to difference in style, then. I'm always looking to sell high and buy low, because if I do that often enough and am right often enough, the championships will follow.
The irony of this situation just struck me a little bit ago. I'm busy arguing that future value trumps short-term production with respect to Terrell Owens, when a couple of pages back I was on the other side of the debate on whether the future value of a Larry Fitzgerald trumped the short-term production of Randy Moss. I just think Randy Moss still has one or two more years before the value starts to slide, so I might as well hold him and take advantage of the production before selling him next year or the year after for what I could have gotten for him today.
I want to talk a little bit about something I noticed, too. Right now, the first-tier Dynasty QBs are Brady, Manning, Roeth, Romo, Palmer, and Brees. Brady is throwing to Moss and Welker, who are ranked 1st and 28th. Manning is throwing to Wayne, Harrison, and Gonzalez (6th, 22nd, 29th). Romo is throwing to Owens and Witten (9th and 3rd). Palmer is throwing to Chad Johnson and Housh (7th, 13th). Brees is throwing to Colston (8th). Roethlisberger is throwing to Holmes and Ward (20th and 21st). In all cases except for Roeth's, the highly-rated QB has some very highly rated targets that he's throwing to (because somebody has to catch the ball). In case you can't guess where I'm going with this... I think that Santonio Holmes is ranked too low. He's young, he's explosive, he's played lights out this season, he has a great rapport with Big Ben, and I think he's only become an even more featured part of that offense going forward. He was 12th in points per game coming into week 17 (nestled right between Colston and Marshall). He's not even 24 years old. He's a guy who, if he's not careful, could wind up officially joining the list of "my guys" (Jones-Drew, Westbrook, Evans, Holt).
I want to talk a little bit about something I noticed, too. Right now, the first-tier Dynasty QBs are Brady, Manning, Roeth, Romo, Palmer, and Brees. Brady is throwing to Moss and Welker, who are ranked 1st and 28th. Manning is throwing to Wayne, Harrison, and Gonzalez (6th, 22nd, 29th). Romo is throwing to Owens and Witten (9th and 3rd). Palmer is throwing to Chad Johnson and Housh (7th, 13th). Brees is throwing to Colston (8th). Roethlisberger is throwing to Holmes and Ward (20th and 21st). In all cases except for Roeth's, the highly-rated QB has some very highly rated targets that he's throwing to (because somebody has to catch the ball). In case you can't guess where I'm going with this... I think that Santonio Holmes is ranked too low. He's young, he's explosive, he's played lights out this season, he has a great rapport with Big Ben, and I think he's only become an even more featured part of that offense going forward. He was 12th in points per game coming into week 17 (nestled right between Colston and Marshall). He's not even 24 years old. He's a guy who, if he's not careful, could wind up officially joining the list of "my guys" (Jones-Drew, Westbrook, Evans, Holt).
QUOTE (Couch Potato @ Dec 31 2007, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 31 2007, 02:10 AM)
I vote for option #4- Sample sizes are a #####.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
Bingo. As I indicated in the other thread, you just can't think short term in this hobby. Making lasting decisions based on a couple of games when you have a whole body of contrary evidence to look at will get you killed. We've all seen people in our leagues who lack patience and make a knee-jerk decision based on every up or down blip, and those people end up looking up in the standings in the long run most of the time. Dropping him down the rankings at all based on a few recent games is only something to be done by impatient and weak FF players.
Peterson is a special player who will have a special career, barring serious injury. You don't stress about every possible negative that could hurt his numbers. I don't even care about trying to decipher why he just had this recent stretch. I don't care why, because this year is over and next year is brand new. I trust in the talent. A beautiful song has its high and its low notes; it isn't one long monotone. Peterson will have his low notes, but he's still the guy that set the NFL rushing record as a rookie, and he's still the best RB to come into this league in a long time.
Excellent points, CP and SSOG. So where do you guys put AD? Where would you take him in a start-up dynasty league in 2008? A redraft league?
QUOTE (gheemony @ Dec 31 2007, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE (Couch Potato @ Dec 31 2007, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 31 2007, 02:10 AM)
I vote for option #4- Sample sizes are a #####.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
In his first three games of the season, LaDanian Tomlinson rushed 57 times for 130 yards, which is a 2.28 yard per carry clip. Over the first five weeks, he was averaging 3.32 yards per carry. Meanwhile, in the last four games of the season, Peterson rushed 54 times for 144 yards (2.67 yards per carry). Both stretches were very similar, and in my opinion, both stretches will mean about as much in the long term- and that's not much at all.
Bingo. As I indicated in the other thread, you just can't think short term in this hobby. Making lasting decisions based on a couple of games when you have a whole body of contrary evidence to look at will get you killed. We've all seen people in our leagues who lack patience and make a knee-jerk decision based on every up or down blip, and those people end up looking up in the standings in the long run most of the time. Dropping him down the rankings at all based on a few recent games is only something to be done by impatient and weak FF players.
Peterson is a special player who will have a special career, barring serious injury. You don't stress about every possible negative that could hurt his numbers. I don't even care about trying to decipher why he just had this recent stretch. I don't care why, because this year is over and next year is brand new. I trust in the talent. A beautiful song has its high and its low notes; it isn't one long monotone. Peterson will have his low notes, but he's still the guy that set the NFL rushing record as a rookie, and he's still the best RB to come into this league in a long time.
Excellent points, CP and SSOG. So where do you guys put AD? Where would you take him in a start-up dynasty league in 2008? A redraft league?
#1. He's LT without the wear and tear.
Edit: That #1 is in dynasty leagues. I would take Westbrook and Tomlinson over him in redraft.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 31 2007, 08:41 PM)
The irony of this situation just struck me a little bit ago. I'm busy arguing that future value trumps short-term production with respect to Terrell Owens, when a couple of pages back I was on the other side of the debate on whether the future value of a Larry Fitzgerald trumped the short-term production of Randy Moss. I just think Randy Moss still has one or two more years before the value starts to slide, so I might as well hold him and take advantage of the production before selling him next year or the year after for what I could have gotten for him today.
I want to talk a little bit about something I noticed, too. Right now, the first-tier Dynasty QBs are Brady, Manning, Roeth, Romo, Palmer, and Brees. Brady is throwing to Moss and Welker, who are ranked 1st and 28th. Manning is throwing to Wayne, Harrison, and Gonzalez (6th, 22nd, 29th). Romo is throwing to Owens and Witten (9th and 3rd). Palmer is throwing to Chad Johnson and Housh (7th, 13th). Brees is throwing to Colston (8th). Roethlisberger is throwing to Holmes and Ward (20th and 21st). In all cases except for Roeth's, the highly-rated QB has some very highly rated targets that he's throwing to (because somebody has to catch the ball). In case you can't guess where I'm going with this... I think that Santonio Holmes is ranked too low. He's young, he's explosive, he's played lights out this season, he has a great rapport with Big Ben, and I think he's only become an even more featured part of that offense going forward. He was 12th in points per game coming into week 17 (nestled right between Colston and Marshall). He's not even 24 years old. He's a guy who, if he's not careful, could wind up officially joining the list of "my guys" (Jones-Drew, Westbrook, Evans, Holt).
I want to talk a little bit about something I noticed, too. Right now, the first-tier Dynasty QBs are Brady, Manning, Roeth, Romo, Palmer, and Brees. Brady is throwing to Moss and Welker, who are ranked 1st and 28th. Manning is throwing to Wayne, Harrison, and Gonzalez (6th, 22nd, 29th). Romo is throwing to Owens and Witten (9th and 3rd). Palmer is throwing to Chad Johnson and Housh (7th, 13th). Brees is throwing to Colston (8th). Roethlisberger is throwing to Holmes and Ward (20th and 21st). In all cases except for Roeth's, the highly-rated QB has some very highly rated targets that he's throwing to (because somebody has to catch the ball). In case you can't guess where I'm going with this... I think that Santonio Holmes is ranked too low. He's young, he's explosive, he's played lights out this season, he has a great rapport with Big Ben, and I think he's only become an even more featured part of that offense going forward. He was 12th in points per game coming into week 17 (nestled right between Colston and Marshall). He's not even 24 years old. He's a guy who, if he's not careful, could wind up officially joining the list of "my guys" (Jones-Drew, Westbrook, Evans, Holt).
Good observation. Doesn't it also speak to how underrated Roethlisberger still is?
The reason I've been hesitant to put Santonio Holmes and Greg Jennings up with the elites is not because I don't believe in their talent. It's because they're not the go-to WRs in their team's offense. Driver is still targeted a lot more than Jennings, and Hines Ward is still the most targeted on the Steelers. Holmes and Jennings are very good and promise to become great down the road, but as long as Driver and Ward still have game, I think they'll hold the promising youngsters back just a little bit.
Regarding Adrian Peterson:
I don't think you can understate Tarvaris Jackson's role in Peterson's recent struggles. No one fears Jackson as a passer. So teams do not have to respect the pass when they play Minn. If Jackson can find a way to improve next year, or if Minn signs a better QB, I think you'll see Peterson have much better running lanes to work with in 2008.
I don't think you can understate Tarvaris Jackson's role in Peterson's recent struggles. No one fears Jackson as a passer. So teams do not have to respect the pass when they play Minn. If Jackson can find a way to improve next year, or if Minn signs a better QB, I think you'll see Peterson have much better running lanes to work with in 2008.
QUOTE (jdoggydogg @ Jan 1 2008, 12:07 AM)
Regarding Adrian Peterson:
I don't think you can understate Tarvaris Jackson's role in Peterson's recent struggles. No one fears Jackson as a passer. So teams do not have to respect the pass when they play Minn. If Jackson can find a way to improve next year, or if Minn signs a better QB, I think you'll see Peterson have much better running lanes to work with in 2008.
I don't think you can understate Tarvaris Jackson's role in Peterson's recent struggles. No one fears Jackson as a passer. So teams do not have to respect the pass when they play Minn. If Jackson can find a way to improve next year, or if Minn signs a better QB, I think you'll see Peterson have much better running lanes to work with in 2008.
Was about to post something similar. I think AD's struggles are a combination of all the reasons listed (less then 100%, poor play-calling/play from his QB, teams stacking against the run, and too small a sample size), but I'd temper short term expectations of AD until Minnessotta aquires at least a mildly credible passing game...something they don't have right now with Jackson under center.Because of that, I'd still pt Westy and LT ahead of him...if barely.
QUOTE (jdoggydogg @ Jan 1 2008, 12:07 AM)
Regarding Adrian Peterson:
I don't think you can understate Tarvaris Jackson's role in Peterson's recent struggles. No one fears Jackson as a passer. So teams do not have to respect the pass when they play Minn. If Jackson can find a way to improve next year, or if Minn signs a better QB, I think you'll see Peterson have much better running lanes to work with in 2008.
I don't think you can understate Tarvaris Jackson's role in Peterson's recent struggles. No one fears Jackson as a passer. So teams do not have to respect the pass when they play Minn. If Jackson can find a way to improve next year, or if Minn signs a better QB, I think you'll see Peterson have much better running lanes to work with in 2008.
This comes up a lot when talking about AD's recent struggles, but I don't think it really makes sense if you're not talking about the season as a whole. When talking about AD's finish vs. the rest of the season, it's not really that relevant because that situation was static the whole way through.
Going into the season, and in every game throughout it, teams knew that Minnesota could not pass, and was going to try and run down their throats. If anything, their passing game was WORSE early on than it was down the stretch when AD was struggling.
Personally, I'm going along with the small sample size theory.
How do you all factor in the knowledge that some players will still be playing 8+ years from now?
It seems like everyone doing dynasty rankings focuses on 2-3-4 years, but if you're pretty sure a guy will be around and still producing in 2015 shouldn't that weigh into things somehow? Jones-Drew for example. Or Lynch. Or Fitzgerald.
I'm new to this, but it seems to me that having to find replacement players every year leads to short-term decision-making and if you can find guys who are going to be around in five+ years you stand a much greater chance of building a team that combines career-year quality and the depth to ride out injuries without ever needing to fill a hole by selling low.
I realize I'm probably off base here since no one seems to incorporate that long of a time frame in their thinking, but why is it wrong?
It seems like everyone doing dynasty rankings focuses on 2-3-4 years, but if you're pretty sure a guy will be around and still producing in 2015 shouldn't that weigh into things somehow? Jones-Drew for example. Or Lynch. Or Fitzgerald.
