QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 7 2007, 10:00 PM) 
F&L - Please devote brain power to the rankings and other worthwhile dialogue. It is impossible to win some arguments.
You mean like Beck won't be like Brady?
You got me. I don't really think Beck will be like Brady. Mostly because i don't think ANYONE is going to be like Brady for a LONG LONG time. See, you won the "argument"! Have an extra swig of that wine you were looking for and let that be my toast to you.
Sorry my dialog hasn't been worthwhile for you. I will try to do better next time I post about an opinion of a ranking of a player in a dynasty league in a thread based on rankings of players in dynasty leagues.
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 7 2007, 10:00 PM)
F&L - Please devote brain power to the rankings and other worthwhile dialogue. It is impossible to win some arguments.
You mean like Beck won't be like Brady?
You got me. I don't really think Beck will be like Brady. Mostly because i don't think ANYONE is going to be like Brady for a LONG LONG time. See, you won the "argument"! Have an extra swig of that wine you were looking for and let that be my toast to you.
Sorry my dialog hasn't been worthwhile for you. I will try to do better next time I post about an opinion of a ranking of a player in a dynasty league in a thread based on rankings of players in dynasty leagues.
Well, sorry if I was rude to you. Everone is entitled to thier opinion and F & L even adjusts rankings sometimes due to persuasive arguments.
You seem all bent out of shape now... You took the fun of winning away from me! I feel like a Patriots fan now. I can't enjoy my win when someone out there isn't happy with me...
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
But that's exactly my point. Beck isn't worth much because there are plenty of his species out there available on the cheap or even for free on the waiver wire. None of the guys you mentioned (Anderson, Romo, Brady) were highly valued early round picks like Beck. As a general rule, people weren't stashing them on their roster and counting on them. You didn't have to trade anything or give up anything of value. You just had to get lucky and be the first to your waiver wire after their first good game...or after the news that they were replacing the starters. That's completely different than placing a high value on them and stashing them until they get their shot.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. You are essentially just saying he's not valuable because he's not valuable. You can call getting Anderson lucky if you want, but if you are the guy willing to dump McNair for Anderson BEFORE Anderson blows up, that's just a good evaluation of a couple of players. These lower tier guys usually do come down to who you are willing to stash at the end of your bench and who you aren't and are often what makes a good dynasty team a good dynasty team. It doesn't really matter for this discussion as far as I can figure, but just for the record, Beck was drafted and kept in all three of the dynasty league I am in (some were larger rosters, some smaller).
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
The problem with your stance is exactly that: these guys are everywhere. You can't stash them all. I'm not saying don't stash a couple of them. I usually pick out a couple myself. But most of them are going to fail. They're not worth as much as the guy putting up Top Tier numbers to help you win right now. Favre is valuable because there are a limited number of guys you can rely on to produce weekly. John Beck isn't valuable, and the reason is because you can find a John Beck in bargain bins all over the place.
Of course most will fail. All of the guys we have been talking about were in that "likely to fail" category. It doesn't mean they don't have value. It just means you have to figure out what they could do vs the probability of it actually happening. Yes, you can Beck very cheaply now, but isn't that EXACTLY what we are talking about? Which guys are worth getting and keeping and which aren't? For Favre I guess there may be a fundamental problem with our disagreement. I readily admit that to some teams this year, Favre has more value than John Beck, even in a dynasty. If you have no top tier starter and are in the playoff hunt, and you think Favre is a significant upgrade over your other mid-tier options he's quite valuable to you (this year). But that doesn't describe most teams in most leagues. More than half of the teams in any given year won't make the playoffs (with Favre or without), and then out of the remainder, a fair amount of teams have better QBs or equivalent QBs. So what is Favre's value for the purpose of this discussion (your list)? To me, it should be Favre's value to some sort of average or combination of the teams in typical leagues. But you seem to focus on a small portion of each league's team and focus in his value to THEM.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
I didn't have any of those guys high LAST year. It was easy to see that the Chiefs' offense was cratering. Favre's is not. I'm aware of the cliff issue, but you can't be afraid to roll with a guy who is producing. You can always back him up with a younger talent and ensure you have a solid back-up plan for when he retires or becomes unreliable. I have Tom Brady in both leagues, so it's not like I need another starter. Still, I'd much rather have Favre than John Beck. I don't think I'd take John Beck if he was sitting on the waiver wire.
If you accurately predicted the extent of Chief's (and Green's) demise (I agree it was obvious they were on a downward trajectory) more power to you. My guess is (based on your Favre opinion) that while Green wasn't top-tier, he was WELL above many of the younger guys who are now reasonably valuable. I hope you did the same for all of the cliff-divers, and I hope Romo wasn't the kind of guy you wouldn't drop Green for when he was on the wire.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
Oh, come on. I'm not calling all youth lottery tickets, and you know it. I called John Beck a lottery ticket because he's a 26-year-old, thoroughly unimpressive rookie QB on a team with little to no weapons and no hopes up helping you any time soon. He's a lottery ticket because he's available cheaply and highly unlikely to pay off in a big way.
You keep mentioning 26 like it's crazy that he's older than the average rookie. It's unusual, but it happens. Romo was 26 when he first started for example. You are also kind of harping on the no-weapon thing. But as I said and you haven't really denied or addressed, things change quickly in the NFL. Ginn should improve as a weapon, Brown will be back, and the team will probably focus on offense this offseason. Given the fact that IF he is a decent QB, he will be in the league for 10+ more seasons, his having few weapons in his rookie season isn't that big a concern to me. As for not paying off in a big way, the same was said of a lot of guys that have significant value right now.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
You like to point out all of the Trent Greens that cratered and fell off a cliff, but I don't see any mention of the innumerable Losman's, Harrington's, Grossman's, and Simms' scattered along the way like roadkill.
I actually have admitted several times that Beck could easily go the way of Grossman and the like, and I don't deny it now. My point is just that we shouldn't assume the guy has no potential based on a couple of early games in tough times. I don't want to put him in tier one or two, I just think he is the kind of guy that I'd much rather have than a lot of older journeymen (no, Favre is not a journeyman) currently ahead of him . The fact that he is currently starting AND very likely to start 2008 AND relatively young AND has shown SOME signs of being a decent player (mostly pre-season) gives him some reasonable value to me. Most of the wire-trash you keep talking about don't have those distinctions.
But, it's your list after all, so I will be done here. I do enjoy your thread, and hope you don't think I'm trying to crap on it. Just making my case for a guy (really, a KIND of guy vs other kinds of players) I think should be higher.
Schneikes,
I don't think you're trying to crap on the thread. The hair on my back just raises up out of habit when people expect that our evaluations are going to always be sympatico even if their roster or their league call for different priorities at times.
Maybe I need to put the disclaimer back up that says I'm basically ranking for a 12-team league with approximately 22-player rosters. I could gear it towards a 16-team league with 30-man rosters, and it would be a completely different list where guys like John Beck are worth more than guys like Jon Kitna. But I don't play in a league like that, so (1) it doesn't really interest/apply to me and (2) I don't have experience dealing with the intricacies of 16-man/30-player rosters.
I don't know if your league and/or roster is that big, but it would almost have to be for someone to be valuing Beck so highly. I'm not just trying to prove a point when I say that in my 12-team/22-man roster league, I wouldn't even kick the tires on Beck if he was sitting on the waiver wire. In my mind, that's the very definition of little dynasty value. The other guy, Favre, is 7th overall in total points. That's the very definition of legit dynasty value in my eyes.
I'll close with the one point I've been trying to get across all along: I don't see anything special about John Beck. There are plenty of guys who are just as good of a bet as he is to ever be worth anything in fantasy football. The laws of supply and demand tell me that, by definition, John Beck just isn't worth very much. If I can find something for free everywhere I look, there's just not much inherent value there.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE (Holy Schneikes @ Dec 7 2007, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
But that's exactly my point. Beck isn't worth much because there are plenty of his species out there available on the cheap or even for free on the waiver wire. None of the guys you mentioned (Anderson, Romo, Brady) were highly valued early round picks like Beck. As a general rule, people weren't stashing them on their roster and counting on them. You didn't have to trade anything or give up anything of value. You just had to get lucky and be the first to your waiver wire after their first good game...or after the news that they were replacing the starters. That's completely different than placing a high value on them and stashing them until they get their shot.
This argument doesn't make sense to me. You are essentially just saying he's not valuable because he's not valuable. You can call getting Anderson lucky if you want, but if you are the guy willing to dump McNair for Anderson BEFORE Anderson blows up, that's just a good evaluation of a couple of players. These lower tier guys usually do come down to who you are willing to stash at the end of your bench and who you aren't and are often what makes a good dynasty team a good dynasty team. It doesn't really matter for this discussion as far as I can figure, but just for the record, Beck was drafted and kept in all three of the dynasty league I am in (some were larger rosters, some smaller).
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
The problem with your stance is exactly that: these guys are everywhere. You can't stash them all. I'm not saying don't stash a couple of them. I usually pick out a couple myself. But most of them are going to fail. They're not worth as much as the guy putting up Top Tier numbers to help you win right now. Favre is valuable because there are a limited number of guys you can rely on to produce weekly. John Beck isn't valuable, and the reason is because you can find a John Beck in bargain bins all over the place.
Of course most will fail. All of the guys we have been talking about were in that "likely to fail" category. It doesn't mean they don't have value. It just means you have to figure out what they could do vs the probability of it actually happening. Yes, you can Beck very cheaply now, but isn't that EXACTLY what we are talking about? Which guys are worth getting and keeping and which aren't? For Favre I guess there may be a fundamental problem with our disagreement. I readily admit that to some teams this year, Favre has more value than John Beck, even in a dynasty. If you have no top tier starter and are in the playoff hunt, and you think Favre is a significant upgrade over your other mid-tier options he's quite valuable to you (this year). But that doesn't describe most teams in most leagues. More than half of the teams in any given year won't make the playoffs (with Favre or without), and then out of the remainder, a fair amount of teams have better QBs or equivalent QBs. So what is Favre's value for the purpose of this discussion (your list)? To me, it should be Favre's value to some sort of average or combination of the teams in typical leagues. But you seem to focus on a small portion of each league's team and focus in his value to THEM.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
I didn't have any of those guys high LAST year. It was easy to see that the Chiefs' offense was cratering. Favre's is not. I'm aware of the cliff issue, but you can't be afraid to roll with a guy who is producing. You can always back him up with a younger talent and ensure you have a solid back-up plan for when he retires or becomes unreliable. I have Tom Brady in both leagues, so it's not like I need another starter. Still, I'd much rather have Favre than John Beck. I don't think I'd take John Beck if he was sitting on the waiver wire.
If you accurately predicted the extent of Chief's (and Green's) demise (I agree it was obvious they were on a downward trajectory) more power to you. My guess is (based on your Favre opinion) that while Green wasn't top-tier, he was WELL above many of the younger guys who are now reasonably valuable. I hope you did the same for all of the cliff-divers, and I hope Romo wasn't the kind of guy you wouldn't drop Green for when he was on the wire.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
Oh, come on. I'm not calling all youth lottery tickets, and you know it. I called John Beck a lottery ticket because he's a 26-year-old, thoroughly unimpressive rookie QB on a team with little to no weapons and no hopes up helping you any time soon. He's a lottery ticket because he's available cheaply and highly unlikely to pay off in a big way.
You keep mentioning 26 like it's crazy that he's older than the average rookie. It's unusual, but it happens. Romo was 26 when he first started for example. You are also kind of harping on the no-weapon thing. But as I said and you haven't really denied or addressed, things change quickly in the NFL. Ginn should improve as a weapon, Brown will be back, and the team will probably focus on offense this offseason. Given the fact that IF he is a decent QB, he will be in the league for 10+ more seasons, his having few weapons in his rookie season isn't that big a concern to me. As for not paying off in a big way, the same was said of a lot of guys that have significant value right now.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 08:37 PM)
You like to point out all of the Trent Greens that cratered and fell off a cliff, but I don't see any mention of the innumerable Losman's, Harrington's, Grossman's, and Simms' scattered along the way like roadkill.
I actually have admitted several times that Beck could easily go the way of Grossman and the like, and I don't deny it now. My point is just that we shouldn't assume the guy has no potential based on a couple of early games in tough times. I don't want to put him in tier one or two, I just think he is the kind of guy that I'd much rather have than a lot of older journeymen (no, Favre is not a journeyman) currently ahead of him . The fact that he is currently starting AND very likely to start 2008 AND relatively young AND has shown SOME signs of being a decent player (mostly pre-season) gives him some reasonable value to me. Most of the wire-trash you keep talking about don't have those distinctions.
But, it's your list after all, so I will be done here. I do enjoy your thread, and hope you don't think I'm trying to crap on it. Just making my case for a guy (really, a KIND of guy vs other kinds of players) I think should be higher.
Schneikes,
I don't think you're trying to crap on the thread. The hair on my back just raises up out of habit when people expect that our evaluations are going to always be sympatico even if their roster or their league call for different priorities at times.
Maybe I need to put the disclaimer back up that says I'm basically ranking for a 12-team league with approximately 22-player rosters. I could gear it towards a 16-team league with 30-man rosters, and it would be a completely different list where guys like John Beck are worth more than guys like Jon Kitna. But I don't play in a league like that, so (1) it doesn't really interest/apply to me and (2) I don't have experience dealing with the intricacies of 16-man/30-player rosters.
I don't know if your league and/or roster is that big, but it would almost have to be for someone to be valuing Beck so highly. I'm not just trying to prove a point when I say that in my 12-team/22-man roster league, I wouldn't even kick the tires on Beck if he was sitting on the waiver wire. In my mind, that's the very definition of little dynasty value. The other guy, Favre, is 7th overall in total points. That's the very definition of legit dynasty value in my eyes.
I'll close with the one point I've been trying to get across all along: I don't see anything special about John Beck. There are plenty of guys who are just as good of a bet as he is to ever be worth anything in fantasy football. The laws of supply and demand tell me that, by definition, John Beck just isn't worth very much. If I can find something for free everywhere I look, there's just not much inherent value there.
F&L:
First off, I have no problem with where you have Beck currently ranked. He still has to show me more before I would advocate bumping him up the list.
That being said, I decided to do a little anecdotal research on Beck relative to your 'find someone for free...no value' statement above. I'm not sure I'd throw Beck into that classification. I went on MFL and searched all 13 'MOX' dynasty leagues, of which I have a team in one league (these are 14 team, 20 man roster leagues). I have found these MOX leagues to be very competitive, and most are largely populated by longtime, astute FBG's. Beck was currently rostered in all 13 leagues. Again, I'm not pointing this out to get you to agree with 'group think' or to change your rankings, just to open you to the idea that others may see something in him that you do not.
Frankly, Beck was a QB I was going to target this past year to stash on the bench, but he was drafted before I could pick him up. I figured that he wouldn't even be starting (or have that shot) until 2008 at best, so the fact that he is getting experience in 2007 I view as a plus. The fact that his starts have been less than stellar only opens the door to snag him as a throw in from his owner now, imo.
At this point, I'm willing to somewhat discount Beck's first three starts given the teams he has faced and the talent surrounding him. In weighing his current value, I'm still factoring in a reasonable amount of promise based on his body of work pre-NFL. A talent evaluator that I appreciate is Matt Waldman over at FFToday. I love his rookie scouting portfolio. Since that RSP is pay content, I won't post his Beck evaluation directly, but he did post this blurb about Miami drafting Beck back in May of 2007:
Sleeper: QB John Beck, BYU
This was my best QB of the 2006 rookie class, folks. Yep, not Russell or Quinn—John Beck, the BYU signal caller that throws with the accuracy and release of Marc Bulger, but has an athlete’s body (Bulger is like a scarecrow) and good mobility. Although it’s likely Kansas City will give up Trent Green in June, it’s possible that Beck could find his way into the lineup if either Green or the rehabbing Culpepper aren’t ready to go or able to continue a game.
I believe Beck will become Cameron’s triggerman within 2-3 seasons, longest. This QB has excellent pocket presence and understands how to manipulate coverage at a level beyond any of the QBs from this rookie class. Pick Beck somewhere between rounds 2-4 in your rookie draft now, and thank me later.
I don't have much more to add than that, just wanted to point out a dissenting opinion on Beck and make a case for Beck having more than 'no value/ww material' at this point.
QUOTE (the_sig @ Dec 8 2007, 10:25 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 7 2007, 10:43 PM)
I'll close with the one point I've been trying to get across all along: I don't see anything special about John Beck. There are plenty of guys who are just as good of a bet as he is to ever be worth anything in fantasy football. The laws of supply and demand tell me that, by definition, John Beck just isn't worth very much. If I can find something for free everywhere I look, there's just not much inherent value there.
F&L:
First off, I have no problem with where you have Beck currently ranked. He still has to show me more before I would advocate bumping him up the list.
That being said, I decided to do a little anecdotal research on Beck relative to your 'find someone for free...no value' statement above. I'm not sure I'd throw Beck into that classification. I went on MFL and searched all 13 'MOX' dynasty leagues, of which I have a team in one league (these are 14 team, 20 man roster leagues). I have found these MOX leagues to be very competitive, and most are largely populated by longtime, astute FBG's. Beck was currently rostered in all 13 leagues. Again, I'm not pointing this out to get you to agree with 'group think' or to change your rankings, just to open you to the idea that others may see something in him that you do not.
Frankly, Beck was a QB I was going to target this past year to stash on the bench, but he was drafted before I could pick him up. I figured that he wouldn't even be starting (or have that shot) until 2008 at best, so the fact that he is getting experience in 2007 I view as a plus. The fact that his starts have been less than stellar only opens the door to snag him as a throw in from his owner now, imo.
At this point, I'm willing to somewhat discount Beck's first three starts given the teams he has faced and the talent surrounding him. In weighing his current value, I'm still factoring in a reasonable amount of promise based on his body of work pre-NFL. A talent evaluator that I appreciate is Matt Waldman over at FFToday. I love his rookie scouting portfolio. Since that RSP is pay content, I won't post his Beck evaluation directly, but he did post this blurb about Miami drafting Beck back in May of 2007:
Sleeper: QB John Beck, BYU
This was my best QB of the 2006 rookie class, folks. Yep, not Russell or Quinn—John Beck, the BYU signal caller that throws with the accuracy and release of Marc Bulger, but has an athlete’s body (Bulger is like a scarecrow) and good mobility. Although it’s likely Kansas City will give up Trent Green in June, it’s possible that Beck could find his way into the lineup if either Green or the rehabbing Culpepper aren’t ready to go or able to continue a game.
I believe Beck will become Cameron’s triggerman within 2-3 seasons, longest. This QB has excellent pocket presence and understands how to manipulate coverage at a level beyond any of the QBs from this rookie class. Pick Beck somewhere between rounds 2-4 in your rookie draft now, and thank me later.
I don't have much more to add than that, just wanted to point out a dissenting opinion on Beck and make a case for Beck having more than 'no value/ww material' at this point.
Hi the_sig,
I'm not saying you can get John Beck for free in most leagues. I'm saying that I can find guys like Beck, whom I believe are nothing special and basically a roster stash hope & prayer, either for free or on the cheap.
Again, the point never was that John Beck is worthless because he's on your league's waiver wire. The point was that I believe players like John Beck are a dime a dozen. At very little cost to me, I can acquire a non-special QB who is a longshot to have fantasy value in the next couple of years. And hypothetically, if John Beck was sitting on my league's waiver wire, I wouldn't drop anybody on my roster to pick him up. That represents little value to me.
I've seen John Beck play, and I know what his current situation is in Miami. I have come to the quick, decisive opinion that he does not have a bright dynasty league future. If you've seen him play and have come to the opinion that he looked promising against some tough defenses, that's your prerogative. I'm just not going to rank a guy highly if I don't believe he's valuable. It's the same reason I don't rank Brodie Croyle highly. I don't believe he's valuable.
I like the ranking of Burleson. My dynasty leagues score for special teams play and as such Burleson is a top 20 WR.
Personally, I think Burleson should be ranked close to Reggie Brown since he is younger and outscoring him on a weekly basis.
Dynasty wise, I am not all that worried about DJ Hackett cutting into Burleson playing time since Hackett is rarely healthy.
Personally, I think Burleson should be ranked close to Reggie Brown since he is younger and outscoring him on a weekly basis.
Dynasty wise, I am not all that worried about DJ Hackett cutting into Burleson playing time since Hackett is rarely healthy.
Having a hard time seeing the free or on the cheap thing. Here's a guy who's starting for an NFL team...that makes him marginally rosterable in a REDRAFT league, let alone a dynasty league.
While you are correct in stating that there are plenty of comparable QB's in the NFL (young QB's with promise but have shown nothing so far), there is, at this time, only a couple that compare to Beck because BECK CURRENTLY has the opportunity to show himself.
Now...if you're comparing Beck to any other backup QB on your bench, does it really matter if he is averaging 2 points less per game then the average backup. I mean...a backup is a backup is a backup, right? And 2 points rarely decides a single game, right?
So...would you rather have the normal backup QB, a 35 y.o. veteran whos upside (fantasy wise) is as a backup still in 2 years, OR would you rather have the young kid who might actually be your starter in 2 years? Are those two points on your BENCH this year all that big a deal? ESPECIALLY since there's a very good chance you could still roster all three (your starter, your backup, and a guy like Beck.)
The nominal backup QB is QB 18....how does a normal backup compare to the QB at #28 or so?
The point is, there are only 32 starting QB's in the NFL at any given time. I think you are (in general) greatly UNDERVALUING young QB's who have a chance to play regularly.
Edited to add: If you believe Beck is a poor QB who is destined to fail, then ranking him low makes sense. I have no problem with that whatsoever, as I am NOT a good talent evaluator. What I am arguing with is the philosophy used to justify the low ranking.
While you are correct in stating that there are plenty of comparable QB's in the NFL (young QB's with promise but have shown nothing so far), there is, at this time, only a couple that compare to Beck because BECK CURRENTLY has the opportunity to show himself.
Now...if you're comparing Beck to any other backup QB on your bench, does it really matter if he is averaging 2 points less per game then the average backup. I mean...a backup is a backup is a backup, right? And 2 points rarely decides a single game, right?
So...would you rather have the normal backup QB, a 35 y.o. veteran whos upside (fantasy wise) is as a backup still in 2 years, OR would you rather have the young kid who might actually be your starter in 2 years? Are those two points on your BENCH this year all that big a deal? ESPECIALLY since there's a very good chance you could still roster all three (your starter, your backup, and a guy like Beck.)
The nominal backup QB is QB 18....how does a normal backup compare to the QB at #28 or so?
The point is, there are only 32 starting QB's in the NFL at any given time. I think you are (in general) greatly UNDERVALUING young QB's who have a chance to play regularly.
Edited to add: If you believe Beck is a poor QB who is destined to fail, then ranking him low makes sense. I have no problem with that whatsoever, as I am NOT a good talent evaluator. What I am arguing with is the philosophy used to justify the low ranking.
I think the failure rate on QBs is so high that you can basically assume that they're going to flop until they prove otherwise. It's not like Beck has shown flashes of brilliance. He's just another young QB who may or may not amount to anything. You can lump him in with a large group that includes Trent Edwards, Kevin Kolb, Alex Smith, Kellen Clemens, Drew Stanton, Brodie Croyle, Tarvaris Jackson, Jamarcus Russell, Aaron Rodgers, and Brady Quinn. There's a chance that these guys will succeed, but you shouldn't assume that they're going to succeed.
John Beck is comparable to a WR like Jason Hill. Would you trade a productive WR like Joey Galloway for Jason Hill? I guess I might if I really believed in Hill's talent, but right now Galloway has more trade value since he's already useful.
In general, I'll take a player who's young and producing (Santonio Holmes) over a player who's old and producing (Joey Galloway). But there's usually no reason to take a player who's young and not producing over a player who's old and producing. The only exception to this rule is when the young player has the type of pedigree that justifies taking a chance on him.
Beck is a 2nd round QB. The odds of a 2nd round QB becoming a useful FF starter are low. So his pedigree isn't exceptional enough to make me think he's a lock for success. I'd probably say the same thing if he had been a 1st round pick since QBs have such a huge failure rate.
John Beck is comparable to a WR like Jason Hill. Would you trade a productive WR like Joey Galloway for Jason Hill? I guess I might if I really believed in Hill's talent, but right now Galloway has more trade value since he's already useful.
In general, I'll take a player who's young and producing (Santonio Holmes) over a player who's old and producing (Joey Galloway). But there's usually no reason to take a player who's young and not producing over a player who's old and producing. The only exception to this rule is when the young player has the type of pedigree that justifies taking a chance on him.
Beck is a 2nd round QB. The odds of a 2nd round QB becoming a useful FF starter are low. So his pedigree isn't exceptional enough to make me think he's a lock for success. I'd probably say the same thing if he had been a 1st round pick since QBs have such a huge failure rate.
QUOTE (EBF @ Dec 8 2007, 02:08 PM)
In general, I'll take a player who's young and producing (Santonio Holmes) over a player who's old and producing (Joey Galloway). But there's usually no reason to take a player who's young and not producing over a player who's old and producing. The only exception to this rule is when the young player has the type of pedigree that justifies taking a chance on him.
Nicely said.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 12:00 PM)
Having a hard time seeing the free or on the cheap thing. Here's a guy who's starting for an NFL team...that makes him marginally rosterable in a REDRAFT league, let alone a dynasty league.
No it doesn't. When David Carr was starting, was he marginally rosterable in redraft leagues? Not a chance if you know what you're doing. And Carr's production is about as close as you can get to mirroring Beck's production. How about Brodie Croyle? No use rostering in redraft leagues. How is Beck rosterable in redraft when he would come close to getting you negative points most weeks? Just because a guy is starting doesn't mean you should feel the need to stick him on your roster.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 12:00 PM)
While you are correct in stating that there are plenty of comparable QB's in the NFL (young QB's with promise but have shown nothing so far), there is, at this time, only a couple that compare to Beck because BECK CURRENTLY has the opportunity to show himself.
The point is, there are only 32 starting QB's in the NFL at any given time. I think you are (in general) greatly UNDERVALUING young QB's who have a chance to play regularly.
Edited to add: If you believe Beck is a poor QB who is destined to fail, then ranking him low makes sense. I have no problem with that whatsoever, as I am NOT a good talent evaluator. What I am arguing with is the philosophy used to justify the low ranking.
The point is, there are only 32 starting QB's in the NFL at any given time. I think you are (in general) greatly UNDERVALUING young QB's who have a chance to play regularly.
Edited to add: If you believe Beck is a poor QB who is destined to fail, then ranking him low makes sense. I have no problem with that whatsoever, as I am NOT a good talent evaluator. What I am arguing with is the philosophy used to justify the low ranking.
You're right. I hear what you're saying about a guy who is getting an opportunity to start. But Beck is not exactly seizing the opportunity. I've seen what he's done with that opportunity, and I know he's unlikely to be a factor in fantasy leagues for a long time. That creature is worthless to me.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 12:00 PM)
Now...if you're comparing Beck to any other backup QB on your bench, does it really matter if he is averaging 2 points less per game then the average backup. I mean...a backup is a backup is a backup, right? And 2 points rarely decides a single game, right?
So...would you rather have the normal backup QB, a 35 y.o. veteran whos upside (fantasy wise) is as a backup still in 2 years, OR would you rather have the young kid who might actually be your starter in 2 years? Are those two points on your BENCH this year all that big a deal? ESPECIALLY since there's a very good chance you could still roster all three (your starter, your backup, and a guy like Beck.)
The nominal backup QB is QB 18....how does a normal backup compare to the QB at #28 or so?
So...would you rather have the normal backup QB, a 35 y.o. veteran whos upside (fantasy wise) is as a backup still in 2 years, OR would you rather have the young kid who might actually be your starter in 2 years? Are those two points on your BENCH this year all that big a deal? ESPECIALLY since there's a very good chance you could still roster all three (your starter, your backup, and a guy like Beck.)
The nominal backup QB is QB 18....how does a normal backup compare to the QB at #28 or so?
I think there's this misguided notion amongst dynasty leaguers that it's a law of nature that young players will always improve, but veterans in a bad situation are stuck there forever. Most young QBs will never be startable in fantasy leagues. Many of them will show improvement for a game, and then regress for a month. They'll show improvement for half a season (Grossman, Losman), then regress to unstartable for their NFL teams. Many veteran QBs who are not producing great numbers at the moment will be producing better numbers when the situation around them changes for the better.
This goes back to what EBF said a couple of posts above. I love young players with talent who are producing or at least showing off a glimpse of a talented future. I just don't have much use for a young player who is not producing, doesn't look special, has bottom of the barrel talent surrounding him, and is only going to take up valuable roster space for the foreseeable future.
QUOTE (Donnybrook @ Dec 8 2007, 11:53 AM)
Dynasty wise, I am not all that worried about DJ Hackett cutting into Burleson playing time since Hackett is rarely healthy.
Interesting logic.
How about because Hacket is an UFA after the season? I could see that as a legit reason.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 8 2007, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 12:00 PM)
Having a hard time seeing the free or on the cheap thing. Here's a guy who's starting for an NFL team...that makes him marginally rosterable in a REDRAFT league, let alone a dynasty league.
No it doesn't. When David Carr was starting, was he marginally rosterable in redraft leagues? Not a chance if you know what you're doing. And Carr's production is about as close as you can get to mirroring Beck's production. How about Brodie Croyle? No use rostering in redraft leagues. How is Beck rosterable in redraft when he would come close to getting you negative points most weeks? Just because a guy is starting doesn't mean you should feel the need to stick him on your roster.
Simple math actually: 12 team league X 2 = 24 to roster. Throw in bye weeks and we're up to 30...meaning virtually every STARTING NFL Qb is rostered AT SOME POINT.(Is that really all that tough to figure out??????)
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 12:00 PM)
While you are correct in stating that there are plenty of comparable QB's in the NFL (young QB's with promise but have shown nothing so far), there is, at this time, only a couple that compare to Beck because BECK CURRENTLY has the opportunity to show himself.
The point is, there are only 32 starting QB's in the NFL at any given time. I think you are (in general) greatly UNDERVALUING young QB's who have a chance to play regularly.
Edited to add: If you believe Beck is a poor QB who is destined to fail, then ranking him low makes sense. I have no problem with that whatsoever, as I am NOT a good talent evaluator. What I am arguing with is the philosophy used to justify the low ranking.
The point is, there are only 32 starting QB's in the NFL at any given time. I think you are (in general) greatly UNDERVALUING young QB's who have a chance to play regularly.
Edited to add: If you believe Beck is a poor QB who is destined to fail, then ranking him low makes sense. I have no problem with that whatsoever, as I am NOT a good talent evaluator. What I am arguing with is the philosophy used to justify the low ranking.
You're right. I hear what you're saying about a guy who is getting an opportunity to start. But Beck is not exactly seizing the opportunity. I've seen what he's done with that opportunity, and I know he's unlikely to be a factor in fantasy leagues for a long time. That creature is worthless to me.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 12:00 PM)
Now...if you're comparing Beck to any other backup QB on your bench, does it really matter if he is averaging 2 points less per game then the average backup. I mean...a backup is a backup is a backup, right? And 2 points rarely decides a single game, right?
So...would you rather have the normal backup QB, a 35 y.o. veteran whos upside (fantasy wise) is as a backup still in 2 years, OR would you rather have the young kid who might actually be your starter in 2 years? Are those two points on your BENCH this year all that big a deal? ESPECIALLY since there's a very good chance you could still roster all three (your starter, your backup, and a guy like Beck.)
The nominal backup QB is QB 18....how does a normal backup compare to the QB at #28 or so?
So...would you rather have the normal backup QB, a 35 y.o. veteran whos upside (fantasy wise) is as a backup still in 2 years, OR would you rather have the young kid who might actually be your starter in 2 years? Are those two points on your BENCH this year all that big a deal? ESPECIALLY since there's a very good chance you could still roster all three (your starter, your backup, and a guy like Beck.)
The nominal backup QB is QB 18....how does a normal backup compare to the QB at #28 or so?
Yeah, I have no idea what this means. Are you comparing Beck to NFL back-ups or a veteran QB whom I have as a back-up to my starter in fantasy?
The backup to your starter. The simple math I highlighted above shows that EVERY NFL STARTER is rosterable. There is not usually much difference between the 20th ranked QB and the 27th ranked QB, so in a very real sense, it matters little which one languishes on your bench (especially as a QB3)
I think there's this misguided notion amongst dynasty leaguers that young players can improve, but veterans in a bad situation are stuck there forever. Most young QBs will never be startable in fantasy leagues. Many veteran QBs who are not producing great numbers at the moment will be producing better numbers when the situation around them changes for the better.
Umm...the misguided notion is that a 35 YO QB who is unlikely to ever be a consistant NFL (let alone fantasy) producer again is more roster worthy (in dynasty) then the rookie QB who appears to be his teams starter for at least the foreseeable future. While said veteran may average a point or two fantasy wise more then the rookie. IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH ON YOUR BENCH. IN the (hopefully) unlikely event you're forced to use them, is the 2 point difference that big a deal?Also....why is it misguided to think that the rookie QB will improve, while the veteran will NOT get better (physically). Beck's situation may greatly improve also!
This goes back to what EBF said a couple of posts above. I love young players with talent who are producing or at least showing off a glimpse of a talented future. I just don't have much use for a young player who is not producing, doesn't look special, has bottom of the barrel talent surrounding him, and is only going to take up valuable roster space for the foreseeable future.
Once again...I'm not arguing with where you have ranked Beck if you honestly think he sucks. It's your reasoning/logic that he's "a dime a dozen" that I greatly disagree with.
Young developeing WR's....now they really are a dime a dozen. SImple math again: 32 QB's play in a given week. Over ONE HUNDRED RECIEVERS play in a given week. There are DOZENS of good WR prospects unrostered in every dynasty league that we KNOW will get a chance in the next 12-24 months. How many potential starting QB's can you identify?
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
QUOTE (The Man Who Met Andy Griffith @ Dec 8 2007, 03:48 PM)
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
You've hit the nail on the head...but what I'm trying to say is that regardless of your scoring, we tend to undervalue QB's. They are still the most limited position in fantasy by number. How many times do you see someone with NO QB TO START in a given week? Every league, every season, this happens. Never see that at WR or RB (although an NFL RB2 may not score much...at least he sees the field a few plays a game!...you can't say that for the NFL backup QB) Love the thread, just looking at "value-plays" or sleepers now.
Off hand if you were to select 5 players worth 5 points or less from your rankings, who would you take?
I'm inclined to go with future prospects instead of those who may be good for a year, so:
Why is Ward this low?
The others I'm just going with what they could do at their top potential; Grossman is actually not horrible when healthy, not startable, but not a bad backup - except you can't trust that he'll play on your starter's bye week. Ok, so maybe he's worthless and I'll take Brodie Croyle instead
Off hand if you were to select 5 players worth 5 points or less from your rankings, who would you take?
I'm inclined to go with future prospects instead of those who may be good for a year, so:
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Oct 26 2006, 02:10 AM)
[4] [#]Rex Grossman CHI (U) 27.0
[5] [#]Derrick Ward NYG (U) 27.1
[5] [#]Mike Walker® JAX 22.8
[4] Matt Jones JAX 24.4
[3] Jason Hill® SF 22.6
[5] [#]Derrick Ward NYG (U) 27.1
[5] [#]Mike Walker® JAX 22.8
[4] Matt Jones JAX 24.4
[3] Jason Hill® SF 22.6
Why is Ward this low?
The others I'm just going with what they could do at their top potential; Grossman is actually not horrible when healthy, not startable, but not a bad backup - except you can't trust that he'll play on your starter's bye week. Ok, so maybe he's worthless and I'll take Brodie Croyle instead
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 03:45 PM)
Once again...I'm not arguing with where you have ranked Beck if you honestly think he sucks. It's your reasoning/logic that he's "a dime a dozen" that I greatly disagree with.
Young developeing WR's....now they really are a dime a dozen. SImple math again: 32 QB's play in a given week. Over ONE HUNDRED RECIEVERS play in a given week. There are DOZENS of good WR prospects unrostered in every dynasty league that we KNOW will get a chance in the next 12-24 months. How many potential starting QB's can you identify?
Young developeing WR's....now they really are a dime a dozen. SImple math again: 32 QB's play in a given week. Over ONE HUNDRED RECIEVERS play in a given week. There are DOZENS of good WR prospects unrostered in every dynasty league that we KNOW will get a chance in the next 12-24 months. How many potential starting QB's can you identify?
Alright, this is getting awfully tiresome. I'll refrain from quoting your whole post because the bolded red and six question marks are getting ridiculous.
- So you're a by-the-book kind of guy? If a guy is starting for a NFL team, he has to be on your roster. I don't care how large your league is, or how many starters there are in the NFL. A QB who is likely to hurt your chances of winning if you ever get backed into the corner of using him is better left on the waiver wire. I know that's very revolutionary thinking when you feel like you absolutely have to have all NFL starters rostered.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 03:45 PM)
Umm...the misguided notion is that a 35 YO QB who is unlikely to ever be a consistant NFL (let alone fantasy) producer again is more roster worthy (in dynasty) then the rookie QB who appears to be his teams starter for at least the foreseeable future. While said veteran may average a point or two fantasy wise more then the rookie. IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH ON YOUR BENCH. IN the (hopefully) unlikely event you're forced to use them, is the 2 point difference that big a deal?Also....why is it misguided to think that the rookie QB will improve, while the veteran will NOT get better (physically). Beck's situation may greatly improve also!
Who is this 35-year-old QB that you speak of ranked above Beck? I'd like to know which 35-year-old starter is averaging a point or two more per week than Beck.
This QB would have to be truly atrocious to be averaging only a point or two more than Beck per week.
Why is it misguided to think that a young player will get better but an old player won't? It's not. It's misguided to believe that all young QBs will improve because, well, they're young, while all old players will keep going downhill simply because they're old. Did you miss Brett Favre this season? Alex Smith? Rex Grossman? J.P. Losman?
QUOTE (The Man Who Met Andy Griffith @ Dec 8 2007, 03:48 PM)
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
Yup. I don't care in the slightest about guys in the QB12-20 range. I want top-12 QBs. If I don't think Beck has a chance to become that, then I'm not that fired up for John Beck, regardless of how many QBs are rostered, or how rosterable he is.
When it comes to dynasty, I want to use my roster spots on prospects at the WR and RB position. I'd much rather use other teams in the league as my QB farm system, trading away WR and RB prospects for solid (tier 4+) QBs.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE (The Man Who Met Andy Griffith @ Dec 8 2007, 03:48 PM)
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
You've hit the nail on the head...but what I'm trying to say is that regardless of your scoring, we tend to undervalue QB's. They are still the most limited position in fantasy by number. How many times do you see someone with NO QB TO START in a given week? Every league, every season, this happens. Never see that at WR or RB (although an NFL RB2 may not score much...at least he sees the field a few plays a game!...you can't say that for the NFL backup QB)I disagree. I see more people throwing up a hail mary at RB than at QB. I might see someone start a backup QB once a season, but I've seen people start Najeh Davenport, Cecil Sapp, or the like at RB far more frequently.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 8 2007, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE (The Man Who Met Andy Griffith @ Dec 8 2007, 03:48 PM)
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
You've hit the nail on the head...but what I'm trying to say is that regardless of your scoring, we tend to undervalue QB's. They are still the most limited position in fantasy by number. How many times do you see someone with NO QB TO START in a given week? Every league, every season, this happens. Never see that at WR or RB (although an NFL RB2 may not score much...at least he sees the field a few plays a game!...you can't say that for the NFL backup QB)I disagree. I see more people throwing up a hail mary at RB than at QB. I might see someone start a backup QB once a season, but I've seen people start Najeh Davenport, Cecil Sapp, or the like at RB far more frequently.
Davenport sees the field virtually every week. His owner put him in because he decided to roll with him rather then trade away something. Meanwhile, another owner TRADES rather then sticks a sure zero score in his QB slot.
F&L...
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 02:05 PM)
F&L...
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
Disagree with point 2. Talent is critical. Take David Carr. He's much like Beck. He was a high-draft pick, was young, and was the starter. In fact, by your analysis, he was a better risk than Beck because he was higher draft pick (implying more talent), was younger, and was a starter sooner (larger sample size and less risk of getting benched).
Well, if you had David Carr instead of Brett Favre, Trent Green, Steve McNair, etc. you probably lost more FF games.
I saw this first hand in my long-standing dynasty league. Saw one owner stand by David Carr while others lived on the old QBs. That guy has never made the playoffs.
In the end, if you believe in Beck (and I respect Matt Waldman's opinion), then you should roster him. But I hope you do so knowing that he's a longshot to be of any value. That's true of any young QB.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 05:05 PM)
F&L...
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
1) I agree. No one can say definitively one way or another right now. There's a wide margin of error no matter how you evaluate his future. You said you were not a good evaluator of talent, which I think puts you behind the 8-ball in dynasty leagues. Like I said yesterday, I think a dynasty leaguer's paramount asset is an ability to come to a quick, decisive judgment on players. I've come to my judgment, and I feel comfortable with it. I don't see what good it's going to do for anybody if I start ranking player's according to conventional wisdom, especially if it goes against what I've seen. It's just not what I'm trying to do here.
2) I categorically reject this philosophy. I think it's dead wrong. If I think a young fantasy back-up such as John Beck or Rex Grossman is worthless and has very little chance of ever helping me, then he's not equal in value to a veteran fantasy back-up who simply needs a hot streak or a seemingly minor change in his offense to go back to being eminently startable.
(Still waiting for the example of a 35-year-old vet ranked above Beck and only outscoring him by one or two points per week)
3) I've watched him play, and he looked terrible. Bad decision-making, extremely erratic on accuracy, a non-special arm, overall nothing eye-popping. It's true that I may have seen him at his worst, and I'm sure he has the ability to play much better (how could he play worse?), but he's going to need an awful lot to go perfectly over the next year to have any value above roster-clogging. When you add an awful offense on a going-nowhere team to the equation, you're talking about a longterm commitment to roster-clogging. His situation is the quintessential recipe for failure. On top of that, there's the concern about his age coming into the league. From this year's Pro Football Prospectus:
QUOTE
Beck enters the league at the age of 26 following a two-year Morman mission, making him the oldest rookie quarterback since erstwhile minor league third-baseman Chris Weinke debuted at the age of 29 in 2001. Weinke was a Heisman Trophy winner who was pushed into the starting lineup for an awful Carolina team before he was ready, failed, then spent the rest of his career on the bench. Beck has three more years to work with, but a less impressive pedigree. His selling points are a quick-trigger release and excellent accuracy on short and medium distances. On the downside, Beck struggles with distance and accuracy on his deep ball. While that might not be exposed in some schemes, the Dolphins like to go deep to burners Chris Chambers and Ted Ginn. Unless Beck goes on the Tom Brady post-collegiate weightlifting program, he's not a good fit for the Dolphins offense as currently constructed.
and
QUOTE
Other than Chris Weinke, there isn't much of a precedent on which to base the projection for a quarterback of Beck's age, but I suspect Beck will fall a bit short of what his college stats suggest. He will be 30 years old by his fifth year in the league, the year in which most quarterbacks enter their prime. His age won't necessarily prevent him from being successful, but if he hasn't made it by his second year in the league, he probably never will.
I'm not saying Beck's rookie year age is a concern because Pro Football Prospectus thinks so. I just think it's another factor to consider as he's a non-special young QB being set up for failure over the next year or so.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 04:05 PM)
F&L...
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
We're off to a bad start here. I've been lurking in this thread all year and respect the work you've put in here. I'm simply saying that :
1) Beck's on-field success (or lack of it) this year are in no way enough of a sample size to definitively say he won't succeed. (Or will succeed)
2) A fantasy backup is a fantasy backup, and a very young NFL starter is worth more then any OLD veteran who is also a fantasy backup, regardless of where you (or I) evaluate their respective talent levels.
3) Points 1 and 2 notwithstanding...you've said that you don't believe Beck will be any good in the NFL...FINE. WHY do you feel this way? Please give me a reason other then he didn't look very good in his first couple of starts.
I have read each post and it seems to me the plain answer is:
1. Beck has little talent around him and little that seems to say he will improve drastically.
2. Beck doesn't look special but held back by low talent surrounding him. He looks ordinary and unremarkable.
Some players get put in bad situations, but you can still see they have exceptional talent. Frank Gore is a great example of that. He has no QB all year long, he has no WR's really, he has o-line issues. Yet, you can still see he has talent and is special. Beck hasn't appeared to be a special player held back by whats around him, he has appeared to be common. Common is not something sought after in FFB.
Then, add in the fact that he has little around him to help make him a better QB and it becomes apparent that he isn't someone that is a lock for improvement... He could improve, he could grow as a player, he could get great help in the upcoming draft, but so could alot of other players. You want to see that a guy is ready to take off with the right circumstances. Beck may be an ok QB or there is a chance he might end up being special - but there has been nothing to indicate that. There are a ton of other young QB's who just might end up being special. Beck hasn't distinguished himself.
Also, some good points were made about winning now in Dynasty leagues and not just adding young players to have a ton of young guys who might end up being good. Think about this - how many good QB's are projected to come out of next years draft? What about Beck makes you think he is worth rostering now, and that he will be better than the QB who ends up in Atlanta? There is simply no reason to add him now as the year is almost over and there will always be QB's like him out there.
Shaub is way too low. Vince Young should not be ahead of him by any stretch.
Why I don't invest in young QBs:
1. High risk investments - most don't succeed (for various reasons).
2. The development timeline is too long - if there is a payoff, it comes many years later. Unless you have really deep rosters, the cost of a roster spot is too high.
3. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs are usually willing to trade the "old" QB on their rosters when their young QBs show a flash of brilliance. Often times, the old QBs are traded on the cheap because they are viewed as "old" and simply wasting a roster spot as we can only start 1 QB a week. In my long-standing dynasty league, I saw Brady traded in the off-season for Santana Moss because the Brady owner was bullish on Leinart. I prefer to identify the owners that like young QBs and try to buy their "old" QBs from them at good prices.
4. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs tend to be fickle. They dump young QBs when they experience trouble. Given point 1, this happens often. So instead of holding young QBs on my roster for many seasons as they mature (see point 2), I wait for an impatient owner to dump one of the QBs that I believe has the talent to succeed. I was able to score Roethlisberger at a cheap price in my auction dynasty league because owners had given up on him after his struggles. I looked at his talent (aside: just look at Football Outsider's metrics!) instead.
If I am going to roster a young QB, I look for QBs that have sat on the bench for a number of years. Guys like Romo, Schaub, Pennington, Hasslebeck, and Brunell (Jax version). With these guys, I think you have (a) a higher likelihood of success and (2) a shorter timeline to success (or failure). You can quickly determine if the player is going to make it or not.
1. High risk investments - most don't succeed (for various reasons).
2. The development timeline is too long - if there is a payoff, it comes many years later. Unless you have really deep rosters, the cost of a roster spot is too high.
3. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs are usually willing to trade the "old" QB on their rosters when their young QBs show a flash of brilliance. Often times, the old QBs are traded on the cheap because they are viewed as "old" and simply wasting a roster spot as we can only start 1 QB a week. In my long-standing dynasty league, I saw Brady traded in the off-season for Santana Moss because the Brady owner was bullish on Leinart. I prefer to identify the owners that like young QBs and try to buy their "old" QBs from them at good prices.
4. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs tend to be fickle. They dump young QBs when they experience trouble. Given point 1, this happens often. So instead of holding young QBs on my roster for many seasons as they mature (see point 2), I wait for an impatient owner to dump one of the QBs that I believe has the talent to succeed. I was able to score Roethlisberger at a cheap price in my auction dynasty league because owners had given up on him after his struggles. I looked at his talent (aside: just look at Football Outsider's metrics!) instead.
If I am going to roster a young QB, I look for QBs that have sat on the bench for a number of years. Guys like Romo, Schaub, Pennington, Hasslebeck, and Brunell (Jax version). With these guys, I think you have (a) a higher likelihood of success and (2) a shorter timeline to success (or failure). You can quickly determine if the player is going to make it or not.
QUOTE (Newslang @ Dec 8 2007, 03:01 PM)
Shaub is way too low. Vince Young should not be ahead of him by any stretch.
Would love to turn the discussion from Beck to Schaub. Based on his college stats and the chance to learn as a backup in Atlanta, I was very high on him coming into this season. Thus far, he has lived up to my expectations.
The questions are:
(1) should we be concerned about his series of injuries, whether because they will impact his performance long term, he should be viewed as injury-prone now, or we should be concerned that no QB can stay healthy in Houston for the long term?
(2) is the Houston offense a good offense in which Schaub can put up good fantasy stats (i.e., is he in a good situation)?
QUOTE (Newslang @ Dec 8 2007, 06:01 PM)
Shaub is way too low. Vince Young should not be ahead of him by any stretch.
Why?
I've had Schaub higher at times, and I'm not quite as sold on him being "fragile" as plenty of others are. I like his future as long as he can stay healthy. I think he can easily be an above average NFL starter.
I think Young can be special, and I'm very impressed by his numbers the last month with a woeful group of receivers. I've covered quite a few of Young's games lately, and I'm not kidding when I say this: he could easily have 9-10 more passing TDs just in the past five games. He had several called back due to penalty, a few bounce in and out his receivers hands, and a couple where he threw it to an open WR who turned the wrong way at the last minute. If he gets an upgrade in receivers, the light could go on in a hurry with Vince Young.
I think Young is playing much better right now than people realize, and he has the talent be special. As a general rule, I will go for the guy who has special talent.
I also think people can get caught up in the current year's stats at times. VY still has the ability that would have gotten you laughed off the boards in December of last year for suggesting a guy like Schaub was more valuable. I wouldn't let the current year's stats fool you about next year's value. Things change fast in the NFL.
QUOTE (gheemony @ Dec 8 2007, 06:01 PM)
Why I don't invest in young QBs:
1. High risk investments - most don't succeed (for various reasons).
2. The development timeline is too long - if there is a payoff, it comes many years later. Unless you have really deep rosters, the cost of a roster spot is too high.
3. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs are usually willing to trade the "old" QB on their rosters when their young QBs show a flash of brilliance. Often times, the old QBs are traded on the cheap because they are viewed as "old" and simply wasting a roster spot as we can only start 1 QB a week. In my long-standing dynasty league, I saw Brady traded in the off-season for Santana Moss because the Brady owner was bullish on Leinart. I prefer to identify the owners that like young QBs and try to buy their "old" QBs from them at good prices.
4. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs tend to be fickle. They dump young QBs when they experience trouble. Given point 1, this happens often. So instead of holding young QBs on my roster for many seasons as they mature (see point 2), I wait for an impatient owner to dump one of the QBs that I believe has the talent to succeed. I was able to score Roethlisberger at a cheap price in my auction dynasty league because owners had given up on him after his struggles. I looked at his talent (aside: just look at Football Outsider's metrics!) instead.
If I am going to roster a young QB, I look for QBs that have sat on the bench for a number of years. Guys like Romo, Schaub, Pennington, Hasslebeck, and Brunell (Jax version). With these guys, I think you have (a) a higher likelihood of success and (2) a shorter timeline to success (or failure). You can quickly determine if the player is going to make it or not.
1. High risk investments - most don't succeed (for various reasons).
2. The development timeline is too long - if there is a payoff, it comes many years later. Unless you have really deep rosters, the cost of a roster spot is too high.
3. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs are usually willing to trade the "old" QB on their rosters when their young QBs show a flash of brilliance. Often times, the old QBs are traded on the cheap because they are viewed as "old" and simply wasting a roster spot as we can only start 1 QB a week. In my long-standing dynasty league, I saw Brady traded in the off-season for Santana Moss because the Brady owner was bullish on Leinart. I prefer to identify the owners that like young QBs and try to buy their "old" QBs from them at good prices.
4. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs tend to be fickle. They dump young QBs when they experience trouble. Given point 1, this happens often. So instead of holding young QBs on my roster for many seasons as they mature (see point 2), I wait for an impatient owner to dump one of the QBs that I believe has the talent to succeed. I was able to score Roethlisberger at a cheap price in my auction dynasty league because owners had given up on him after his struggles. I looked at his talent (aside: just look at Football Outsider's metrics!) instead.
If I am going to roster a young QB, I look for QBs that have sat on the bench for a number of years. Guys like Romo, Schaub, Pennington, Hasslebeck, and Brunell (Jax version). With these guys, I think you have (a) a higher likelihood of success and (2) a shorter timeline to success (or failure). You can quickly determine if the player is going to make it or not.
Good stuff here. Thanks, gheemony.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 04:48 PM)
Davenport sees the field virtually every week. His owner put him in because he decided to roll with him rather then trade away something. Meanwhile, another owner TRADES rather then sticks a sure zero score in his QB slot.
What's wrong with this? I would much rather trade for a one-week patch with potential than keep a guy on my roster who gives me the heebies if I have to start him.
In fact, it's even more fun this way. There's a creative challenge involved for you to get a guy who can patch over your bye week AND go on to build more value than whatever you traded away.
I did this last year with Losman. I needed a guy to patch over my Brady bye week because my back-up was injured. I saw the Losman owner had a few QBs stockpiled and wasn't using him b/c he was way too inconsistent, but Losman had a very nice matchup the week I needed a QB. I traded a 5th rounder for him before he took off in the 2nd half of the season, and then flipped him on to another guy for a 2nd rounder after he gained value a few weeks later.
Never be afraid that you'll have to trade something away. Just make sure you get what you need when you do.
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 04:48 PM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 8 2007, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE (The Man Who Met Andy Griffith @ Dec 8 2007, 03:48 PM)
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
You've hit the nail on the head...but what I'm trying to say is that regardless of your scoring, we tend to undervalue QB's. They are still the most limited position in fantasy by number. How many times do you see someone with NO QB TO START in a given week? Every league, every season, this happens. Never see that at WR or RB (although an NFL RB2 may not score much...at least he sees the field a few plays a game!...you can't say that for the NFL backup QB)I disagree. I see more people throwing up a hail mary at RB than at QB. I might see someone start a backup QB once a season, but I've seen people start Najeh Davenport, Cecil Sapp, or the like at RB far more frequently.
Davenport sees the field virtually every week. His owner put him in because he decided to roll with him rather then trade away something. Meanwhile, another owner TRADES rather then sticks a sure zero score in his QB slot.
What does that have to do with anything? Your point was one of position scarcity- you were saying that QBs were scarce, so they were valuable. I'm merely providing an example to illustrate that RBs are far more scarce than QBs.
QUOTE (-OZ- @ Dec 8 2007, 04:04 PM)
Love the thread, just looking at "value-plays" or sleepers now.
Off hand if you were to select 5 players worth 5 points or less from your rankings, who would you take?
I'm inclined to go with future prospects instead of those who may be good for a year, so:
Why is Ward this low?
The others I'm just going with what they could do at their top potential; Grossman is actually not horrible when healthy, not startable, but not a bad backup - except you can't trust that he'll play on your starter's bye week. Ok, so maybe he's worthless and I'll take Brodie Croyle instead
Off hand if you were to select 5 players worth 5 points or less from your rankings, who would you take?
I'm inclined to go with future prospects instead of those who may be good for a year, so:
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Oct 26 2006, 02:10 AM)
[4] [#]Rex Grossman CHI (U) 27.0
[5] [#]Derrick Ward NYG (U) 27.1
[5] [#]Mike Walker® JAX 22.8
[4] Matt Jones JAX 24.4
[3] Jason Hill® SF 22.6
[5] [#]Derrick Ward NYG (U) 27.1
[5] [#]Mike Walker® JAX 22.8
[4] Matt Jones JAX 24.4
[3] Jason Hill® SF 22.6
Why is Ward this low?
The others I'm just going with what they could do at their top potential; Grossman is actually not horrible when healthy, not startable, but not a bad backup - except you can't trust that he'll play on your starter's bye week. Ok, so maybe he's worthless and I'll take Brodie Croyle instead
Re: Ward. I struggled with his ranking. I just moved him down b/c he's out for the year, but I probably moved him down too far. He's looked good whenever he's had a chance to play this year, but so has Jacobs. From all indications, it's Jacobs' job as long as he's healthy. I guess Ward could be more valuable because we know that he's a legit starter whenever Jacobs misses time, and Ward will probably see the field on passing downs anyway.
Did you just say that Grossman is not horrible when healthy? At least you threw in some damage control, but I think you may be watching a different Chicago QB named Rex than I am. He's one of the horrible-est QBs you'll see in any given week. A legit basketcase of a football player. He should be spending time on a shrink's couch on Sundays instead of lining up behind center. He should probably take Eli with him. Nothing gets a defensive player's mouth watering like a QB who is physically and mentally scared to play.
QUOTE (gheemony @ Dec 8 2007, 05:01 PM)
Why I don't invest in young QBs:
1. High risk investments - most don't succeed (for various reasons).
2. The development timeline is too long - if there is a payoff, it comes many years later. Unless you have really deep rosters, the cost of a roster spot is too high.
3. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs are usually willing to trade the "old" QB on their rosters when their young QBs show a flash of brilliance. Often times, the old QBs are traded on the cheap because they are viewed as "old" and simply wasting a roster spot as we can only start 1 QB a week. In my long-standing dynasty league, I saw Brady traded in the off-season for Santana Moss because the Brady owner was bullish on Leinart. I prefer to identify the owners that like young QBs and try to buy their "old" QBs from them at good prices.
4. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs tend to be fickle. They dump young QBs when they experience trouble. Given point 1, this happens often. So instead of holding young QBs on my roster for many seasons as they mature (see point 2), I wait for an impatient owner to dump one of the QBs that I believe has the talent to succeed. I was able to score Roethlisberger at a cheap price in my auction dynasty league because owners had given up on him after his struggles. I looked at his talent (aside: just look at Football Outsider's metrics!) instead.
If I am going to roster a young QB, I look for QBs that have sat on the bench for a number of years. Guys like Romo, Schaub, Pennington, Hasslebeck, and Brunell (Jax version). With these guys, I think you have (a) a higher likelihood of success and (2) a shorter timeline to success (or failure). You can quickly determine if the player is going to make it or not.
1. High risk investments - most don't succeed (for various reasons).
2. The development timeline is too long - if there is a payoff, it comes many years later. Unless you have really deep rosters, the cost of a roster spot is too high.
3. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs are usually willing to trade the "old" QB on their rosters when their young QBs show a flash of brilliance. Often times, the old QBs are traded on the cheap because they are viewed as "old" and simply wasting a roster spot as we can only start 1 QB a week. In my long-standing dynasty league, I saw Brady traded in the off-season for Santana Moss because the Brady owner was bullish on Leinart. I prefer to identify the owners that like young QBs and try to buy their "old" QBs from them at good prices.
4. The dynasty owners that do (over)value young QBs tend to be fickle. They dump young QBs when they experience trouble. Given point 1, this happens often. So instead of holding young QBs on my roster for many seasons as they mature (see point 2), I wait for an impatient owner to dump one of the QBs that I believe has the talent to succeed. I was able to score Roethlisberger at a cheap price in my auction dynasty league because owners had given up on him after his struggles. I looked at his talent (aside: just look at Football Outsider's metrics!) instead.
If I am going to roster a young QB, I look for QBs that have sat on the bench for a number of years. Guys like Romo, Schaub, Pennington, Hasslebeck, and Brunell (Jax version). With these guys, I think you have (a) a higher likelihood of success and (2) a shorter timeline to success (or failure). You can quickly determine if the player is going to make it or not.
darn
just to help illustrate your point, a trade in my main league went through in May where a Patriots homer got
Brady, Tom NEP QB;Alexander, Shaun SEA RB;Vrabel, Mike NEP LB
for
Leinart, Matt ARI QB;Jones, Thomas NYJ RB;Roby, Courtney TN WR;Harris, Napoleon KCC LB; 2007 2nd (Tony Hunt) ;2007 6th (Cullen Jenkins)
Alexander is a key there, but that just helps show how overvalued young QBs can be. most people thought Leinart was going to have a big year this year, but he played poorly. (FWIW, he might be a good buy-low for the same reasons you discuss) Many of us like the deal for Brady/SA at the time, but nowhere near as lopsided as it turned out. One intelligent owner even called Brady for Leinart "pretty much a wash"
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 8 2007, 03:35 PM)
QUOTE (Donnybrook @ Dec 8 2007, 11:53 AM)
Dynasty wise, I am not all that worried about DJ Hackett cutting into Burleson playing time since Hackett is rarely healthy.
Interesting logic.
How about because Hacket is an UFA after the season? I could see that as a legit reason.
Hackett was originally a 5th round pick and tendered by the team as a 2nd round pick last season. This tells me that Seattle was serious about holding on to him and they have several months before free agency begins to re-sign him.
I can't see Seattle letting a quality receiver walk given the trouble they went through to acquire Branch and Burleson.
How's my logic Mr. Spook?
After taking the time required to read all of those Beck posts, I think I deserve a chance to post my .02.
I think F&L's ranking may be a bit low, but nothing egregious.
I haven't seen too much promising with my own eyeballs as of yet, however, I only got to watch the debacle in the Pittsburg slop bowl. What has my interest piqued with Beck is the fact that three of my most trusted sources of football player evaluatoions believe, or believed in him. As already mentioned, Matt Waldman gave him a very good review. Ron Jaworski and Steve Young both gave him great reviews as well on draft day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MflFK7Q0o9E Young also praised him after the Pittsburg game.
I know Young may be biased as a BYU guy, but seriously who's better on TV than Jaws and Young, especially with QBs?
The situation in Miami really couldn't be worse for a young QB right now. No weapons, a terrible team, and a long ways to go to get better. Beck could very well be a number of years away from being a top 12 fantasy guy, if he ever gets there. I am just not ready to cut bait with a young QB that drew the praise of 3 of the 4 most trusted guys I've got (outside of myself, and with F&L being the 4th)!!!
As a side note, I think QB is one of the most difficult positions to evaluate. The NFL teams certainly miss there a lot. Becks' strong points probably make it even more difficult. Its easy to see that Carson Palmer has a great arm. You can see the physical tools in Ben Roethlisberger and in a different way with Vince Young. Becks' strengths' are in his pocket presence and decision making. Much tougher to see, and as a guy making his first few NFL starts playing tough defenses.......May not show up at all.
I think F&L's ranking may be a bit low, but nothing egregious.
I haven't seen too much promising with my own eyeballs as of yet, however, I only got to watch the debacle in the Pittsburg slop bowl. What has my interest piqued with Beck is the fact that three of my most trusted sources of football player evaluatoions believe, or believed in him. As already mentioned, Matt Waldman gave him a very good review. Ron Jaworski and Steve Young both gave him great reviews as well on draft day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MflFK7Q0o9E Young also praised him after the Pittsburg game.
I know Young may be biased as a BYU guy, but seriously who's better on TV than Jaws and Young, especially with QBs?
The situation in Miami really couldn't be worse for a young QB right now. No weapons, a terrible team, and a long ways to go to get better. Beck could very well be a number of years away from being a top 12 fantasy guy, if he ever gets there. I am just not ready to cut bait with a young QB that drew the praise of 3 of the 4 most trusted guys I've got (outside of myself, and with F&L being the 4th)!!!
As a side note, I think QB is one of the most difficult positions to evaluate. The NFL teams certainly miss there a lot. Becks' strong points probably make it even more difficult. Its easy to see that Carson Palmer has a great arm. You can see the physical tools in Ben Roethlisberger and in a different way with Vince Young. Becks' strengths' are in his pocket presence and decision making. Much tougher to see, and as a guy making his first few NFL starts playing tough defenses.......May not show up at all.
QUOTE (Donnybrook @ Dec 8 2007, 08:38 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Dec 8 2007, 03:35 PM)
QUOTE (Donnybrook @ Dec 8 2007, 11:53 AM)
Dynasty wise, I am not all that worried about DJ Hackett cutting into Burleson playing time since Hackett is rarely healthy.
Interesting logic.
How about because Hacket is an UFA after the season? I could see that as a legit reason.
Hackett was originally a 5th round pick and tendered by the team as a 2nd round pick last season. This tells me that Seattle was serious about holding on to him and they have several months before free agency begins to re-sign him.
I can't see Seattle letting a quality receiver walk given the trouble they went through to acquire Branch and Burleson.
How's my logic Mr. Spook?
I don't see Hackett leaving either, but I would think the fact that he is an unrestricted free agent is a much better reason to value Burleson highly than counting on Hackett to get a high ankle sprain twice a year for the next few years.
QUOTE (Kitrick Taylor @ Dec 8 2007, 09:09 PM)
After taking the time required to read all of those Beck posts, I think I deserve a chance to post my .02.
I think F&L's ranking may be a bit low, but nothing egregious.
I haven't seen too much promising with my own eyeballs as of yet, however, I only got to watch the debacle in the Pittsburg slop bowl. What has my interest piqued with Beck is the fact that three of my most trusted sources of football player evaluatoions believe, or believed in him. As already mentioned, Matt Waldman gave him a very good review. Ron Jaworski and Steve Young both gave him great reviews as well on draft day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MflFK7Q0o9E Young also praised him after the Pittsburg game.
I know Young may be biased as a BYU guy, but seriously who's better on TV than Jaws and Young, especially with QBs?
The situation in Miami really couldn't be worse for a young QB right now. No weapons, a terrible team, and a long ways to go to get better. Beck could very well be a number of years away from being a top 12 fantasy guy, if he ever gets there. I am just not ready to cut bait with a young QB that drew the praise of 3 of the 4 most trusted guys I've got (outside of myself, and with F&L being the 4th)!!!
As a side note, I think QB is one of the most difficult positions to evaluate. The NFL teams certainly miss there a lot. Becks' strong points probably make it even more difficult. Its easy to see that Carson Palmer has a great arm. You can see the physical tools in Ben Roethlisberger and in a different way with Vince Young. Becks' strengths' are in his pocket presence and decision making. Much tougher to see, and as a guy making his first few NFL starts playing tough defenses.......May not show up at all.
I think F&L's ranking may be a bit low, but nothing egregious.
I haven't seen too much promising with my own eyeballs as of yet, however, I only got to watch the debacle in the Pittsburg slop bowl. What has my interest piqued with Beck is the fact that three of my most trusted sources of football player evaluatoions believe, or believed in him. As already mentioned, Matt Waldman gave him a very good review. Ron Jaworski and Steve Young both gave him great reviews as well on draft day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MflFK7Q0o9E Young also praised him after the Pittsburg game.
I know Young may be biased as a BYU guy, but seriously who's better on TV than Jaws and Young, especially with QBs?
The situation in Miami really couldn't be worse for a young QB right now. No weapons, a terrible team, and a long ways to go to get better. Beck could very well be a number of years away from being a top 12 fantasy guy, if he ever gets there. I am just not ready to cut bait with a young QB that drew the praise of 3 of the 4 most trusted guys I've got (outside of myself, and with F&L being the 4th)!!!
As a side note, I think QB is one of the most difficult positions to evaluate. The NFL teams certainly miss there a lot. Becks' strong points probably make it even more difficult. Its easy to see that Carson Palmer has a great arm. You can see the physical tools in Ben Roethlisberger and in a different way with Vince Young. Becks' strengths' are in his pocket presence and decision making. Much tougher to see, and as a guy making his first few NFL starts playing tough defenses.......May not show up at all.
Well said. We all have our trusted sources for evaluations, and you're right that Young & Jaws are two of the best. In the end, though, we all have to come to our own evaluations, and sometimes that leaves the experts by the wayside...especially in matters related to *fantasy* football.
What does that have to do with anything? Your point was one of position scarcity- you were saying that QBs were scarce, so they were valuable. I'm merely providing an example to illustrate that RBs are far more scarce than QBs.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees. If we are to believe, and likely rightfully so, that it takes a while for a team to develop a starting QB, even highly rated first round draft choices, and it is much easier for a 2nd sting RB to come off the bench and produce (Fargas, K Smith, D Ward, R Grant, Turner, etc.) than I would conclude that a QB that puts up consistent #'s AND stays healthy is harder to come by. I won't argue that a true stud RB will affect a FF team more than an effective QB, but I think depth at QB across the league is far more shallow.
As F&L pointed out with VY, with a better receiving corp he may put up better numbers. Young's upside is not showing because of the team around him. Look what happened to A Smith when Turner left. He has dropped off drastically from last year. P Rivers development may have been affected by the coaching changes there. San Diego has the weapons but for some reason Rivers is not able to utilize them.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees. If we are to believe, and likely rightfully so, that it takes a while for a team to develop a starting QB, even highly rated first round draft choices, and it is much easier for a 2nd sting RB to come off the bench and produce (Fargas, K Smith, D Ward, R Grant, Turner, etc.) than I would conclude that a QB that puts up consistent #'s AND stays healthy is harder to come by. I won't argue that a true stud RB will affect a FF team more than an effective QB, but I think depth at QB across the league is far more shallow.
As F&L pointed out with VY, with a better receiving corp he may put up better numbers. Young's upside is not showing because of the team around him. Look what happened to A Smith when Turner left. He has dropped off drastically from last year. P Rivers development may have been affected by the coaching changes there. San Diego has the weapons but for some reason Rivers is not able to utilize them.
QUOTE (munchkin @ Dec 8 2007, 09:38 PM)
What does that have to do with anything? Your point was one of position scarcity- you were saying that QBs were scarce, so they were valuable. I'm merely providing an example to illustrate that RBs are far more scarce than QBs.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees.
You are absolutely, positively, 100% correct. You have hit the nail on the head, and I agree completely.
The problem is that we aren't talking about a PRODUCTIVE QB. We're talking about John Beck, someone whose strongest praise to this point in the thread is that he's rosterable because he manages to crack the top 30 for fantasy QBs.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 8 2007, 11:52 PM)
QUOTE (munchkin @ Dec 8 2007, 09:38 PM)
What does that have to do with anything? Your point was one of position scarcity- you were saying that QBs were scarce, so they were valuable. I'm merely providing an example to illustrate that RBs are far more scarce than QBs.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees.
You are absolutely, positively, 100% correct. You have hit the nail on the head, and I agree completely.
The problem is that we aren't talking about a PRODUCTIVE QB. We're talking about John Beck, someone whose strongest praise to this point in the thread is that he's rosterable because he manages to crack the top 30 for fantasy QBs.
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 8 2007, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 04:48 PM)
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 8 2007, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE (renesauz @ Dec 8 2007, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE (The Man Who Met Andy Griffith @ Dec 8 2007, 03:48 PM)
It seems like there's an unspoken disconnect here regarding the value of QB's period. I think most of us play in leagues that don't value non-top-10 QB's very highly. I'm speaking of 1 QB leagues with 10-14 teams and 4 points per passing TD. In these leagues, a stud QB (Brady, Romo, Manning, etc.) can contribute to a championship, whereas a merely average QB (QB15-20) is not very helpful, and can be acquired cheaply via trade.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
This means that for an unknown young QB to pay off in fantasy terms, he needs to do exceedingly well. It happens sometimes--Romo, Brady, Bulger--but it is very rare, offhand probably a 20-1 shot that may take 1-2 years to determine.
On the other hand, an unknown young RB/WR doesn't need to do nearly as well in real-world terms to pay off. As an example, D.J. Hackett has not set the NFL on fire--he is probably around the fiftieth best WR in the league, not top 5--but he clearly has some fantasy value now.
This is why many of us are reluctant to spend roster space on a young QB with a seemingly uphill climb. Again, this can vary a lot depending on your league make-up.
You've hit the nail on the head...but what I'm trying to say is that regardless of your scoring, we tend to undervalue QB's. They are still the most limited position in fantasy by number. How many times do you see someone with NO QB TO START in a given week? Every league, every season, this happens. Never see that at WR or RB (although an NFL RB2 may not score much...at least he sees the field a few plays a game!...you can't say that for the NFL backup QB)I disagree. I see more people throwing up a hail mary at RB than at QB. I might see someone start a backup QB once a season, but I've seen people start Najeh Davenport, Cecil Sapp, or the like at RB far more frequently.
Davenport sees the field virtually every week. His owner put him in because he decided to roll with him rather then trade away something. Meanwhile, another owner TRADES rather then sticks a sure zero score in his QB slot.
What does that have to do with anything? Your point was one of position scarcity- you were saying that QBs were scarce, so they were valuable. I'm merely providing an example to illustrate that RBs are far more scarce than QBs.
QUOTE(munchkin @ Dec 8 2007, 09:38 PM) *
What does that have to do with anything? Your point was one of position scarcity- you were saying that QBs were scarce, so they were valuable. I'm merely providing an example to illustrate that RBs are far more scarce than QBs.
I don't know that RB's are FAR more scarce that PRODUCTIVE QB's. Consistently top producing QB's such as Brady, Romo, P Manning, Favre, Brees (?), D Anderson (?) don't fall off trees.
You are absolutely, positively, 100% correct. You have hit the nail on the head, and I agree completely.
The problem is that we aren't talking about a PRODUCTIVE QB. We're talking about John Beck, someone whose strongest praise to this point in the thread is that he's rosterable because he manages to crack the top 30 for fantasy QBs.
Since I don't like being quoted out of context I have posted the post that I was responding to. I don't see where it was referring only to Beck only.
QUOTE (munchkin @ Dec 9 2007, 11:47 AM)
Since I don't like being quoted out of context I have posted the post that I was responding to. I don't see where it was referring only to Beck only.
Read the entire discussion to this point. We're talking about the value of John Beck, or a similar "30th QB in the league". Someone said that they were valuable because a lot of people have to throw up a hail mary at QB sometimes. I responded by saying that people throw up hail marys at RB, too, because RBs are more scarce than QBs. You then said that RBs were less scarce than PRODUCTIVE QBs, which is a valid point, but a completely different discussion, since we're talking about the value of a "30th QB in the league" type player, not a productive QB.
Be curious about people's take on Selvin Young's long-term prospects? 11 for 143 in the first half today is making me rethink the idea that he's Droughns, Anderson, Bell Part IV.
Milwaukee Journal had an article today with quite a bit on Ryan Grant. The reporter interviewed a number of scouts. Its' pay material, so I won't post it, but here is an excerpt.
"Grant is doing well for them, but I don't think by any means is he a legitimate starting running back in the NFL," the personnel man said. "He's a crease runner. Runs hard in a crease and has some strength. But I think if you're going into next year saying, 'This is our guy,' I don't think many people will be scared of you."
Another personnel man who has studied almost all of Grant's games on tape also expressed reservations.
"He's probably better than I thought," the scout said. "But he's run through some giant holes. He doesn't have to face many eight-man fronts. I think Ted has to get a back."
Just something to back up the opinions that were mentioned a few pages ago. Good player, just not good enough to not have to worry about competition next season.
"Grant is doing well for them, but I don't think by any means is he a legitimate starting running back in the NFL," the personnel man said. "He's a crease runner. Runs hard in a crease and has some strength. But I think if you're going into next year saying, 'This is our guy,' I don't think many people will be scared of you."
Another personnel man who has studied almost all of Grant's games on tape also expressed reservations.
"He's probably better than I thought," the scout said. "But he's run through some giant holes. He doesn't have to face many eight-man fronts. I think Ted has to get a back."
Just something to back up the opinions that were mentioned a few pages ago. Good player, just not good enough to not have to worry about competition next season.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Dec 9 2007, 01:31 PM)
QUOTE (munchkin @ Dec 9 2007, 11:47 AM)
Since I don't like being quoted out of context I have posted the post that I was responding to. I don't see where it was referring only to Beck only.
Read the entire discussion to this point. We're talking about the value of John Beck, or a similar "30th QB in the league". Someone said that they were valuable because a lot of people have to throw up a hail mary at QB sometimes. I responded by saying that people throw up hail marys at RB, too, because RBs are more scarce than QBs. You then said that RBs were less scarce than PRODUCTIVE QBs, which is a valid point, but a completely different discussion, since we're talking about the value of a "30th QB in the league" type player, not a productive QB.
I agree with you points, but when you're talking about a rookie in the top 30, that's completely different in dynasty rankings than guys like Sage Rosenfels, Trent Green, Testaverde, etc.
QUOTE (EBF @ Nov 26 2007, 02:20 AM)
Reggie Williams is starting to make some plays for the Jaguars. More importantly, he's actually starting to flash some of the talent that made him a top 10 pick. He's made some nice catch-and-runs over the past few weeks. His speed is deceptive and he's strong enough to bounce off tackles. I always thought he was a good player in college and I always thought he'd eventually develop into a WR1 in the NFL. It's too early to move him up with the elite receivers, but a slight bump seems in order. He probably belongs somewhere in your fifth tier IMO.
Reggie's TD today reinforced what I've seen from him lately. The light seems to be going on and he's starting to become exactly the receiver everyone thought he would be coming out of Washington. He caught a slant over the middle and made a nice play to bounce off a tackle and take it into the end zone.
You can check the play out here:
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d804ee8be
I'm liking Williams more and more each week. I don't think he has superstar potential, but he's a big target who can make some things happen after the catch with his athleticism and running strength. I think he has a chance to maybe become a Moulds or Cotchery type player.
At this point I think his value is similar to that of the guys in your fifth tier.
Lets talk Tony Romo and his dynasty value. I dont own him in any dynasty leagues, but was considering making a move for him, in one league in particular where i have a strong deep team at every postion other than QB(Eli and Lienart).
He is obvously a top 3 dynasty QB right now, and would cost quite a bit. My biggest issue with him is his value after TO is gone. I cant see him throwing 35+ TD's with a WR corps led by Patrick Crayton.
I guess the bigger question is what QB's are potential top 5 going into next year, without the price tag of a Brady, Manning, Romo?
He is obvously a top 3 dynasty QB right now, and would cost quite a bit. My biggest issue with him is his value after TO is gone. I cant see him throwing 35+ TD's with a WR corps led by Patrick Crayton.
I guess the bigger question is what QB's are potential top 5 going into next year, without the price tag of a Brady, Manning, Romo?
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Nov 29 2007, 12:11 AM)
Well in the spirit of the last post, I am going to go out on a limb and throw in a players name that is not even ranked....
Robert Royal.
He seems to have a good hands and is a huge target. I noticed that Edwards hit him pretty often in the games he played.
With Edwards back we might find that he warrants ranking in a few weeks....
Robert Royal.
He seems to have a good hands and is a huge target. I noticed that Edwards hit him pretty often in the games he played.
With Edwards back we might find that he warrants ranking in a few weeks....
haha... I thought Edwards liked him, but I wasn't expecting this...
Still, he merit a rank somewhere with the rookie looking at him.
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 11 2007, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Nov 29 2007, 12:11 AM)
Well in the spirit of the last post, I am going to go out on a limb and throw in a players name that is not even ranked....
Robert Royal.
He seems to have a good hands and is a huge target. I noticed that Edwards hit him pretty often in the games he played.
With Edwards back we might find that he warrants ranking in a few weeks....
Robert Royal.
He seems to have a good hands and is a huge target. I noticed that Edwards hit him pretty often in the games he played.
With Edwards back we might find that he warrants ranking in a few weeks....
haha... I thought Edwards liked him, ubt I wasn't expecting this...
Still, he merit a rank somewhere with the rookie looking at him.
Good call, i agree he should get a boost with Edwards starting. However, the guy drops as many passes as he catches, so i think his ceiling is limited.
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Dec 11 2007, 08:25 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Dec 11 2007, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE (benm3218 @ Nov 29 2007, 12:11 AM)
Well in the spirit of the last post, I am going to go out on a limb and throw in a players name that is not even ranked....
Robert Royal.
He seems to have a good hands and is a huge target. I noticed that Edwards hit him pretty often in the games he played.
With Edwards back we might find that he warrants ranking in a few weeks....
Robert Royal.
He seems to have a good hands and is a huge target. I noticed that Edwards hit him pretty often in the games he played.
With Edwards back we might find that he warrants ranking in a few weeks....
haha... I thought Edwards liked him, ubt I wasn't expecting this...
Still, he merit a rank somewhere with the rookie looking at him.
Good call, i agree he should get a boost with Edwards starting. However, the guy drops as many passes as he catches, so i think his ceiling is limited.
TO drops a lot of passes. Of course I am not comparing Royal to TO but if for some reason Edwards and the coaching staff is willing to take throw to a guy who gets open a lot but bumbles a few then that may increase his value.
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment