Sons of the Tundra: Dynasty Rankings: Quote of the Day | August 18, 2008: One of the Easily Overlooked Strengths

Welcome to the "Original" Dynasty Rankings Fantasy Football Blog

This blog was born out of a Dynasty Rankings thread originally begun in October, 2006 at the Footballguys.com message boards. The rankings in that thread and the ensuing wall-to-wall discussion of player values and dynasty league strategy took on a life of its own at over 275 pages and 700,000 page views. The result is what you see in the sidebar under "Updated Positional Rankings": a comprehensive ranking of dynasty league fantasy football players by position on a tiered, weighted scale. In the tradition of the original footballguys.com Dynasty Rankings thread, intelligent debate is welcome and encouraged.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Quote of the Day | August 18, 2008: One of the Easily Overlooked Strengths

Michael MacCambridge's 2004 America's Game: The Epic Story of How Pro Football Captured a Nation:

With the growth of sports on television came the accompanying growth of the sports schedule. Competing leagues and sports had spread their tentacles into an all-consuming, overlapping mass in which major sports events were held virtually every day of the year. With more than 120 major sports franchises, 117 Division I-A college football teams, and 327 Division I college basketball teams, the calendar was clogged with an unending torrent of games, broadcasts, results, and previews. Along the way, the notion of sports as an oasis was often lost.

Against this context of constant activity, one of the NFL's great appeals was the built-in scarcity and compression of its action. In the space of six hours on most fall Sundays, fans could watch their own games and monitor almost all of the rest of that week's action, with only a single Sunday and Monday primetime game left. The action was immediate, surroundable, coherent and all the more exciting because, with so few games on the schedule, each one was of greater importance (the result of a single pro football game carried the same competitive weight as ten baseball games).

This was one of the easily overlooked strengths of the league, and perfectly complemented the exclusivity of its playoff structure. The two were interlinked, as the limited number of playoff spots invested almost every regular season game with tangible importance. For decades, there had been a tendency in all sports to increase the playoff field to maximize postseason revenue (more teams led to more games led to more money), and to keep more teams' fans interested throughout the season. The downside, as the NBA and NHL had learned in recent years, was that when every quality team was assured of a playoff spot, individual regular season games often held scant meaning. In basketball and hockey, the entire regular season served as little more than a very long and drawn-out qualifying head that would eliminate less than half the league's teams for the winner-take-all playoffs. In the NFL, where home field was more important than any other sport, the advantages that accrued to playoff teams were both valuable and clearly graduated, meaning even after a playoff berth was clinched, teams had compelling reasons to keep winning to improve their seed.

Tags: Michael MacCambridge, America's Game

No comments:

Post a Comment

Tybee Island Softball League Standings

FALL LEAGUE 2007:
1. Huc-a-Poos, 9-0
2. AJs/Tybee Time, 7-2
3. JailBirds, 5-4
4. Coast Guard, 5-4
5. Crab Shack, 2-7
6. Breakfast Club, 0-9

SPRING/SUMMER LEAGUE 2008:
1. Huc-a-Poos, 14-1
2. Tybee Time / A.J.'s, 9-4
3. Sting Rays, 9-5
4. JailBirds, 8-7
5. Crab Shack, 7-8
6. Coast Guard, 6-8
7. *Cafe Loco, 3-6
8. Breakfast Club, 0-14

FALL LEAGUE 2008:
1. Huc-a-Poos, 8-2
2. Tybee Time/A.J.'s, 7-3
3. Jailbirds, 5-4
4. Coast Guard, 4-5
5. Sting Rays, 3-6
6. Crab Shack, 1-8

SPRING/SUMMER LEAGUE 2009:
1. Coast Guard, 8-2
2. Huc-a-Poos, 6-4
3. Cafe Loco, 5-5
4. Sting Ray's, 4-6
5. Jail Birds, 3-7
6. Fannies, 0-10

FALL LEAGUE 2009:
1. Sting Ray's, 7-1
2. Huc-a-Poos, 5-3
3. JailBirds, 4-4
4. Cafe Loco, 4-4
5. Coast Guard, 2-6
6. Fannies, 1-7

Congratulations, Huc-a-Poos! Back-to-back-to-back champions 2007-2008, tourney champs 2009.

Chat Box Q & A

I'm going to try to reserve this space for questions and answers from the chat box. There are a lot of times when I'm not online that people leave me chat questions, and I have no way of getting back to them because they're gone by the time I log in.

8/14/08
Q: How do you estimate the carries will be broken up in titans backfield? Lendale- 230/ C.Johnson- 120/ Henry- 45

A: I'll be honest with you -- I dislike projections. I think they lead to an overly conservative approach to the draft. Gregg Rosenthal and I have been going back and forth on this exact issue all week: Chris Johnson, LenDale White, and their projections. We already have 2 bets on the subject and may soon have a third.

Here's why I don't like projecting the Titans backfield: because nobody knows yet just how good Chris Johnson is. I think there is very little chance that Johnson does NOT become one of the stories of the early NFL season. He's going to have well publicized moments where he "arrives" similar to Adrian Peterson last season. He also shares the similarity with Peterson that the people doing projections were overly conservative because projections always reward veterans and past workloads and, by nature, cannot measure the impact of a rookie difference maker. Like Peterson with the Vikes, it's going to be hard to keep Chris Johnson off the field . . . and Chester Taylor is a better player than LenDale White.

Gregg brought up the Fred Taylor / MJD usage comparison in today's rotoworld blurb. That could be a good benchmark, with one exception: LenDale White is not nearly as good as Fred Taylor was last season . . . nor does he have the hard-earned respect of Taylor's 10 seasons in the league. The result is that LenDale could be easier to nudge to the side. Now I'm not saying LenDale will be left out of the game plan, but I am saying that Johnson will have much more of an impact on the offense than LenDale will.

If I had to peg an exact number for projections, I'd use the Jags as a baseline. Probably LenDale at 210 carries, Chris Johnson 180 carries, and Chris Henry negligible. Now that doesn't include receptions, of which I expect Chris Johnson to garner plenty, perhaps 60 or so.

FYI, I just checked out Gregg Rosenthal's "AFC Projected Carries" article from this afternoon. I'm starting to make some headway on Rotoworld's foot-dragging re: the Johnson/LenDale White issue:

Coach: Jeff Fisher| Average Rushes/Year: 405
Projected 2008 Carries: 415

In a constantly evolving NFL, it's nice to know we can count on two things from Jeff Fisher, decade after decade: Awesome facial hair and a smashmouth offense. Those trends should continue, especially with another high pick in the backfield and maulers on the line.

LenDale White: 245
Chris Johnson: 145
Chris Henry: 25

With Chris Wesseling leading the way, we have admittedly caught Chris Johnson fever. White was projected for close to 300 carries, but the workload has evened out. Once you factor in receptions, we see White and Johnson having close to the same total yardage. White still remains the heavy favorite, however, to lead the team in carries and touchdowns. We doubt Johnson will be asked to carry the ball 20 times as a rookie. With a nasty offensive line hitting their prime, both backs could excel ala Jacksonville. Both look undervalued.

Gregg is still too conservative, but at least he's listening. He just hasn't realized yet that Chris Johnson will take the league by storm. . . .

8/14/08
Q: when you do value rankings, does that translate across positions?

A: No, they don't translate across position. I just don't think it's possible with the huge variation in league rules, scoring systems, roster sizes, etc. But mostly, it's the dramatic difference in scoring systems that makes it sketchy.

In the FAQ at the top of the blog, you can find my answer to the same question from last season. Here it is:

These numbers are not intended as a trade guide across positions. If they do happen to serve that purpose for some owners who find a beneficial way to tinker with the numbers, that's a bonus. I probably wasn't all that clear in my intentions, but I think this quote sums up the problems with an overall ranking vs. a positional ranking:

"Until we all start playing by the same rules and scoring systems, I think an overall ranking with a built-in trade value scale for dynasty leagues would be next to impossible. I imagine I could take a stab at it if I had to, but there's really no incentive to put even more time and effort into something that probably wouldn't be all that useful."

9/5/08
Q: Chris, why do you think Andre Johnson is widely considered better for fantasy than Anquan Boldin, both in Dynasty and re-draft leagues? They are both through 5 years in the league, Boldin is 9 months older. Boldin has played in 2 fewer games (they have both had some injury issues) and scored 100 more fantasy points than Johnson over that time (non-PPR). Yet everyone goes nuts about Andre Johnson and always points to Boldin's injuries.

A: Good question, but let me start by saying that I think you're concentrating too much on numbers and not enough on situation.

They're both dominant physical talents, but for me the answer is that Andre Johnson is a among the three or four most dominant talents at the position and has clearly been held back by David Carr and the Texans' offense throughout his early career. You saw last year what a healthy Andre Johnson could do with a legit QB. He couldn't be stopped. My goal in both Dynasty and re-draft is to acquire unstoppable monsters who give me an advantage over every other team in the league. Johnson, hindered by injury in the second half of the season, finished with the 3rd highest PPG behind only Randy Moss and T.O.

And let's face it: Andre Johnson is the #1 option in the Texans offense. Boldin isn't even the Cardinals best receiver. You can give me Andre Johnson over Anquan Boldin, and I don't think it's even close.

10/21/08
Q: Why on earth is Ronnie Brown ranked ahead of Clinton Portis? Portis while one year older, is less injury prone, with a history of consistent production. I'll hang up and listen.

A: I think this is the week that Portis gets a considerable bump, but here's the reasoning:

Portis' homerun ability is gone, his YPC has dwindled (until this season), he isn't doing much in the receiving game, and his heavy career workload -- combined with his pace of 370+ carries this season-- doesn't bode well for future value.

Ronnie Brown was the No. 1 fantasy back in the NFL last season before suffering the injury. As we've also seen with Phil Rivers and Carlos Rodgers this season, ACL surgeries just aren't a big deal anymore. Ronnie Brown is very close physically to where he was pre-injury.

Furthermore, as of Oct. 9, Ronnie Brown was leading all NFL RBs in touchdown per game since the beginning of the 2007 season. In that same time span, he was also 2nd to Brian Westbrook in yards from scrimmage and third in receiving yards per game.

What I think now is that contenders have to value Portis more for the 2008 season, but Brown has a significant advantage in post-2008 value considering Portis' troublesome workload.

10/28/08
Q: Ok I know you clearly hate Tubwhale but really come on you have him behind Jamall Charles, Derrick Ward, Thomas Jones, Ahman Bradshaw, etc?!?! He has 10 td's in 7 games and is 23 years old. Yes he doesn't look like he'll ever be a feature back but has become the best goaline back in football. These other backs are backups and 3rd stringers with the exception of Jones who just isn't very good and wayy too old. Time to give Bakesale some love...

A: We've talked about LandWhale quite a bit in the past week over on the FBG message boards, so I'm going to do some copying and pasting. But first, let me state what I thought was obvious but may not be: if you play in a TD-heavy league, make the adjustment up; if you play in a flex league instead of 2-RB league, White's value would also be higher.

OK, on to the list of reasons for BakeSale's low Dynasty ranking:

- I don't think it's clear at all that LenDale will have the same role next year . . . just as I didn't think it was clear this year that he would have the same role as last year.

- I definitely see LenDale's role being decreased in the future. As it is now, he's getting extremely lucky and piggybacking off of Chris Johnson's talent. His carries are too inconsistent, and as has been pointed out, he's useless against defenses that aren't awful. He's not a guy who will get the ball 15 times per game reliably. He may get the ball 12-15 times per game this season against crappy defenses, but the better the opponent the less you'll see of FatDale.

- We've been over this time and time again, but LenDale White is probably the one RB in the league most dependent on his team's defense staying dominant. If the defense suffers a key injury or if Haynesworth leaves in free agency, LenDale won't get off the pine. He has two roles basically: most important is to stick his head in there and pound the ball when his team has a lead, so they can control the game. The other role is goal-line, and as we've seen, that role is no sure thing. Johnson will take some of the goal-line work, and he's going to keep taking more and more of the touches.

- Yardage is a better predictor of future value than are TDs. We all know this by now, right? Except for elite superstars, touchdowns are fickle from year-to-year. Now throw in the fact that LenDale's TDs have little to do with any inherent talent on LenDale's part and are largely a product of the rest of the offense (especially Johnson) getting him in position to score.

- I don't see any reason to believe that LenDale has any stable value in Dynasty leagues. He's basically a T.J. Duckett type of back wishing he could be Mike Alstott.

- I'll even go this far: Owners who win in Dynasty leagues would never be interested in LenDale White. Winning owners can see the writing on the wall and know that LenDale will not be a stable investment. You may be able to throw him in a game here and there this year and stay afloat, but you will lose more often than not with LenDale White in your starting lineup on a weekly basis.

- I think we need to gauge his value going forward as opposed to concentrating on the TDs he vultured in the first seven weeks. I don't believe he's going to be a big help as a RB3 the rest of the way because I don't believe he's going to keep getting in the end zone with that much frequency. And I'm not interested in gambling on a guy whose only value is in converting a goal-line carry if he gets one that week.

- Here's how I would sum up LenDale White's Dynasty value:

A lot of us can agree that a back like Joseph Addai is a more of a top tier guy who derives a large portion of his value from situation. He's a talented back, sure, but the fact that he's a talented back in an offense like the Colts' lends him considerably more value than his talent alone would on many other teams.

We might say, hypothetically, that Addai's Dynasty value is 60% situation and 40% talent . . . which would be on the high end of the situation scale for a RB. Now where would you put LenDale White's Dynasy value on the same scale?

Situation - 99%, Talent - 1%
Situation - 95%, Talent - 5%?
Situation - 75%, Talent - 25%?
Situation - 65%, Talent - 35%

I think it's probably in the 90-95% situation range.

11/15/08
Q: Ok i have agreed with you on Steven Jackson's potential as the #2 RB. However after a 2nd season of significant nagging injuries, a bad line, ? at QB, and overall bad team- are you starting to sour on him a bit? Wondering if i should shop him while still has value...

A: Timely question. I'm not souring at all, but then again I've always been a firm believer in his elite talent. The time is ripe for buying not for selling. Who would you rather have as the No. 2 that has no question marks whatsoever? There's nobody.

1/4/09
Q: chris, i agree with most of your rankings within reason...i really dont understand how steven jacksons future value hasnt changed though... the guy looks to be on a bad team for the forseeable future, has shown that he has injury problems and is probably about to lose orlando pace and torry holt this year...i think guys like forte, chris johnson, turner and deangelo should all be well ahead of him...i consider SJAX a good RB2 at this point

A: Trying to ascertain which running backs suffer fluke injuries and which running backs are wearing down physically to the point where they're injury prone is certainly an inexact science. I personally believe S-Jax's recent injuries -- like those of Adrian Peterson in college -- are of the fluke variety and do not make him injury prone going forward. Someone like Clinton Portis, on the other hand, seems like a guy who is wearing down due to a heavy workload. So we're obviously looking at S-Jax's injury history from different angles. It doesn't bother me when I look at his future value, but I can see how it might be disconcerting to someone who doesn't think as highly of him.

As we see every year, running back is a position where a stud can produce outstanding fantasy numbers in a poor offense. Witness the first half of Walter Payton's career. Look at what Ronnie Brown was doing with Miami before suffering his torn ACL in 2007. Better yet, consider that S-Jax finished third among all running backs in FFToday's points per game stats this season. That's right -- in a down season, S-Jax finished third! In a season where there wasn't much that went right for S-Jax or the Rams offense, we might call his third place finish his floor. Perhaps his floor is actually closer to Top-10 in PPG if a plague hits the entire offense, but that's a fantastic sign for S-Jax owners.

To quote Lott's Fingertip on the FBG message boards, "injuries at the RB position are very common, so you have to get the guy that scores the most when he does play." There are no running backs in the NFL that are safe from injury, but S-Jax's high ceiling and high floor when he does play make him a top tier back.

Most importantly, Steven Jackson is an elite talent. His situation at the end of the 2008 is similar to MJD and Calvin Johnson toward the end of 2007 or Andre Johnson back when he had David Carr as a QB. True studs have to be ranked highly even when their situations are far form ideal because true studs are too tough to find.

1/22/09
Q: How do you feel about Matt Hasselbeck as a slamdunk buy-low? Write-off 2008 as it was a disaster but the year before he had 28tds vs 12ints. Entire Offense should be healthier this year and the Hawks are likely to take either an OT or Michael Crabtree at #4 overall. Imagine adding a Calvin Johnson-type WR to the seahawks offense of '07....potential 30 td passes?

A: I don't see Hasselbeck as a slam dunk at all. He's 34-years-old with a back problem, his receivers are subpar, he just lost the only head coach/playcaller he's ever had, his HOF left tackle is nearing the end of the line, and his new offensive coordinator is known for a run-heavy system. Crabtree may be a great prospect, but he's no Calvin Johnson ... and he's certainly no lock to land in Seattle. I'd be cooling my jets on Hasselbeck. A slight bounceback in '09? Sure. Potential for 30 TDs in '09? Not bloody likely.

1/30/09
Q: Seems to be lots of talk about Jamarcus Russell being a bust already. However remember that '07 was basically a lost yr due to his holdout so last year was really his rookie yr and he had a 13 td's vs 8 int's with an 88.6 passer rating over final 6 games. Now he was able to do this with the worst group of WR's in the league (by far) and a bad offensive line. At #7 overall they are likely to add a WR or OT and hopefully can add more in FA. Isn't it a little early to be writing this guy off as his contract at least will have him with the raiders for the next 3 years minimum?

A: I agree with your premise that it's too early to write off JaMarcus Russell, but I'm not a huge fan of taking the final 6 games of the season as "proof" that a young quarterback is on the rise. I've seen too many guys trying to extrapolate a strong finish and turning that into a QB with a bright future . . . only to end up with a J.P. Losman or Kyle Boller as their starting QBs. I do like Russell's late-season "success," but I'm leery of putting too much stock in it.

Re: writing him off as a bust, I saw a couple of NFL Network guys (I know Baldinger was one) confidently labeling him a bust at mid-season. I personally believe his footwork was as poor as I've seen from a young QB and his decision making was almost as bad. I didn't get a chance to watch him toward the end of the season, but I can only guess he improved on that.

So to answer your question: yes, I believe it's too early to write him off. But I'm not as high on his future with the Raiders as you appear to be.

Welcome to the "Original" Dynasty Rankings Fantasy Football Blog

Monday, August 18, 2008

Quote of the Day | August 18, 2008: One of the Easily Overlooked Strengths

No comments:

A Fan's Notes

Rotoworld

Twitter Feed

Categories

Blog Archive