I'm new to this, but it seems to me that having to find replacement players every year leads to short-term decision-making and if you can find guys who are going to be around in five+ years you stand a much greater chance of building a team that combines career-year quality and the depth to ride out injuries without ever needing to fill a hole by selling low.
I realize I'm probably off base here since no one seems to incorporate that long of a time frame in their thinking, but why is it wrong?
QUOTE (wdcrob @ Jan 1 2008, 12:10 PM)
How do you all factor in the knowledge that some players will still be playing 8+ years from now?
It seems like everyone doing dynasty rankings focuses on 2-3-4 years, but if you're pretty sure a guy will be around and still producing in 2015 shouldn't that weigh into things somehow? Jones-Drew for example. Or Lynch. Or Fitzgerald.
I'm new to this, but it seems to me that having to find replacement players every year leads to short-term decision-making and if you can find guys who are going to be around in five+ years you stand a much greater chance of building a team that combines career-year quality and the depth to ride out injuries without ever needing to fill a hole by selling low.
I realize I'm probably off base here since no one seems to incorporate that long of a time frame in their thinking, but why is it wrong?
It seems like everyone doing dynasty rankings focuses on 2-3-4 years, but if you're pretty sure a guy will be around and still producing in 2015 shouldn't that weigh into things somehow? Jones-Drew for example. Or Lynch. Or Fitzgerald.
I'm new to this, but it seems to me that having to find replacement players every year leads to short-term decision-making and if you can find guys who are going to be around in five+ years you stand a much greater chance of building a team that combines career-year quality and the depth to ride out injuries without ever needing to fill a hole by selling low.
I realize I'm probably off base here since no one seems to incorporate that long of a time frame in their thinking, but why is it wrong?
It's wrong because there are too many times that players don't last that long, ESPECIALLY at the RB position. Here's a simple exercise to show this. Go pull up any site that shows stats (including this one) from previous years. Go look at the top names at the RB position and see how many are still around and producing at that kind of level. Even the young guys. There are VERY few players that persist more than 3-4 yrs. At the RB position, the only guy is LT at this point. All of the rest of your top guys were either not in the league or non-factors just as shortly as 3-4 yrs ago. At the WR spot, you've got guys like TO, Holt, Harrison (before this year), CJ, and that's about it. At the QB spot, you've got Peyton Manning. Due to this, it's nearly impossible to figure out who the next Holt or Manning or LT is going to be. Every year there are promising stars, some show their potential early, others not exactly, but you don't get a guy because you think he'll be around longer than 3-4 yrs. You get the guy for that 3-4 yr span and if he's around longer, then you hit gold and accept your bonus.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
QUOTE (wdcrob @ Jan 1 2008, 01:10 PM)
How do you all factor in the knowledge that some players will still be playing 8+ years from now?
It seems like everyone doing dynasty rankings focuses on 2-3-4 years, but if you're pretty sure a guy will be around and still producing in 2015 shouldn't that weigh into things somehow? Jones-Drew for example. Or Lynch. Or Fitzgerald.
I'm new to this, but it seems to me that having to find replacement players every year leads to short-term decision-making and if you can find guys who are going to be around in five+ years you stand a much greater chance of building a team that combines career-year quality and the depth to ride out injuries without ever needing to fill a hole by selling low.
I realize I'm probably off base here since no one seems to incorporate that long of a time frame in their thinking, but why is it wrong?
It seems like everyone doing dynasty rankings focuses on 2-3-4 years, but if you're pretty sure a guy will be around and still producing in 2015 shouldn't that weigh into things somehow? Jones-Drew for example. Or Lynch. Or Fitzgerald.
I'm new to this, but it seems to me that having to find replacement players every year leads to short-term decision-making and if you can find guys who are going to be around in five+ years you stand a much greater chance of building a team that combines career-year quality and the depth to ride out injuries without ever needing to fill a hole by selling low.
I realize I'm probably off base here since no one seems to incorporate that long of a time frame in their thinking, but why is it wrong?
It's a big thread and it's hard to follow all of it (I know I haven't read much before page 20 or so), but there's some good discussion on this subject on page 32. Here's what I had to say on the matter on page 32, post 1585, dated 12/27/07:
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 17 2007, 02:03 PM)
QUOTE (fsufan @ Dec 17 2007, 08:22 AM)
I was just curious how many years down the road you other dynasty owners look. I do not look no more than 3 years. Just to much change in the NFL to look any longer.
Depends on the position. For RBs, anything more than 3 years is pointless, but for a good QB, barring injury, you can pencil in upwards of 8 to 10 years. For instance, the reason a guy like Roethlisberger is so valuable is because I'm almost certain my league will fold before I'm no longer able to start him (barring injury, of course). Once a guy proves a certain level of talent over multiple years, you can pretty much just expect him to keep on keeping on. His year-by-year production might change with system and supporting cast, but he's going to be starting for the same franchise for the rest of his career. As of right now, I'd say that these "Franchise QBs" are Brady and Manning (although obviously you aren't going to get 10 years out of them, but 6 is fully reasonable), Carson Palmer, and Ben Roethlisberger, with Cutler and Romo both being poised to make the jump (obviously Romo is closer than Cutler, but I'd like to see him start out hot next season, too, before I move him into that "no-brainer 10-year starter" category). After that you've got the dynasty guys who are more than good enough to win with, but for one reason or another I don't feel comfortable projecting more than 3-4 years in advance (Bulger, Hass, Brees, Favre, McNabb).
WR and TE are other positions that you can feel free to project out until forever. If you look at the career arcs of the true uberstud TEs (Winslow Sr., Newsome, Sharpe, Gonzo, etc), you'll see consistent and sustained production for almost a decade. As a result, I have no problem projecting Gates to be a stud for another 6 years or more (but he's the only one- no offense to Witten, who is having a great season, but he's no Gates/Gonzo/Sharpe). Likewise, if you have a proven stud at WR, you can count on him remaining a stud until midway through his 30s, or until he suffers a major injury, whichever comes first. I'm pretty confident that, barring injury, Fitzgerald has another 8 years as a strong startable WR left in him, at least.
This can often result in a lot of dilemmas. For instance, how much is an 8-year WR like Fitzgerald worth compared to a 3-year WR like Moss? Or how much is a 12-year QB like Roethlisberger worth compared to a 3-year RB like Westbrook? One method I like to use in situations like that is a "Three Years + Exit Value" projection. I project how they'll do over the 3 years, and I also project how much they'll be worth 3 years from now, and I combine the two projections to get a current value. For instance, Andre Johnson and Randy Moss have virtually identical PPG values so far this season. If I project that they're going to score exactly the same number of points over the next 3 years, too, which is more valuable? Obviously, in this case, it's Andre Johnson. Both will produce the same on the field, but AJ's "exit value" will be so much higher after that 3 year span because he'll be 30 while Moss will be 35. To give an example, I could use Randy Moss and then after 3 years be left with nothing (as he's worn out all his value), or I could use Andre Johnson and after 3 years trade him for something else, essentially giving me Randy Moss and a free player (whatever I got in return for Johnson).
Anyway, Big Ben won't produce on the field like a stud RB, obviously, but his exit value 3 years from now will be pretty much identical to his value right now. As a result, his 3-year production + exit value might be worth a stud at another position.
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 01:43 PM)
It's wrong because there are too many times that players don't last that long, ESPECIALLY at the RB position. Here's a simple exercise to show this. Go pull up any site that shows stats (including this one) from previous years. Go look at the top names at the RB position and see how many are still around and producing at that kind of level. Even the young guys. There are VERY few players that persist more than 3-4 yrs. At the RB position, the only guy is LT at this point. All of the rest of your top guys were either not in the league or non-factors just as shortly as 3-4 yrs ago. At the WR spot, you've got guys like TO, Holt, Harrison (before this year), CJ, and that's about it. At the QB spot, you've got Peyton Manning. Due to this, it's nearly impossible to figure out who the next Holt or Manning or LT is going to be. Every year there are promising stars, some show their potential early, others not exactly, but you don't get a guy because you think he'll be around longer than 3-4 yrs. You get the guy for that 3-4 yr span and if he's around longer, then you hit gold and accept your bonus.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
Far be it from me to question conventional wisdom (I know, *REAL* shocker, right?
), but is it really the case that anything more than 3 years out of an RB is a bonus? I went back and looked at all RBs 25 or younger who finished the 2004 season in the top 30 in fantasy points. Here's the list, along with where they ranked in 2004 and where they ranked last year in parentheses. I also put their ranking in F&L's rankings after the parentheses just to give an idea of how much we expect them to have left in the tank.Tomlinson (3, 1) 2
Domanick Williams nee Davis (5, OoF) n/a
Rudi Johnson (8, 47) 28
Willis McGahee (9, 8) 10
Brian Westbrook (10, 2) 4
Clinton Portis (11, 4) 9
Kevin Jones (21, 28) 25
Chris Brown (24, 45) n/a
Jamal Lewis (25, 6) 21
Larry Johnson (26, 40) 13
Kevan Barlow (27, OoF) n/a
Julius Jones (28, 44) 33
Derrick Blaylock (30, OoF) n/a
That's 13 RBs. Of the 13, three have flamed out entirely. Three more are basically irrelevant (Johnson, Brown, and JJones), although Jones still has some hope of becoming relevant again. The other 7 were either uberstuds still this year (Tomlinson, Westbrook, McGahee, Portis, Lewis), or else they were derailed by injuries (Larry Johnson, Kevin Jones). That's over 50%, and at the top it's even better- of the 6 "young" RBs who cracked the top 11 in 2004, 4 of them still rank in the top 10 (meaning not only have they given us three good years since 2004, but we expect three MORE good years out of them, which would bring their usable career up to 7 years and counting). The guys lower down in the rankings who are still relevant (Jamal Lewis and Larry Johnson) both had a top-10 season under the age of 25, too (so they are examples rather than exceptions). Now, you may point to Williams nee Davis and Rudi Johnson as counterexamples to the "stud RBs have long careers" rule, but remember that 50% of all fantasy draft picks wind up being busts, so a 66%-75% success rate is very, very good still.
For good but not great RBs, then counting on more than 3 years is silly. For the truly elite RBs, the guys who crack the top 10 prior to the age of 25, it's not silly at all to expect more than 3 years of production. For someone like a Maurice Jones-Drew, or an Adrian Peterson, or a Joseph Addai, or a Marion Barber, or a Frank Gore, or a Steven Jackson, then absolutely you can expect them to remain productive until age 28, 29, or possibly beyond.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 1 2008, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 01:43 PM)
It's wrong because there are too many times that players don't last that long, ESPECIALLY at the RB position. Here's a simple exercise to show this. Go pull up any site that shows stats (including this one) from previous years. Go look at the top names at the RB position and see how many are still around and producing at that kind of level. Even the young guys. There are VERY few players that persist more than 3-4 yrs. At the RB position, the only guy is LT at this point. All of the rest of your top guys were either not in the league or non-factors just as shortly as 3-4 yrs ago. At the WR spot, you've got guys like TO, Holt, Harrison (before this year), CJ, and that's about it. At the QB spot, you've got Peyton Manning. Due to this, it's nearly impossible to figure out who the next Holt or Manning or LT is going to be. Every year there are promising stars, some show their potential early, others not exactly, but you don't get a guy because you think he'll be around longer than 3-4 yrs. You get the guy for that 3-4 yr span and if he's around longer, then you hit gold and accept your bonus.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
Far be it from me to question conventional wisdom (I know, *REAL* shocker, right?
), but is it really the case that anything more than 3 years out of an RB is a bonus? I went back and looked at all RBs 25 or younger who finished the 2004 season in the top 30 in fantasy points. Here's the list, along with where they ranked in 2004 and where they ranked last year in parentheses. I also put their ranking in F&L's rankings after the parentheses just to give an idea of how much we expect them to have left in the tank.Tomlinson (3, 1) 2
Domanick Williams nee Davis (5, OoF) n/a
Rudi Johnson (8, 47) 28
Willis McGahee (9, 8) 10
Brian Westbrook (10, 2) 4
Clinton Portis (11, 4) 9
Kevin Jones (21, 28) 25
Chris Brown (24, 45) n/a
Jamal Lewis (25, 6) 21
Larry Johnson (26, 40) 13
Kevan Barlow (27, OoF) n/a
Julius Jones (28, 44) 33
Derrick Blaylock (30, OoF) n/a
That's 13 RBs. Of the 13, three have flamed out entirely. Three more are basically irrelevant (Johnson, Brown, and JJones), although Jones still has some hope of becoming relevant again. The other 7 were either uberstuds still this year (Tomlinson, Westbrook, McGahee, Portis, Lewis), or else they were derailed by injuries (Larry Johnson, Kevin Jones). That's over 50%, and at the top it's even better- of the 6 "young" RBs who cracked the top 11 in 2004, 4 of them still rank in the top 10 (meaning not only have they given us three good years since 2004, but we expect three MORE good years out of them, which would bring their usable career up to 7 years and counting). The guys lower down in the rankings who are still relevant (Jamal Lewis and Larry Johnson) both had a top-10 season under the age of 25, too (so they are examples rather than exceptions). Now, you may point to Williams nee Davis and Rudi Johnson as counterexamples to the "stud RBs have long careers" rule, but remember that 50% of all fantasy draft picks wind up being busts, so a 66%-75% success rate is very, very good still.
For good but not great RBs, then counting on more than 3 years is silly. For the truly elite RBs, the guys who crack the top 10 prior to the age of 25, it's not silly at all to expect more than 3 years of production. For someone like a Maurice Jones-Drew, or an Adrian Peterson, or a Joseph Addai, or a Marion Barber, or a Frank Gore, or a Steven Jackson, then absolutely you can expect them to remain productive until age 28, 29, or possibly beyond.
by Gianmarco and the follow-up by SSOG.Re: gianmarco's post, I think this sentence sums up the dynasty conundrum very well: "The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs." You have to be able to react to change in dynasty leagues, which is why I always have a healthy amount of turnover on my roster every year outside of my young nucleus. It's tough to set your horizon over multiple seasons because of the turnover in the NFL caused by injuries and uncontrollable variables. And remember: upside is crucial, but a great track record is just as valuable, if not moreso.
Re: SSOG's post. I agree, and this is where the dynasty owners with great instincts and the ability to watch a player and come to a quick, decisive judgment have a tremendous advantage. The first time I saw Domanick Davis in his rookie season, he was a back-up. I saw him come on in relief of Stacey Mack one game early in his rookie season in Week 3 against JAX and immediately picked him up off waivers because I could tell even in a few touches that he was a major improvement on Stacey Mack. After watching him a few more times, I could also tell that he wasn't a long-term, building block type of talent at RB. It doesn't take a unique talent to beat out Stacey Mack for the starting RB job, but it does take a unique talent to establish yourself as a long-term, nucleus RB for a dynasty team. Not every player will become the stud you envisioned when you picked him up. It's a constant challenge to gauge which players are nucleus and which players are simply having a good season.
I generally believe that if you can trade a player on your roster who might be good at some point down the road for a player who is good now, then do it. Similar to a major league baseball GM evaluating which prospects to keep and which ones to trade while in contention, one of our most important jobs is to evaluate our own players and decide who is nucleus and whose value is fleeting. It's just as important to have our finger on the pulse of our own roster as it is to target players on other rosters.
In summary, I believe gianmarco was right: it's mostly about talent in dynasty leagues. Any NFL player can have a great season -- any player. But it takes a truly great player to put up consistently great seasons. Studs are studs, and your job is to acquire all of them...or at least as many as you can. That's why you don't see quality dynasty owners wringing their hands over Adrian Peterson's lack of production the last few games. They understand the talent gap between him and the other RBs in the league. It's also why Frank Gore and Steven Jackson owners weathered the storm this year. The top shelf talent is obvious to the discerning dynasty owner.
Bottom line for me in dynasty leagues: be knowledgeable and intuitive enough to develop strong hunches, and then follow your instincts.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 1 2008, 01:15 PM)
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 01:43 PM)
It's wrong because there are too many times that players don't last that long, ESPECIALLY at the RB position. Here's a simple exercise to show this. Go pull up any site that shows stats (including this one) from previous years. Go look at the top names at the RB position and see how many are still around and producing at that kind of level. Even the young guys. There are VERY few players that persist more than 3-4 yrs. At the RB position, the only guy is LT at this point. All of the rest of your top guys were either not in the league or non-factors just as shortly as 3-4 yrs ago. At the WR spot, you've got guys like TO, Holt, Harrison (before this year), CJ, and that's about it. At the QB spot, you've got Peyton Manning. Due to this, it's nearly impossible to figure out who the next Holt or Manning or LT is going to be. Every year there are promising stars, some show their potential early, others not exactly, but you don't get a guy because you think he'll be around longer than 3-4 yrs. You get the guy for that 3-4 yr span and if he's around longer, then you hit gold and accept your bonus.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
The NFL is too fluid and too dynamic, mostly due to injuries, trades, free agency, coaching changes, and dependence on supporting cast to try and predict further out than 3 yrs. Who would have thought J. Lewis would be a Cleveland Brown or McGahee a Raven just last year? Their situations allowed them to be successful. What if Cleveland doesn't renew Jamal Lewis's contract and he goes to Oakland in a timeshare? Now what's his value?
Ultimately, this is why you try to get TALENT on your dynasty rosters. It's not to say that situations are irrelevant, but if you consistently find good talent, the situation usually works itself out. The goal is to find the LT's and Manning's and TO's and keep them on your roster forever. This is why you want to get a guy like Adrian Peterson on your roster. And you have to do it BEFORE he puts up the kind of #'s like he did this year. Once these guys perform like they do, you will almost never get a chance to get them again.
Far be it from me to question conventional wisdom (I know, *REAL* shocker, right?
), but is it really the case that anything more than 3 years out of an RB is a bonus? I went back and looked at all RBs 25 or younger who finished the 2004 season in the top 30 in fantasy points. Here's the list, along with where they ranked in 2004 and where they ranked last year in parentheses. I also put their ranking in F&L's rankings after the parentheses just to give an idea of how much we expect them to have left in the tank.Tomlinson (3, 1) 2
Domanick Williams nee Davis (5, OoF) n/a
Rudi Johnson (8, 47) 28
Willis McGahee (9, 8) 10
Brian Westbrook (10, 2) 4
Clinton Portis (11, 4) 9
Kevin Jones (21, 28) 25
Chris Brown (24, 45) n/a
Jamal Lewis (25, 6) 21
Larry Johnson (26, 40) 13
Kevan Barlow (27, OoF) n/a
Julius Jones (28, 44) 33
Derrick Blaylock (30, OoF) n/a
That's 13 RBs. Of the 13, three have flamed out entirely. Three more are basically irrelevant (Johnson, Brown, and JJones), although Jones still has some hope of becoming relevant again. The other 7 were either uberstuds still this year (Tomlinson, Westbrook, McGahee, Portis, Lewis), or else they were derailed by injuries (Larry Johnson, Kevin Jones). That's over 50%, and at the top it's even better- of the 6 "young" RBs who cracked the top 11 in 2004, 4 of them still rank in the top 10 (meaning not only have they given us three good years since 2004, but we expect three MORE good years out of them, which would bring their usable career up to 7 years and counting). The guys lower down in the rankings who are still relevant (Jamal Lewis and Larry Johnson) both had a top-10 season under the age of 25, too (so they are examples rather than exceptions). Now, you may point to Williams nee Davis and Rudi Johnson as counterexamples to the "stud RBs have long careers" rule, but remember that 50% of all fantasy draft picks wind up being busts, so a 66%-75% success rate is very, very good still.
For good but not great RBs, then counting on more than 3 years is silly. For the truly elite RBs, the guys who crack the top 10 prior to the age of 25, it's not silly at all to expect more than 3 years of production. For someone like a Maurice Jones-Drew, or an Adrian Peterson, or a Joseph Addai, or a Marion Barber, or a Frank Gore, or a Steven Jackson, then absolutely you can expect them to remain productive until age 28, 29, or possibly beyond.
We're on the same page, but I will disagree slightly and qualify my statement. I still consider anything more than 3 yrs bonus because if you got those guys back in 2004, it's still impossible to plan on them being productive 3 yrs later. That 50% of them still were is still a "bonus" to me. I don't think there was enough talent-wise among most of those guys to be able to predict accurately which of them would be in that top 50% and which wouldn't.
Also, let's not forget a couple of those guys had a resurgence this year. Lewis and McGahee were not RB's to be counted on the past couple of years. If you had picked up Lewis back in 2004, I doubt you kept him up until this point thinking he was still gonna be producing like he did this year. Also, why pick a cutoff of 25 or younger or why top 30? I could probably come up with similar "cutoffs" and prove the point the opposite. The bottomline is that if you look at the top FF producers back in 2004 (like the top 12-15, the ones that made a significant impact), most have faded into oblivion.
I do agree that if you can get a young RB that is able to crack the top early on, then keep your hand onto him. But again, for the most part, getting more than 3 yrs out of them is a bonus in my opinion. Probably just semantics or slightly different point of view. But I can tell you that if I had tried to trade for Peyton Manning a couple of years ago, I would have had a longer outlook (definitely more than 3 yrs) than if I had traded for Westbrook or Portis. I would have been disappointed if Manning didn't continue to produce well after 3 yrs, but I would have been elated if either of those RB's still did.
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 03:58 PM)
We're on the same page, but I will disagree slightly and qualify my statement. I still consider anything more than 3 yrs bonus because if you got those guys back in 2004, it's still impossible to plan on them being productive 3 yrs later. That 50% of them still were is still a "bonus" to me. I don't think there was enough talent-wise among most of those guys to be able to predict accurately which of them would be in that top 50% and which wouldn't.
Also, let's not forget a couple of those guys had a resurgence this year. Lewis and McGahee were not RB's to be counted on the past couple of years. If you had picked up Lewis back in 2004, I doubt you kept him up until this point thinking he was still gonna be producing like he did this year. Also, why pick a cutoff of 25 or younger or why top 30? I could probably come up with similar "cutoffs" and prove the point the opposite. The bottomline is that if you look at the top FF producers back in 2004 (like the top 12-15, the ones that made a significant impact), most have faded into oblivion.
I do agree that if you can get a young RB that is able to crack the top early on, then keep your hand onto him. But again, for the most part, getting more than 3 yrs out of them is a bonus in my opinion. Probably just semantics or slightly different point of view. But I can tell you that if I had tried to trade for Peyton Manning a couple of years ago, I would have had a longer outlook (definitely more than 3 yrs) than if I had traded for Westbrook or Portis. I would have been disappointed if Manning didn't continue to produce well after 3 yrs, but I would have been elated if either of those RB's still did.
Also, let's not forget a couple of those guys had a resurgence this year. Lewis and McGahee were not RB's to be counted on the past couple of years. If you had picked up Lewis back in 2004, I doubt you kept him up until this point thinking he was still gonna be producing like he did this year. Also, why pick a cutoff of 25 or younger or why top 30? I could probably come up with similar "cutoffs" and prove the point the opposite. The bottomline is that if you look at the top FF producers back in 2004 (like the top 12-15, the ones that made a significant impact), most have faded into oblivion.
I do agree that if you can get a young RB that is able to crack the top early on, then keep your hand onto him. But again, for the most part, getting more than 3 yrs out of them is a bonus in my opinion. Probably just semantics or slightly different point of view. But I can tell you that if I had tried to trade for Peyton Manning a couple of years ago, I would have had a longer outlook (definitely more than 3 yrs) than if I had traded for Westbrook or Portis. I would have been disappointed if Manning didn't continue to produce well after 3 yrs, but I would have been elated if either of those RB's still did.
I picked 25 as a cutoff point because the "RB Wall" is generally somewhere between 28 and 30, so I needed to look at RBs young enough that they wouldn't have "hit the wall" by this season (obviously it wouldn't take a rocket surgeon to predict that a 32 year old RB in 2004 wasn't going to hold much value in 2007).
I listed the top 30 for the sake of completeness. I was originally just going to do top 12 (i.e. "RB1s"), but I figured people would accuse me of massaging the numbers when I saw that Portis just made the cut at 11th. Then I was just going to go with the top 24 (i.e. "fantasy starters"), but I extended that to 30 because I thought that Lewis and Johnson were interesting and deserved to be included as well. They were pretty much irrelevant to my main point, though- my main point was that the elite RBs, the RB1 type players, usually get more than 3 years of good production. Consider all of the other data points as freebies for you to evaluate and draw your own conclusions from.
You call it a "bonus" if an RB gets more than 3 years, but my point is that if we can identify a population that the vast majority of the time gets 4, 5, or 6 years of useful production, then the 4th, 5th, or 6th years can't really be considered a "bonus". Young stud RBs have just as long of a productive life as mid-aged stud WRs, and should be treated comparably, IMO.
Maybe if I get some time later I'll look at RBs who crack the top 10 by age 25 and then compile a profile of what their fantasy careers look like from that point on to see if we can create a working model for what we should expect from young stud RBs. It's certainly more than just 3 years, though.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Jan 1 2008, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 03:58 PM)
We're on the same page, but I will disagree slightly and qualify my statement. I still consider anything more than 3 yrs bonus because if you got those guys back in 2004, it's still impossible to plan on them being productive 3 yrs later. That 50% of them still were is still a "bonus" to me. I don't think there was enough talent-wise among most of those guys to be able to predict accurately which of them would be in that top 50% and which wouldn't.
Also, let's not forget a couple of those guys had a resurgence this year. Lewis and McGahee were not RB's to be counted on the past couple of years. If you had picked up Lewis back in 2004, I doubt you kept him up until this point thinking he was still gonna be producing like he did this year. Also, why pick a cutoff of 25 or younger or why top 30? I could probably come up with similar "cutoffs" and prove the point the opposite. The bottomline is that if you look at the top FF producers back in 2004 (like the top 12-15, the ones that made a significant impact), most have faded into oblivion.
I do agree that if you can get a young RB that is able to crack the top early on, then keep your hand onto him. But again, for the most part, getting more than 3 yrs out of them is a bonus in my opinion. Probably just semantics or slightly different point of view. But I can tell you that if I had tried to trade for Peyton Manning a couple of years ago, I would have had a longer outlook (definitely more than 3 yrs) than if I had traded for Westbrook or Portis. I would have been disappointed if Manning didn't continue to produce well after 3 yrs, but I would have been elated if either of those RB's still did.
Also, let's not forget a couple of those guys had a resurgence this year. Lewis and McGahee were not RB's to be counted on the past couple of years. If you had picked up Lewis back in 2004, I doubt you kept him up until this point thinking he was still gonna be producing like he did this year. Also, why pick a cutoff of 25 or younger or why top 30? I could probably come up with similar "cutoffs" and prove the point the opposite. The bottomline is that if you look at the top FF producers back in 2004 (like the top 12-15, the ones that made a significant impact), most have faded into oblivion.
I do agree that if you can get a young RB that is able to crack the top early on, then keep your hand onto him. But again, for the most part, getting more than 3 yrs out of them is a bonus in my opinion. Probably just semantics or slightly different point of view. But I can tell you that if I had tried to trade for Peyton Manning a couple of years ago, I would have had a longer outlook (definitely more than 3 yrs) than if I had traded for Westbrook or Portis. I would have been disappointed if Manning didn't continue to produce well after 3 yrs, but I would have been elated if either of those RB's still did.
I picked 25 as a cutoff point because the "RB Wall" is generally somewhere between 28 and 30, so I needed to look at RBs young enough that they wouldn't have "hit the wall" by this season (obviously it wouldn't take a rocket surgeon to predict that a 32 year old RB in 2004 wasn't going to hold much value in 2007).
I listed the top 30 for the sake of completeness. I was originally just going to do top 12 (i.e. "RB1s"), but I figured people would accuse me of massaging the numbers when I saw that Portis just made the cut at 11th. Then I was just going to go with the top 24 (i.e. "fantasy starters"), but I extended that to 30 because I thought that Lewis and Johnson were interesting and deserved to be included as well. They were pretty much irrelevant to my main point, though- my main point was that the elite RBs, the RB1 type players, usually get more than 3 years of good production. Consider all of the other data points as freebies for you to evaluate and draw your own conclusions from.
You call it a "bonus" if an RB gets more than 3 years, but my point is that if we can identify a population that the vast majority of the time gets 4, 5, or 6 years of useful production, then the 4th, 5th, or 6th years can't really be considered a "bonus". Young stud RBs have just as long of a productive life as mid-aged stud WRs, and should be treated comparably, IMO.
Maybe if I get some time later I'll look at RBs who crack the top 10 by age 25 and then compile a profile of what their fantasy careers look like from that point on to see if we can create a working model for what we should expect from young stud RBs. It's certainly more than just 3 years, though.
That would be awesome if you could do that.
Btw, I took a quick look at the year prior (2003) and applied your same criteria. Here is the list of guys I got:
LT
J. Lewis
Portis
Deuce
Edge
Henry
D. Davis (Williams)
Barlow
Rudi Johnson
Westbrook
Duckett
Buckhalter
Out of that list, this would be the 4th year after their production (bonus territory). 4 of those guys are essentially non-existent (Buckhalter, Duckett, Barlow, D. Davis), 2 have battled injuries and were non factors in this 4th year (Rudi and Deuce) and will likely have limited future value (so you got 3 more good years and nothing more), Henry has been off the map and had even less value up until now than the previous 2. So we'll say LT, Portis, Westbrook, J. Lewis, and Edge (and Edge's productivity has suffered tremendously since changing teams 2 yrs ago and is a #2 RB at best).
So, with that list, you're looking at 5 RB's out of 12 that are giving you significant output beyond 3 yrs, and again, I would qualify both Edge and Lewis on that list (Lewis bc of his being a relative non-factor the previous 3 yrs). Obviously dealing with a small sample size and that's why a broad view over a larger # of years as you were talking about would be more helpful, but a lot of this is also arbitrary. For example, let's say I agreed with your notion and acquired Edge after his 2003 campaign (when he was 25 and finished in the top 10), and was looking for more than 3 yrs of production. I wouldn't have included his current production as part of the reason I was trading for him. I still see his average RB2 stats at the present time as a bonus, whereas you may be pleased with continued production.
LT
J. Lewis
Portis
Deuce
Edge
Henry
D. Davis (Williams)
Barlow
Rudi Johnson
Westbrook
Duckett
Buckhalter
Out of that list, this would be the 4th year after their production (bonus territory). 4 of those guys are essentially non-existent (Buckhalter, Duckett, Barlow, D. Davis), 2 have battled injuries and were non factors in this 4th year (Rudi and Deuce) and will likely have limited future value (so you got 3 more good years and nothing more), Henry has been off the map and had even less value up until now than the previous 2. So we'll say LT, Portis, Westbrook, J. Lewis, and Edge (and Edge's productivity has suffered tremendously since changing teams 2 yrs ago and is a #2 RB at best).
So, with that list, you're looking at 5 RB's out of 12 that are giving you significant output beyond 3 yrs, and again, I would qualify both Edge and Lewis on that list (Lewis bc of his being a relative non-factor the previous 3 yrs). Obviously dealing with a small sample size and that's why a broad view over a larger # of years as you were talking about would be more helpful, but a lot of this is also arbitrary. For example, let's say I agreed with your notion and acquired Edge after his 2003 campaign (when he was 25 and finished in the top 10), and was looking for more than 3 yrs of production. I wouldn't have included his current production as part of the reason I was trading for him. I still see his average RB2 stats at the present time as a bonus, whereas you may be pleased with continued production.
Guys,
I've moved the rankings off the first page and exclusively to the blog starting today. Below is the message from page one explaining the decision. I hope nothing changes here as far as discussion/debate. If you remain flummoxed by the reasoning behind the switch after reading below, just PM me and I'll try to fill you in as well as I can.
I've moved the rankings off the first page and exclusively to the blog starting today. Below is the message from page one explaining the decision. I hope nothing changes here as far as discussion/debate. If you remain flummoxed by the reasoning behind the switch after reading below, just PM me and I'll try to fill you in as well as I can.
QUOTE
If change was going to be inevitable, the end of the fantasy season and the beginning of a new year is as fine a time as any to install that change. As those of you who have been around since the beginning know, situations have arisen which have spurred me at times to look into moving the rankings to another site where they will be more protected.
I’ve been kicking the blog idea around for several years, but my own sloth and procrastination have kept me from seeing that idea through. With time off from school for Christmas break, the impetus finally moved me from the idea stage to the action stage.
Since it’s a time-consuming hassle to update two lists on two different sites, and since there was a reason to move the rankings in the first place, the rankings have been moved exclusively to the dynastyrankings blog starting January 1, 2008. As always, feel free to comment on the blog itself, or simply continue to bring it up here for discussion. I fully intend to stay heavily involved in this thread and on the message board.
I’ve been kicking the blog idea around for several years, but my own sloth and procrastination have kept me from seeing that idea through. With time off from school for Christmas break, the impetus finally moved me from the idea stage to the action stage.
Since it’s a time-consuming hassle to update two lists on two different sites, and since there was a reason to move the rankings in the first place, the rankings have been moved exclusively to the dynastyrankings blog starting January 1, 2008. As always, feel free to comment on the blog itself, or simply continue to bring it up here for discussion. I fully intend to stay heavily involved in this thread and on the message board.
This interesting and I think a important discussion concerning long term vs short term value of players. And how does an owner identify a players value over time and incorperate that into their strategy?
There is a tendency in dynasty owners to overvalue youth. Thinking about very long term value if everything goes well for that player. More often than not such a player will not live up to your expectations.
A player who plays at a elite level for longer than 3 years is a rare thing. Not saying it doesen't happen but its rare. Basing your decisions on such a rare occurance will lead to many dissapointments and
possibly cause you to make decisions that hurt your teams competitivness.
I use 3 years of projection for how I value players with greater emphasis on the current year and the year following it. I want to win now and keep winning year in year out. That is what makes your team a dynasty.
I use the 3 year projection to help keep me focused on winning now while at the same time not damaging my overall roster value. To hopefully continue to improve on it. Not because I think that players careers won't
last longer than 3 years. But because if I focus on more than 3 years I won't have enough emphasis on winning today.
CP and others use a 5 year model or models that value players over a longer time frame than 3 years. I think all strategies are viable and can be talored to your specific team as needed.
There is a tendency in dynasty owners to overvalue youth. Thinking about very long term value if everything goes well for that player. More often than not such a player will not live up to your expectations.
A player who plays at a elite level for longer than 3 years is a rare thing. Not saying it doesen't happen but its rare. Basing your decisions on such a rare occurance will lead to many dissapointments and
possibly cause you to make decisions that hurt your teams competitivness.
I use 3 years of projection for how I value players with greater emphasis on the current year and the year following it. I want to win now and keep winning year in year out. That is what makes your team a dynasty.
I use the 3 year projection to help keep me focused on winning now while at the same time not damaging my overall roster value. To hopefully continue to improve on it. Not because I think that players careers won't
last longer than 3 years. But because if I focus on more than 3 years I won't have enough emphasis on winning today.
CP and others use a 5 year model or models that value players over a longer time frame than 3 years. I think all strategies are viable and can be talored to your specific team as needed.
I still like the 50/33/17 rule. Put 50% of value on year 1, 33% in year 2, and 17% in year 3. I don't like putting value on years 4 and on because (1) it is very difficult to predict accurately, so I think you're mostly guessing; (2) assuming that each later year is a smaller percentage of current value, you're not affecting current value much (putting 0.5% weight on year 10 and adding to current value does not change overall value much); and (3) I assume my own roster will encounter sufficient turnover that it is likely that the player is not on my roster past year 3 (I am continually trying to trade off players before they even hit the period of diminishing returns).
When I do look at potential longevity, I look at it as a tiebreaker. But the way I do it is by looking at "Quality Years Remaining", which I believe Couch Potato (or another longtime Shark Pool poster) has written about. Quick formula using current age and typical aging patterns to project likely continued success. Once I have players in the same relative tier, I will put the player with more QYRs remaining ahead of the others.
When I do look at potential longevity, I look at it as a tiebreaker. But the way I do it is by looking at "Quality Years Remaining", which I believe Couch Potato (or another longtime Shark Pool poster) has written about. Quick formula using current age and typical aging patterns to project likely continued success. Once I have players in the same relative tier, I will put the player with more QYRs remaining ahead of the others.
The one thing that is getting lost in this is how it's difficult sometimes to make these comparisons across different positions. It's a little easier to look at a few WR's and determine which may have more value at that time (or for your team specifically). What gets a little more difficult is gauging that value (both current and projected) when comparing different positions for trading purposes.
Since a good # of trades involve different positions (trading from an area of strength to get an area of weakness), you really need to keep those future projections in mind when figuring out if a trade is good for you. For example, is it worth giving up a WR like Chad Johnson or Fitzgerald for a top RB that has more current value but limited future value? At times, it's actually much more difficult to get your hands on an elite WR that could give you many years of productivity (guys like Holt, Harrison, TO and what they've done for so long) when so many RB's don't last nearly as long.
This is where an analysis like what SSOG proposed determining how many years you can expect from young RB's that do crack the top ranks in productivity could help in comparing unlike positions.
Since a good # of trades involve different positions (trading from an area of strength to get an area of weakness), you really need to keep those future projections in mind when figuring out if a trade is good for you. For example, is it worth giving up a WR like Chad Johnson or Fitzgerald for a top RB that has more current value but limited future value? At times, it's actually much more difficult to get your hands on an elite WR that could give you many years of productivity (guys like Holt, Harrison, TO and what they've done for so long) when so many RB's don't last nearly as long.
This is where an analysis like what SSOG proposed determining how many years you can expect from young RB's that do crack the top ranks in productivity could help in comparing unlike positions.
I pretty much agree with gheemoney about how he weights projections over 3 years. His point about turning over your own roster is very key as well.
While there have been times that I sell a player too soon, as long as I get reasonable return in value I can live with that. And I am re-evaluating players every year, so now that the season is over I only use my projections from last year as a starting point. I evaluate what happened or didn't happen. Then I formulate new projections for next year using the 3 year weighting. That 3rd year never really comes into play. It is more just a placeholder for future value. This year and next year have the most weight. Then that gets scrapped for a new 3 year projection. As long as the players I have do not lose a ton of value in one year (which does happen sometimes) I can reasonably expect to be able to move the players I have at decent value after the season is over for players I think will hold more value in the coming year and over the next 2-3 years. Looking 3 years out is long enough to ensure that I am not hanging on to players too long and losing value from them due to decline(in percieved value) from age.
While there have been times that I sell a player too soon, as long as I get reasonable return in value I can live with that. And I am re-evaluating players every year, so now that the season is over I only use my projections from last year as a starting point. I evaluate what happened or didn't happen. Then I formulate new projections for next year using the 3 year weighting. That 3rd year never really comes into play. It is more just a placeholder for future value. This year and next year have the most weight. Then that gets scrapped for a new 3 year projection. As long as the players I have do not lose a ton of value in one year (which does happen sometimes) I can reasonably expect to be able to move the players I have at decent value after the season is over for players I think will hold more value in the coming year and over the next 2-3 years. Looking 3 years out is long enough to ensure that I am not hanging on to players too long and losing value from them due to decline(in percieved value) from age.
QUOTE
CP and others use a 5 year model or models that value players over a longer time frame than 3 years. I think all strategies are viable and can be talored to your specific team as needed.
QUOTE
When I do look at potential longevity, I look at it as a tiebreaker. But the way I do it is by looking at "Quality Years Remaining", which I believe Couch Potato (or another longtime Shark Pool poster) has written about. Quick formula using current age and typical aging patterns to project likely continued success. Once I have players in the same relative tier, I will put the player with more QYRs remaining ahead of the others.
Wow, I got a mention in back-to-back posts. Cool. Actually, I ought to be hiding from Bia and Ghee because I sort of promised to finish a project last offseason and I didn't deliver.
I ended up joining 4 new leagues and that ate up the time instead. I had done some career longevity and productivity curve work in the past and hoped to update that using round drafted, current role, stuff like that as modifiers for my model, but ended up setting it aside for this year (hopefully).I use QYR (quality years remaining) and a 5 year time frame, discounting back to today in such a way that today is much more valuable than 5 years from now, and a WW-equivalent exit value (if, based on QYR, the player is expected to be done or his value fall below WW value before the end of the 5 years) to give me a relative value for the player. So the 5 years is a maximum forward look, not a given. QYR total career length varies by position, with QB the longest, then WR, then TE and RB. Remaining QYR will affect how many years I look forward for a player. The 5 year time frame for a top young WR (say Fitzgerald) takes into account his 5 projected seasons, but for a lesser player, an older player (like T.O.), or a RB for example it may only take into account a year or two before his career curve hits WW exit value. QYR for lower-expectation players is what I'm working to modify, because my base model when I started the project was created to estimate longevity for the better players, and lower-expectation players really need different length-of-career assumptions for the formula. I've made some progress on that, but I'm not there. The end of career assumptions will determine whether I'm looking out 5 years or 3 years or maybe just 1 year, with WW exit value tacked on.
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 11:41 PM)
The one thing that is getting lost in this is how it's difficult sometimes to make these comparisons across different positions. It's a little easier to look at a few WR's and determine which may have more value at that time (or for your team specifically). What gets a little more difficult is gauging that value (both current and projected) when comparing different positions for trading purposes.
Since a good # of trades involve different positions (trading from an area of strength to get an area of weakness), you really need to keep those future projections in mind when figuring out if a trade is good for you. For example, is it worth giving up a WR like Chad Johnson or Fitzgerald for a top RB that has more current value but limited future value? At times, it's actually much more difficult to get your hands on an elite WR that could give you many years of productivity (guys like Holt, Harrison, TO and what they've done for so long) when so many RB's don't last nearly as long.
This is where an analysis like what SSOG proposed determining how many years you can expect from young RB's that do crack the top ranks in productivity could help in comparing unlike positions.
Since a good # of trades involve different positions (trading from an area of strength to get an area of weakness), you really need to keep those future projections in mind when figuring out if a trade is good for you. For example, is it worth giving up a WR like Chad Johnson or Fitzgerald for a top RB that has more current value but limited future value? At times, it's actually much more difficult to get your hands on an elite WR that could give you many years of productivity (guys like Holt, Harrison, TO and what they've done for so long) when so many RB's don't last nearly as long.
This is where an analysis like what SSOG proposed determining how many years you can expect from young RB's that do crack the top ranks in productivity could help in comparing unlike positions.
I did a study like this based off of what round they were taken in the NFL draft and recorded where those players ranked in each season of their careers to find a success rate and find which years were more successful.
I only did this for RBs. Doing a similar study for WR would be helpful. I inteded to do it but still have not found the time.
In defense of my maximum 5 year forward look (rather than 2 or 3 as many use), part of my objective in coming up with a relative value number is to assign a dynasty trade value.
If I own 24 year old Fitzgerald and you own 29 year old Reggie Wayne, they may come out 100% equal if just three years are taken into account. But they are in different stages of their productivity curves. At 27 Fitz will be right in his prime, but at 32 Wayne will be past his. Those next two years matter, and if I don't take them into account I'll undervalue younger players pretty badly. Intuitively, dynasty players know youth matters and take it into account when dealing, and I want to do so in coming up with my values.
Now, beyond 5 years I've found isn't worth the effort, and that is because of the discount (i.e. risk) factor. At a healthy discount rate (which needs to be used because of all of the uncertainty in fantasy football -- it's worse than a junk bond!), the increase in present value added by year 6 and beyond is small, and that makes sense to me intuitively because not very much can be trusted that far out.
If I own 24 year old Fitzgerald and you own 29 year old Reggie Wayne, they may come out 100% equal if just three years are taken into account. But they are in different stages of their productivity curves. At 27 Fitz will be right in his prime, but at 32 Wayne will be past his. Those next two years matter, and if I don't take them into account I'll undervalue younger players pretty badly. Intuitively, dynasty players know youth matters and take it into account when dealing, and I want to do so in coming up with my values.
Now, beyond 5 years I've found isn't worth the effort, and that is because of the discount (i.e. risk) factor. At a healthy discount rate (which needs to be used because of all of the uncertainty in fantasy football -- it's worse than a junk bond!), the increase in present value added by year 6 and beyond is small, and that makes sense to me intuitively because not very much can be trusted that far out.
QUOTE (gianmarco @ Jan 1 2008, 10:41 PM)
The one thing that is getting lost in this is how it's difficult sometimes to make these comparisons across different positions. It's a little easier to look at a few WR's and determine which may have more value at that time (or for your team specifically). What gets a little more difficult is gauging that value (both current and projected) when comparing different positions for trading purposes.
Since a good # of trades involve different positions (trading from an area of strength to get an area of weakness), you really need to keep those future projections in mind when figuring out if a trade is good for you. For example, is it worth giving up a WR like Chad Johnson or Fitzgerald for a top RB that has more current value but limited future value? At times, it's actually much more difficult to get your hands on an elite WR that could give you many years of productivity (guys like Holt, Harrison, TO and what they've done for so long) when so many RB's don't last nearly as long.
This is where an analysis like what SSOG proposed determining how many years you can expect from young RB's that do crack the top ranks in productivity could help in comparing unlike positions.
Since a good # of trades involve different positions (trading from an area of strength to get an area of weakness), you really need to keep those future projections in mind when figuring out if a trade is good for you. For example, is it worth giving up a WR like Chad Johnson or Fitzgerald for a top RB that has more current value but limited future value? At times, it's actually much more difficult to get your hands on an elite WR that could give you many years of productivity (guys like Holt, Harrison, TO and what they've done for so long) when so many RB's don't last nearly as long.
This is where an analysis like what SSOG proposed determining how many years you can expect from young RB's that do crack the top ranks in productivity could help in comparing unlike positions.
Great post and this is why in initial dynasty drafts, I concentrate on WRs and QBs.Just as an example of how difficult it can be to project certain positions; by positions and assuming a 12 team league, 1 QB 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, how accurate could we project the "ideal starters" - meaning top 12 QB, 24 RB, 24 WR and 12 TEs, not the exact order, but how many were just in that group? And then how many of the upper 1/3?
Feel free to show me where I'm wrong, this is mostly by memory, also there are differing opinions at the start of the year, I'm looking at the end results and if we should or could have projected such.
QB -
Starting caliber: Derek Anderson and Kurt Warner were the only true surprises in the top 12 - 83% hit rate
Elite: (Brady, Romo, Peyton and Brees) were all expected (Palmer should have been in here too, but these 4 aren't a surprise) - 100%
RB -
Starting caliber: Graham, Grant, Watson, and Fargas - 83% hit rate, same as QB
Elite: Peterson, Portis, Lewis, and Barber - 50%
WR -
Starting caliber: Marshall, RWhite, Welker, Curtis, Engram, Mason, Bowe, McDonald - 66.6% hit rate
Elite: Braylon Edwards is the only true surprise amongst the top 8 - 87.5%
TE -
Starting caliber: Daniels, Des Clark, Scheffler, Lee - 83% hit rate, same as QB and RB
Elite: No real surprises amongst Witten, Gates, Gonzalez and Winslow2 - 100%
So, if memory serves, we're looking at the elite being "safe" for QB and TE, fairly safe for WR and a good turnover at RB
For "starting caliber", things are a little different, QB, RB, and TE are all the same while WR has more turnover.
Moral of the story IMO is when projecting one year out, your elite QB, WR and TE should get a decent bump, while after you get out of the elite WRs, you may as well wait or lower the value some, but starting caliber RBs are much safer than I thought. This is only one year, I may evaluate "surprises from 3 years and 5 years" later, which would have more value in a dynasty discussion. This also doesn't take into account players that we project to be around #10 but fall to #24 or vice versa.
Here are the results of the study on RB success rate based on round they were drafted covering 10 seasons of each players career:
QUOTE (Driver @ Mar 17 2007, 06:30 PM)
With respect to longevity and performance of RBs, this was posted in another thread. Below is a list of RBs who were drafted in the 1st round since 1993.
I added RB ranking for each year of career -- Hearst finished RB79 as a rookie, RB23 in 2nd year, RB31 in 3rd year, .... Bettis finished RB2 as rookie, RB13 in 2nd year, etc.
As shown below, this data permits calculation of "success rate" (of 1st round RB picks) by year of career -- the proportion of 1st round RBs who finished in the top-5, top-10, etc.
1993
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 3 Garrison Hearst RB Georgia [79 - 23 - 31 - 17 - 5 - XX - XX - 12 - 20 - 29 - 100]
1 10 Jerome Bettis RB Notre Dame [2 - 13 - 41 - 7 - 4 - 20 - 16 - 19 - 21 - 31 - 26 - 18 - 36]
1 21 Robert Smith RB Ohio State [56 - 81 - 39 - 39 - 11 - 12 - 23 - 7]
1994
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Marshall Faulk RB San Diego State [4 - 6 - 17 - 7 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 14 - 16 - 29 - 53]
1 25 Greg Hill RB Texas A&M [46 - 43 - 32 - 50 - 59 - 43]
1995
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 1 Ki-Jana Carter RB Penn State [34 - 35 - 131 - 117 - XX - 54 - XX - 105]
1 17 Tyrone Wheatley RB Michigan [64 - 54 - 37 - 124 - 13 - 21 - 52 - 51 - 35 - 49]
1 18 Napoleon Kaufman RB Washington [50 - 28 - 5 - 25 - 30 - 43]
1 19 James Stewart RB Tennessee [42 - 16 - 22 - 62 - 12 - 14 - 31 - 22]
1 21 Rashaan Salaam RB Colorado [16 - 45 - 106]
1996
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 6 Lawrence Phillips RB Nebraska [38 - 28 - XX - 72]
1 8 Tim Biakabutuka RB Michigan [92 - 73 - 36 - 26 - 27 - 67]
1 14 Eddie George RB Ohio State [8 - 12 - 11 - 3 - 3 - 19 - 10 - 22 - 41]
1997
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 12 Warrick Dunn RB Florida State [13 - 19 - 21 - 15 - 23 - 19 - 27 - 15 - 12 - 24] ***
1 23 Antowain Smith RB Houston [19 - 16 - 31 - 45 - 9 - 23 - 39 - 38 - 40]
1998
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Curtis Enis RB Penn State [54 - 18 - 87]
1 9 Fred Taylor RB Florida [4 - 28 - 6 - 103 - 11 - 8 - 20 - 33 - 18] ***
1 18 Robert Edwards RB Georgia [8 - XX - XX - XX - 69]
1 29 John Avery RB Mississippi [41 - 132 - XX - XX - XX - 120]
1999
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Edgerrin James RB Miami [1 - 2 - 32 - 24 - 10 - 6 - 5 - 20] ***
1 5 Ricky Williams RB Texas [27 - 18 - 8 - 2 - 9 - XX - 27 - XX] ***
2000
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Jamal Lewis RB Tennessee [16 - XX - 12 - 4 - 25 - 25 - 16] ***
1 7 Thomas Jones RB Virginia [42 - 42 - 45 - 38 - 19 - 9 - 21] ***
1 11 Ron Dayne RB Wisconsin [29 - 27 - 48 - XX - 25 - 35 - 99] ***
1 19 Shaun Alexander RB Alabama [54 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 1 - 1 - 28] ***
1 31 Trung Canidate RB Arizona [142 - 35 - 116 - 42]
2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson RB Texas Christian [7 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 1] ***
1 23 Deuce McAllister RB Mississippi [63 - 6 - 7 - 17 - 54 - 13] ***
1 27 Michael Bennett RB Wisconsin [29 - 17 - 48 - 54 - 39 - 77] ***
2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 16 William Green RB Boston College [27 - 47 - 40 - 107 - XX]
1 18 T.J. Duckett RB Michigan State [42 - 21 - 36 - 37 - 79] ***
2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 23 Willis McGahee RB Miami [XX - 9 - 13 - 26] ***
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State [104 - 26 - 2 - 2] ***
2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 24 Steven Jackson RB Oregon State [38 - 11 - 3] ***
1 26 Chris Perry RB Michigan [149 - 45 - 109] ***
1 30 Kevin Jones RB Virginia Tech [21 - 31 - 23] ***
2005
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn [23 - 25] ***
1 4 Cedric Benson RB Texas [86 - 38] ***
1 5 Carnell Williams RB Auburn [19 - 39] ***
2006
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Reggie Bush RB Southern California [17] ***
1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota [29] ***
1 27 DeAngelo Williams RB Memphis [41] ***
1 30 Joseph Addai RB Louisiana State [11] ***
XX = player was injured and did not play that year.
*** = still active
Summary of results by year of career (for all 1st round draft picks since 1993).
For example, as shown below, 48.8% of all rookie RBs drafted in the 1st round finished in the top-35 of RBs during their rookie season. Of all RBs drafted 1st round, 26.7% of them finished in the top-35 of RBs in their 10th season.
Regarding stud-like productivity, more than a few rookies finished in the top-5 (9.3% of all 1st round rookies). Years 4 and 5 were the best for top-5 performance with 15.2% and 16.1%, respectively.
Overall, the top-24 RB "success rate" was 38.7% for all players and all years combined (113/292) -- considering players that finished among the top-24 RBs in any year of their career.
Top-35:
Rookie - 48.8% [out of universe of 43 rookies]
Year 2 - 66.7% [39 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 52.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 45.5% [33 4th year players]
Year 5 - 61.3% [31 5th year players]
Year 6 - 55.2% [29 6th year players]
Year 7 - 50.0% [26 7th year players]
Year 8 - 42.9% [21 8th year players]
Year 9 - 31.6% [19 9th year players]
Year 10 - 26.7% [15 10th year players]
Top-30:
Rookie - 46.5%
Year 2 - 59.0%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 45.5%
Year 5 - 61.3%
Year 6 - 51.7%
Year 7 - 46.2%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 20.0%
Top-24:
Rookie - 37.2%
Year 2 - 28.2%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 36.4%
Year 5 - 48.4%
Year 6 - 48.3%
Year 7 - 34.6%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 13.3%
Top-20:
Rookie - 32.6%
Year 2 - 38.5%
Year 3 - 33.3%
Year 4 - 33.3%
Year 5 - 45.2%
Year 6 - 41.4%
Year 7 - 26.9%
Year 8 - 28.6%
Year 9 - 21.1%
Year 10 - 6.7%
Top-15:
Rookie - 20.9%
Year 2 - 23.1%
Year 3 - 30.6%
Year 4 - 27.3%
Year 5 - 41.9%
Year 6 - 31.0%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 19.0%
Year 9 - 10.5%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-10:
Rookie - 16.3%
Year 2 - 15.4%
Year 3 - 22.2%
Year 4 - 24.2%
Year 5 - 29.0%
Year 6 - 20.7%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 9.5%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-5:
Rookie - 9.3%
Year 2 - 7.7%
Year 3 - 13.9%
Year 4 - 15.2%
Year 5 - 16.1%
Year 6 - 10.3%
Year 7 - 11.5%
Year 8 - 4.8%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
I added RB ranking for each year of career -- Hearst finished RB79 as a rookie, RB23 in 2nd year, RB31 in 3rd year, .... Bettis finished RB2 as rookie, RB13 in 2nd year, etc.
As shown below, this data permits calculation of "success rate" (of 1st round RB picks) by year of career -- the proportion of 1st round RBs who finished in the top-5, top-10, etc.
1993
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 3 Garrison Hearst RB Georgia [79 - 23 - 31 - 17 - 5 - XX - XX - 12 - 20 - 29 - 100]
1 10 Jerome Bettis RB Notre Dame [2 - 13 - 41 - 7 - 4 - 20 - 16 - 19 - 21 - 31 - 26 - 18 - 36]
1 21 Robert Smith RB Ohio State [56 - 81 - 39 - 39 - 11 - 12 - 23 - 7]
1994
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Marshall Faulk RB San Diego State [4 - 6 - 17 - 7 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 14 - 16 - 29 - 53]
1 25 Greg Hill RB Texas A&M [46 - 43 - 32 - 50 - 59 - 43]
1995
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 1 Ki-Jana Carter RB Penn State [34 - 35 - 131 - 117 - XX - 54 - XX - 105]
1 17 Tyrone Wheatley RB Michigan [64 - 54 - 37 - 124 - 13 - 21 - 52 - 51 - 35 - 49]
1 18 Napoleon Kaufman RB Washington [50 - 28 - 5 - 25 - 30 - 43]
1 19 James Stewart RB Tennessee [42 - 16 - 22 - 62 - 12 - 14 - 31 - 22]
1 21 Rashaan Salaam RB Colorado [16 - 45 - 106]
1996
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 6 Lawrence Phillips RB Nebraska [38 - 28 - XX - 72]
1 8 Tim Biakabutuka RB Michigan [92 - 73 - 36 - 26 - 27 - 67]
1 14 Eddie George RB Ohio State [8 - 12 - 11 - 3 - 3 - 19 - 10 - 22 - 41]
1997
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 12 Warrick Dunn RB Florida State [13 - 19 - 21 - 15 - 23 - 19 - 27 - 15 - 12 - 24] ***
1 23 Antowain Smith RB Houston [19 - 16 - 31 - 45 - 9 - 23 - 39 - 38 - 40]
1998
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Curtis Enis RB Penn State [54 - 18 - 87]
1 9 Fred Taylor RB Florida [4 - 28 - 6 - 103 - 11 - 8 - 20 - 33 - 18] ***
1 18 Robert Edwards RB Georgia [8 - XX - XX - XX - 69]
1 29 John Avery RB Mississippi [41 - 132 - XX - XX - XX - 120]
1999
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Edgerrin James RB Miami [1 - 2 - 32 - 24 - 10 - 6 - 5 - 20] ***
1 5 Ricky Williams RB Texas [27 - 18 - 8 - 2 - 9 - XX - 27 - XX] ***
2000
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Jamal Lewis RB Tennessee [16 - XX - 12 - 4 - 25 - 25 - 16] ***
1 7 Thomas Jones RB Virginia [42 - 42 - 45 - 38 - 19 - 9 - 21] ***
1 11 Ron Dayne RB Wisconsin [29 - 27 - 48 - XX - 25 - 35 - 99] ***
1 19 Shaun Alexander RB Alabama [54 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 1 - 1 - 28] ***
1 31 Trung Canidate RB Arizona [142 - 35 - 116 - 42]
2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson RB Texas Christian [7 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 1] ***
1 23 Deuce McAllister RB Mississippi [63 - 6 - 7 - 17 - 54 - 13] ***
1 27 Michael Bennett RB Wisconsin [29 - 17 - 48 - 54 - 39 - 77] ***
2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 16 William Green RB Boston College [27 - 47 - 40 - 107 - XX]
1 18 T.J. Duckett RB Michigan State [42 - 21 - 36 - 37 - 79] ***
2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 23 Willis McGahee RB Miami [XX - 9 - 13 - 26] ***
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State [104 - 26 - 2 - 2] ***
2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 24 Steven Jackson RB Oregon State [38 - 11 - 3] ***
1 26 Chris Perry RB Michigan [149 - 45 - 109] ***
1 30 Kevin Jones RB Virginia Tech [21 - 31 - 23] ***
2005
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn [23 - 25] ***
1 4 Cedric Benson RB Texas [86 - 38] ***
1 5 Carnell Williams RB Auburn [19 - 39] ***
2006
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Reggie Bush RB Southern California [17] ***
1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota [29] ***
1 27 DeAngelo Williams RB Memphis [41] ***
1 30 Joseph Addai RB Louisiana State [11] ***
XX = player was injured and did not play that year.
*** = still active
Summary of results by year of career (for all 1st round draft picks since 1993).
For example, as shown below, 48.8% of all rookie RBs drafted in the 1st round finished in the top-35 of RBs during their rookie season. Of all RBs drafted 1st round, 26.7% of them finished in the top-35 of RBs in their 10th season.
Regarding stud-like productivity, more than a few rookies finished in the top-5 (9.3% of all 1st round rookies). Years 4 and 5 were the best for top-5 performance with 15.2% and 16.1%, respectively.
Overall, the top-24 RB "success rate" was 38.7% for all players and all years combined (113/292) -- considering players that finished among the top-24 RBs in any year of their career.
Top-35:
Rookie - 48.8% [out of universe of 43 rookies]
Year 2 - 66.7% [39 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 52.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 45.5% [33 4th year players]
Year 5 - 61.3% [31 5th year players]
Year 6 - 55.2% [29 6th year players]
Year 7 - 50.0% [26 7th year players]
Year 8 - 42.9% [21 8th year players]
Year 9 - 31.6% [19 9th year players]
Year 10 - 26.7% [15 10th year players]
Top-30:
Rookie - 46.5%
Year 2 - 59.0%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 45.5%
Year 5 - 61.3%
Year 6 - 51.7%
Year 7 - 46.2%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 20.0%
Top-24:
Rookie - 37.2%
Year 2 - 28.2%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 36.4%
Year 5 - 48.4%
Year 6 - 48.3%
Year 7 - 34.6%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 13.3%
Top-20:
Rookie - 32.6%
Year 2 - 38.5%
Year 3 - 33.3%
Year 4 - 33.3%
Year 5 - 45.2%
Year 6 - 41.4%
Year 7 - 26.9%
Year 8 - 28.6%
Year 9 - 21.1%
Year 10 - 6.7%
Top-15:
Rookie - 20.9%
Year 2 - 23.1%
Year 3 - 30.6%
Year 4 - 27.3%
Year 5 - 41.9%
Year 6 - 31.0%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 19.0%
Year 9 - 10.5%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-10:
Rookie - 16.3%
Year 2 - 15.4%
Year 3 - 22.2%
Year 4 - 24.2%
Year 5 - 29.0%
Year 6 - 20.7%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 9.5%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-5:
Rookie - 9.3%
Year 2 - 7.7%
Year 3 - 13.9%
Year 4 - 15.2%
Year 5 - 16.1%
Year 6 - 10.3%
Year 7 - 11.5%
Year 8 - 4.8%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
2nd round Rbs:
1993
Natrone Means [22 - 5 - 31 - 47 - 20 - 24 - 49]
Reggie Brooks [18 - 59 - 148 - 62]
Roosevelt Potts [38 - 47 - 51 - 131 - 67]
1994
Errict Rhett [14 - 11 - 44 - 88 - 88 - 20 - 63]
Chuck Levy [118 - 101 - 91]
David Palmer [109 - 101 - 124 - 80 - 90 -139]
Charlie Garner [49 - 34 - 64 - 38 - 43 - 7 - 9 - 17 - 9 - 31 - 98]
Mario Bates [33 - 19 - 41 - 46 - 53 - 37 - 61]
1995
Ray Zellars [76 - 46 - 33 - 81]
Sherman Williams [82 - 82 - 44 - 68]
Terrell Fletcher [87 - 40 - 64 - 29 - 60 - 32 - 77 - 84]
1996
Leeland McElroy [67- 54]
1997
Tiki Barber [34 - 44 - 32 - 13 - 15 - 7 - 15 - 2 - 4 - 7]
Byron Hanspard [66 - XX - 56]
Corey Dillon [8 - 17 - 11 - 17 - 6 - 16 - 44 - 7 - 16 - 19]***
1998
None
1999
James Johnson [34 - 73 - 128]
Kevin Faulk [65 - 26 - 55 - 38 - 34 - 44 - 68 - 52]***
Joe Montgomery [57 - 119 - 134]
Michael Cloud [104 - 95 - 109 - 78 - 68 - 84 - 129]
Jermaine Fazande [61 - 48 - XX]
2000
None
2001
Anthony Thomas [13 - 33 - 24 - 48 - 107 - 54]***
LaMont Jordan [62 - 49 - 57 - 43 - 8 - 55]***
Travis Henry [28 - 8 - 11 - 73 - 65 - 22]***
2002
DeShaun Foster [XX - 43 - 66 - 24 - 32]***
Clinton Portis [4 - 5 - 11 - 6 - 36]***
Maurice Morris [97 - 78 - 95 - 71 - 53]***
Ladell Betts [56 - 55 - 60 - 58 - 10]***
2003
None
2004
Tatum Bell [47 - 22 - 31] ***
Julius Jones [28 - 21 - 27] ***
2005
JJ Arrington [55 - 110] ***
Eric Shelton [XX - 134] ***
2006
Lendale White [71st] ***
Maurice Jones Drew [8th]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 36.3% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 35.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 31.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 22.2% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 30.4% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 20.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 18.2% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 25.8% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 13.8% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 14.8% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 26.1% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 19.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 13.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.9% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 7.4% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 14.8% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 9.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 9.7% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 3.7% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 7.4% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 5.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 10.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 13.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 3.0% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 6.5% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 0.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 0.0% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 0.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 0.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 5.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 6.7% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 0.0% [15 10th year players]
Note - I am counting all players who could have posted numbers for each year if they would have been able to make a roster in the NFL. There are many players here as you can see who's careers only last 2-4 years. However I think they still must be counted or the percentages would be inflated by not considering them busting.
For example the only Rb from 1999 who is still active is Kevin Faulk. But I still count the other 4 Rbs that were drafted that season and would be eligable for an 8th season of productivity even though those 4 Rbs were no longer in the league by that time.
3 players that were 2nd round picks are the ones giving any productivity beyond 6 years. Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon and Charlie Garner. 9% of total 2nd round picks. So less than one out of 10 with an average of 4 being drafted each year or one long term Rb every 3 years from the 2nd round. It is remarkable however that Dillon and Barber were both drafted in the same year. All of them were remarkably productive even late in thier careers. Barber and Garner were both smaller Rbs and late bloomers.
Side notes - The years that had zero 2nd round rookie Rb picks 2003 2000 and 1998 had 2 5 and 4 1st round picks used on Rbs respectivly. The 2003 Rb class was very poor for instant impact from Rbs with McGahee being injured his 1st year Larry Johnson playing behind Priest Holmes. The 3rd round picks Musa Smith, Chris Brown and Justin Fargas were injury riddled. 4th rounders Suggs, Pinner, Toefield and Griffin had durability issues as well. SOD had charecter issues. Domanic Davis (Williams) had a strong start but his career may now be over due to injury. This entire draft class shows little promise as a whole for high 5th year performances and should be considered one of the weakest groups overall considering that only LJ and McGahee are the only 2 Rbs who look promising still after only 4 years in the league.
5 of these 33 Rbs careers were over after 3 years. 3 more after 4 years. 1 was done after 2 years. So that is 27% or slightly more than one out of 4 (average of 4 2nd round Rbs being drafted each year) who's career will be over within an average of 3 years
1993
Natrone Means [22 - 5 - 31 - 47 - 20 - 24 - 49]
Reggie Brooks [18 - 59 - 148 - 62]
Roosevelt Potts [38 - 47 - 51 - 131 - 67]
1994
Errict Rhett [14 - 11 - 44 - 88 - 88 - 20 - 63]
Chuck Levy [118 - 101 - 91]
David Palmer [109 - 101 - 124 - 80 - 90 -139]
Charlie Garner [49 - 34 - 64 - 38 - 43 - 7 - 9 - 17 - 9 - 31 - 98]
Mario Bates [33 - 19 - 41 - 46 - 53 - 37 - 61]
1995
Ray Zellars [76 - 46 - 33 - 81]
Sherman Williams [82 - 82 - 44 - 68]
Terrell Fletcher [87 - 40 - 64 - 29 - 60 - 32 - 77 - 84]
1996
Leeland McElroy [67- 54]
1997
Tiki Barber [34 - 44 - 32 - 13 - 15 - 7 - 15 - 2 - 4 - 7]
Byron Hanspard [66 - XX - 56]
Corey Dillon [8 - 17 - 11 - 17 - 6 - 16 - 44 - 7 - 16 - 19]***
1998
None
1999
James Johnson [34 - 73 - 128]
Kevin Faulk [65 - 26 - 55 - 38 - 34 - 44 - 68 - 52]***
Joe Montgomery [57 - 119 - 134]
Michael Cloud [104 - 95 - 109 - 78 - 68 - 84 - 129]
Jermaine Fazande [61 - 48 - XX]
2000
None
2001
Anthony Thomas [13 - 33 - 24 - 48 - 107 - 54]***
LaMont Jordan [62 - 49 - 57 - 43 - 8 - 55]***
Travis Henry [28 - 8 - 11 - 73 - 65 - 22]***
2002
DeShaun Foster [XX - 43 - 66 - 24 - 32]***
Clinton Portis [4 - 5 - 11 - 6 - 36]***
Maurice Morris [97 - 78 - 95 - 71 - 53]***
Ladell Betts [56 - 55 - 60 - 58 - 10]***
2003
None
2004
Tatum Bell [47 - 22 - 31] ***
Julius Jones [28 - 21 - 27] ***
2005
JJ Arrington [55 - 110] ***
Eric Shelton [XX - 134] ***
2006
Lendale White [71st] ***
Maurice Jones Drew [8th]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 36.3% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 35.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 31.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 22.2% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 30.4% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 20.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 18.2% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 25.8% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 13.8% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 14.8% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 26.1% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 19.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 13.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.9% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 7.4% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 14.8% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 9.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 9.7% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 3.7% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 7.4% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 5.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 10.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 13.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 3.0% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 6.5% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 0.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 0.0% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 0.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 0.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 5.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 6.7% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 0.0% [15 10th year players]
Note - I am counting all players who could have posted numbers for each year if they would have been able to make a roster in the NFL. There are many players here as you can see who's careers only last 2-4 years. However I think they still must be counted or the percentages would be inflated by not considering them busting.
For example the only Rb from 1999 who is still active is Kevin Faulk. But I still count the other 4 Rbs that were drafted that season and would be eligable for an 8th season of productivity even though those 4 Rbs were no longer in the league by that time.
3 players that were 2nd round picks are the ones giving any productivity beyond 6 years. Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon and Charlie Garner. 9% of total 2nd round picks. So less than one out of 10 with an average of 4 being drafted each year or one long term Rb every 3 years from the 2nd round. It is remarkable however that Dillon and Barber were both drafted in the same year. All of them were remarkably productive even late in thier careers. Barber and Garner were both smaller Rbs and late bloomers.
Side notes - The years that had zero 2nd round rookie Rb picks 2003 2000 and 1998 had 2 5 and 4 1st round picks used on Rbs respectivly. The 2003 Rb class was very poor for instant impact from Rbs with McGahee being injured his 1st year Larry Johnson playing behind Priest Holmes. The 3rd round picks Musa Smith, Chris Brown and Justin Fargas were injury riddled. 4th rounders Suggs, Pinner, Toefield and Griffin had durability issues as well. SOD had charecter issues. Domanic Davis (Williams) had a strong start but his career may now be over due to injury. This entire draft class shows little promise as a whole for high 5th year performances and should be considered one of the weakest groups overall considering that only LJ and McGahee are the only 2 Rbs who look promising still after only 4 years in the league.
5 of these 33 Rbs careers were over after 3 years. 3 more after 4 years. 1 was done after 2 years. So that is 27% or slightly more than one out of 4 (average of 4 2nd round Rbs being drafted each year) who's career will be over within an average of 3 years
3rd round Rbs:
1993
Russell White [unknown- no significant stats]
Terry Kirby [10 - 58 - 21 - 25 - 31- 52 - 19 - 117 - 110 - 88]
1994
Jeff Cothran [92 - 106 - 103]
Lamar Smith [144 - 88 - 26 - 49 - 34 - 71 - 11 - 14 - 30 - 125]
Calvin Jones [106 - 123 - 142]
LeShon Johnson [82 - 149 - 30 - 119 - 74]
James Bostic [149 - 144]
Bam Morris [20 - 29 - 23 - 30 - 28 - 48]
Gary Downs [114 - 138 - 110 - 150 - 129]
1995
Curtis Martin [2 - 4 - 14 - 7 - 8 - 10 - 5 - 18 - 18 - 4 - 29]
Joe Aska [140 - 74 - 121]
Rodney Thomas [18 - 77 - 53 - 80 - 85 - 76 - 94]
1996
Winslow Oliver [67- 54]
Moe Williams [136 - 105 - 122 - 106 - 106 - 58 - 29 - 13 - 52 - 122]
Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar [9 - 6 - 21 - 47]
Jerald Moore [126 - 52 - 75 - 85]
Reggie Brown [137 - 142 - 147 - 80 - 136]
1997
Sedrick Shaw [146 - 84 - 121]
Troy Davis [79 - 77 - 122]
Jay Graham [63 - 107 - 127 - 141]
Duce Staley [127 - 13 - 10 - 47 - 20 - 15 - 28 - 37 - 91 - 166]***
1998
Skip Hicks [33 - 59 - 91 - 63]
Ahman Green [82 - 112 - 5 - 3 - 13 - 2 - 13 - 69 - 15]***
Rashaan Shehee [111 - 68]
1999
Amos Zereoue [125 - 137 - 51 - 28 - 40 - 39 - 143]
2000
Travis Prentice [28 - 97]
Reuben Droughns [93 - 95 - 92 - 14 - 14 - 34]
Doug Chapman [70 - 114 - 134]
2001
James Jackson [49 - 119 - 46 - 116 - 132]***
Kevan Barlow [30 - 35 - 17 - 27 - 34 - 46]***
Heath Evans [136 - 112 - 128 - 151 - 81 - 85]***
Travis Minor [50 - 74 - 86 - 50 - 145 - 111]***
2002
Brian Westbrook [73 - 20 - 10 - 18 - 6]***
2003
Musa Smith [103 - 124 - 153 - 73]***
Chris Brown [81 - 24 - 20 - 94]***
Justin Fargas [94 - 85 - 135 - 44]***
2004
none
2005
Frank Gore [38 - 4] ***
Vernand Morency[72 - 50] ***
Ryan Moats [64 - 115]***
Maurice Clarett [BUST]
2006
Brian Calhoun [129] ***
Jerious Norwood [43]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 16.6% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 20.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 27.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 27.3% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 12.5% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 15.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 22.2% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.5% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 19.4% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 11.1% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 08.3% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 12.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 07.1% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 07.4.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 04.2% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 08.3% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 05.5% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 06.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 06.3% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 02.4% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 05.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 02.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 02.8% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 00.0% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Some observations on the 3rd round Rbs. There have been a few long term high level performers from this group. Terry Kirby, Curtis Martin, Ahman Green and now Brian Westbrook. Gore may become another one if he stays healthy. Martin and Green have been outstanding. Green did not get a chance to perform until his 3rd year so there is some hope for Morency, Moats, Calhoun and Norwood to do well later on. The highest success rate happens in the 3rd year with a little less coming in the 4th or 5th years. This has been a trend throughout. For a long time there has been talk about Wrs emerging in thier 2nd to 5th years. This seems to be a trend for Rbs as well although Rbs are more likely to have good rookie seasons than Wr 1 out of 10 3rd round picks do.
There are a couple late bloomers, Moe Williams and Lamar Smith which indicates to me that 3rd round picks generaly have a lower talent level than earlier picks and are less likely to get opportunity to start. Some of you may be saying well duh captain obvious but just noting that the numbers bear that out. So if your 3rd round prospect does not get an opportunity by year 3 it becomes very unlikely that they will although it has happened.
Zereoue, Droughns, Barlow and Chris Brown have been given opportunity in recent years but have failed to do well enough for thier teams to have enough confidence in them and maintain it.
Many of these Rbs start off as 3rd down Rbs or COP type Rbs showing some hope that Rbs like this can become feature runners by thier 3rd year
1993
Russell White [unknown- no significant stats]
Terry Kirby [10 - 58 - 21 - 25 - 31- 52 - 19 - 117 - 110 - 88]
1994
Jeff Cothran [92 - 106 - 103]
Lamar Smith [144 - 88 - 26 - 49 - 34 - 71 - 11 - 14 - 30 - 125]
Calvin Jones [106 - 123 - 142]
LeShon Johnson [82 - 149 - 30 - 119 - 74]
James Bostic [149 - 144]
Bam Morris [20 - 29 - 23 - 30 - 28 - 48]
Gary Downs [114 - 138 - 110 - 150 - 129]
1995
Curtis Martin [2 - 4 - 14 - 7 - 8 - 10 - 5 - 18 - 18 - 4 - 29]
Joe Aska [140 - 74 - 121]
Rodney Thomas [18 - 77 - 53 - 80 - 85 - 76 - 94]
1996
Winslow Oliver [67- 54]
Moe Williams [136 - 105 - 122 - 106 - 106 - 58 - 29 - 13 - 52 - 122]
Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar [9 - 6 - 21 - 47]
Jerald Moore [126 - 52 - 75 - 85]
Reggie Brown [137 - 142 - 147 - 80 - 136]
1997
Sedrick Shaw [146 - 84 - 121]
Troy Davis [79 - 77 - 122]
Jay Graham [63 - 107 - 127 - 141]
Duce Staley [127 - 13 - 10 - 47 - 20 - 15 - 28 - 37 - 91 - 166]***
1998
Skip Hicks [33 - 59 - 91 - 63]
Ahman Green [82 - 112 - 5 - 3 - 13 - 2 - 13 - 69 - 15]***
Rashaan Shehee [111 - 68]
1999
Amos Zereoue [125 - 137 - 51 - 28 - 40 - 39 - 143]
2000
Travis Prentice [28 - 97]
Reuben Droughns [93 - 95 - 92 - 14 - 14 - 34]
Doug Chapman [70 - 114 - 134]
2001
James Jackson [49 - 119 - 46 - 116 - 132]***
Kevan Barlow [30 - 35 - 17 - 27 - 34 - 46]***
Heath Evans [136 - 112 - 128 - 151 - 81 - 85]***
Travis Minor [50 - 74 - 86 - 50 - 145 - 111]***
2002
Brian Westbrook [73 - 20 - 10 - 18 - 6]***
2003
Musa Smith [103 - 124 - 153 - 73]***
Chris Brown [81 - 24 - 20 - 94]***
Justin Fargas [94 - 85 - 135 - 44]***
2004
none
2005
Frank Gore [38 - 4] ***
Vernand Morency[72 - 50] ***
Ryan Moats [64 - 115]***
Maurice Clarett [BUST]
2006
Brian Calhoun [129] ***
Jerious Norwood [43]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 16.6% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 20.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 27.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 27.3% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 12.5% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 15.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 22.2% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.5% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 19.4% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 11.1% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 08.3% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 12.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 07.1% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 07.4.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 04.2% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 08.3% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 05.5% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 06.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 06.3% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 02.4% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 05.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 02.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 02.8% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 00.0% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Some observations on the 3rd round Rbs. There have been a few long term high level performers from this group. Terry Kirby, Curtis Martin, Ahman Green and now Brian Westbrook. Gore may become another one if he stays healthy. Martin and Green have been outstanding. Green did not get a chance to perform until his 3rd year so there is some hope for Morency, Moats, Calhoun and Norwood to do well later on. The highest success rate happens in the 3rd year with a little less coming in the 4th or 5th years. This has been a trend throughout. For a long time there has been talk about Wrs emerging in thier 2nd to 5th years. This seems to be a trend for Rbs as well although Rbs are more likely to have good rookie seasons than Wr 1 out of 10 3rd round picks do.
There are a couple late bloomers, Moe Williams and Lamar Smith which indicates to me that 3rd round picks generaly have a lower talent level than earlier picks and are less likely to get opportunity to start. Some of you may be saying well duh captain obvious but just noting that the numbers bear that out. So if your 3rd round prospect does not get an opportunity by year 3 it becomes very unlikely that they will although it has happened.
Zereoue, Droughns, Barlow and Chris Brown have been given opportunity in recent years but have failed to do well enough for thier teams to have enough confidence in them and maintain it.
Many of these Rbs start off as 3rd down Rbs or COP type Rbs showing some hope that Rbs like this can become feature runners by thier 3rd year
QUOTE (Biabreakable @ Jan 2 2008, 09:25 AM)
3rd round Rbs:
Some observations on the 3rd round Rbs. There have been a few long term high level performers from this group. Terry Kirby, Curtis Martin, Ahman Green and now Brian Westbrook. Gore may become another one if he stays healthy. Martin and Green have been outstanding. Green did not get a chance to perform until his 3rd year so there is some hope for Morency, Moats, Calhoun and Norwood to do well later on. The highest success rate happens in the 3rd year with a little less coming in the 4th or 5th years. This has been a trend throughout. For a long time there has been talk about Wrs emerging in thier 2nd to 5th years. This seems to be a trend for Rbs as well although Rbs are more likely to have good rookie seasons than Wr 1 out of 10 3rd round picks do.
There are a couple late bloomers, Moe Williams and Lamar Smith which indicates to me that 3rd round picks generaly have a lower talent level than earlier picks and are less likely to get opportunity to start. Some of you may be saying well duh captain obvious but just noting that the numbers bear that out. So if your 3rd round prospect does not get an opportunity by year 3 it becomes very unlikely that they will although it has happened.
Zereoue, Droughns, Barlow and Chris Brown have been given opportunity in recent years but have failed to do well enough for thier teams to have enough confidence in them and maintain it.
Many of these Rbs start off as 3rd down Rbs or COP type Rbs showing some hope that Rbs like this can become feature runners by thier 3rd year
Some observations on the 3rd round Rbs. There have been a few long term high level performers from this group. Terry Kirby, Curtis Martin, Ahman Green and now Brian Westbrook. Gore may become another one if he stays healthy. Martin and Green have been outstanding. Green did not get a chance to perform until his 3rd year so there is some hope for Morency, Moats, Calhoun and Norwood to do well later on. The highest success rate happens in the 3rd year with a little less coming in the 4th or 5th years. This has been a trend throughout. For a long time there has been talk about Wrs emerging in thier 2nd to 5th years. This seems to be a trend for Rbs as well although Rbs are more likely to have good rookie seasons than Wr 1 out of 10 3rd round picks do.
There are a couple late bloomers, Moe Williams and Lamar Smith which indicates to me that 3rd round picks generaly have a lower talent level than earlier picks and are less likely to get opportunity to start. Some of you may be saying well duh captain obvious but just noting that the numbers bear that out. So if your 3rd round prospect does not get an opportunity by year 3 it becomes very unlikely that they will although it has happened.
Zereoue, Droughns, Barlow and Chris Brown have been given opportunity in recent years but have failed to do well enough for thier teams to have enough confidence in them and maintain it.
Many of these Rbs start off as 3rd down Rbs or COP type Rbs showing some hope that Rbs like this can become feature runners by thier 3rd year
For we dynasty league fanatics, I felt this was so important (yet it really is NOT intuitive), that I thought it would be worth emphasizing.
Great, great point for those of us (myself included) who tend to hang onto former 3rd round RBs for way too long.
At some point this offseason, I'm going to go through this thread and write down all the well-defended strategy points made in here. There's way too many, and they're way too good to make them go to waste.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
QUOTE (Keys Myaths @ Jan 2 2008, 08:45 AM)
At some point this offseason, I'm going to go through this thread and write down all the well-defended strategy points made in here. There's way too many, and they're way too good to make them go to waste.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
did you forget yet?
QUOTE (Couch Potato @ Jan 2 2008, 11:50 AM)
QUOTE (Keys Myaths @ Jan 2 2008, 08:45 AM)
At some point this offseason, I'm going to go through this thread and write down all the well-defended strategy points made in here. There's way too many, and they're way too good to make them go to waste.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
did you forget yet?
:laffs:
Wait.. huh?
QUOTE (Keys Myaths @ Jan 2 2008, 08:45 AM)
At some point this offseason, I'm going to go through this thread and write down all the well-defended strategy points made in here. There's way too many, and they're way too good to make them go to waste.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
If I forget, someone please prod me.
Great idea. Might even make sense to have a separate thread for just "Dynasty Strategy". The first post can be an updated list of the "truisms of dynasty". The rest can be a debate of the various points.
F&L and others,
whats your feeling on this coming years draft class as of right now? I don't follow college really close but just looking at the prelim names/mock drafts if you don't get mccfadden it might be a really good year to trade some picks off for vet players. Is the talent deeper than I think? Or is it to early in the offseason to even think like this?
whats your feeling on this coming years draft class as of right now? I don't follow college really close but just looking at the prelim names/mock drafts if you don't get mccfadden it might be a really good year to trade some picks off for vet players. Is the talent deeper than I think? Or is it to early in the offseason to even think like this?
CODE
I have awards night coming up in 2 dynasty leagues and people will be really drunk and ready to make dumb trades
QUOTE (mozzy84 @ Jan 3 2008, 09:03 PM)
F&L and others,
whats your feeling on this coming years draft class as of right now? I don't follow college really close but just looking at the prelim names/mock drafts if you don't get mccfadden it might be a really good year to trade some picks off for vet players. Is the talent deeper than I think? Or is it to early in the offseason to even think like this?
whats your feeling on this coming years draft class as of right now? I don't follow college really close but just looking at the prelim names/mock drafts if you don't get mccfadden it might be a really good year to trade some picks off for vet players. Is the talent deeper than I think? Or is it to early in the offseason to even think like this?
CODE
I have awards night coming up in 2 dynasty leagues and people will be really drunk and ready to make dumb trades
WR is a gamble of sorts. There are 6 or 7 guys who should be selected in the first 60 picks, but none that are top-10 types.
RB is...well...interesting. McFadden is IMO a notch below Peterson and more comparable to Caddy's rank coming out of college; still extremely highly rated but not the best we've seen lately. Players like Mendenhall, Stewart, and Charles could be super-exciting if they end up in the right places. Rice, Slaton, Choice, etc. all are talented enough to earn significant playing time, but not everyone drafted will be a star obviously.
TE is almost non-existent.
Great thread.
Does K. Warner really have as much as you are giving him? You have Leinart ranked ahead of him and he should be the starter, right? Warner will be 38 next year and I just don't see him getting another starting job.
Does K. Warner really have as much as you are giving him? You have Leinart ranked ahead of him and he should be the starter, right? Warner will be 38 next year and I just don't see him getting another starting job.
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment