Ray_T

you are right. of course I have to think that if you put millions of dollars into the hands of a 22 year old kid, this is sometimes the end result. Especially when the kid comes from a background where they have never seen this kinda cash before. It's a bit of a culture shock I"m sure. I honestly dont even know what kind of thing to suggest to fix it. It just happens sometimes and I doubt any well meaning person can stop it from happening.

I do think it may actually be better for Hydes career to play elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that a team wouldnt give up a late round pick to get a guy like him, so I'd be really surprised if he was actually cut. I think a trade is far more likely.

well, I drafted him reasonably early in one of my drafts last year. as a result, my WR's were not quite as good as they normally are. One guy asked me how I'm higher in the standings than him. his RB's are equal to mine and his WR's are better than mine. My QB was a bit better than his QB but he didnt think that would be enough to overcome my shortcomings at WR. I told him, I have a TE that puts up points like a WR. That's what makes the difference. Thats when the light went on for him.

If the Giants are defending a lead in the 4th quarter, the Run% will go up in a huge way. lots of times in the last 2 years, the Giants were playing from behind in the 4th quarter (which meant the run game mostly disappeared) so I think if this is the situation, the Giants RB's will receive much of the benefit. I like perkins as an RB2.

Hey guys, one thing I do often like to do is to compare different fantasy websites. I like to get more than one opinion on most things and I really enjoy a good debate regarding certain players. one of the things I also like to do is I like to compare rankings of competing websites. now, I dont go to websites and promote or give exposure to other websites (its just bad manners) so I will refer to the website I used as 'Website A' there are many ways to use this kind of analysis, but I use it to identify potential areas of research. so for example: FFtoday ranks Gore and Powell at #15 and #16 respectively. Website A ranks them at 34 and 33 Respectively. now it does not surprise me to see a wide range of values surrounding Gore due largely to his age. clearly fftoday thinks he has one good year left and website A does not. Powell is listed behind Forte on the team depth chart, but clearly this is a case where it is possible that Powell is going to replace Forte at some point during the season. so both websites differ on when this is likely to happen. the interesting thing about these analysis is that the issues are largely the same. In one case, fftoday thinks gore (the old guy) has one more year left, but thinks Forte does not. Now I am not doing this to say one website is right and one is wrong. the purpose of this exercise is to identify areas where additional research may be warranted or areas where there may be significant risk with the player. another example: Perkins is ranked #14 by fftoday. Website A ranks him at #31. clearly fftoday thinks he is a high end RB2 and Website A thinks he's a middling RB3. Interestingly enough both websites think he will lead his team in rushing. when you see a difference this large, thats not often the case. This is an area that may be worthy of more research. My belief is that Perkins will be the starter, and generally I like starting RB's on teams that I think will have a win percentage that is better than .500. While I think a ranking of #14 may be overly optomistic, I dont think its far from where I would rank him. I think he will definitely be a RB2 if he remains healthy and based on the info I have found I think he's probably should be in the top 24 RB's. I'm still doing more research and will watch the camp reports with great interest, and will adjust my ranking on this guy based on what I find out. There are other examples, and I generally recommend using 2-3 sources. when I see large differences in rankings, I usually try to find out why. It allows me to better understand the risks associated with drafting the player in question, and I think this type of analysis has made me a better fantasy footballer.

He reminds me of Gonzales in the way that he is the focal point of the offense. Lots of the plays are designed to get the ball into his hands. that being said, he is a surefire top 3 TE. Most consider him the second best (next to Gronk) but I actually prefer him to Gronk because there is not the risk of injury that comes with a player like Gronk. for sure he is the safest TE pick you could make (if you were gonna pick a TE early)

I predicted this last year, but he underwhelmed. That's not to say he doesnt have a chance. I'm just not as high on him as I was this time last year.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000821141/article/lions-president-megatron-rift-will-work-out-ultimately he's been invited to camp. Not sure if we should get our hopes up... but it's an interesting story.

wow, I was never aware of that. of course nobody thought much of his being drafted at the time because everyone figured he'd be Gio's backup and it was barely newsworthy. If he's difficult in the dressing room, then this could mean he gets the axe sooner rather than later. Personally, knowing what I know now, I'd rather have Mixon than Hill.

I think it's generally a good rule that a starter (even a low end starter) is usually better to own than a backup. If you have to pay a high price for a handcuff, then it defeats the purpose of getting a handcuff. A handcuff is a low cost, late round (or late auction) player you can get on the cheap to protect you against an injury to one of your starters. the key word would be cheap. If I have David Johnston (and I do in some of my leagues) I am not gonna pay a high price for CJ2K no matter how much I like him. he's someone I grab in the last or second last round of the draft or (if someone else gets him) I wait to grab him from the wire when bye weeks and injuries take their toll on everyones roster. If I need to pay a 4th or 5th round pick for him, I'll look elsewhere for a RB thank you very much.

Agreed. He will get one series each half. Maybe two. No more than 10-12 carries per game.

for redraft that's way high. Keeper leagues are maybe another matter, because there is potentially more future value to a guy like him.

Yeah, the line does not excite me.... that's for sure. and I'd be surprised if they didnt address this issue in next year's draft. I suspect they wanted to tackle the issue this year, but felt the talent was too strong in other areas to ignore. That's fine, but you should not expect a top year from anyone in that offense.

I was not questioning the picking of Rodgers. I was questioning the picking of the second QB in round 2 in that scenario. To be Frank, given what is likely left at the end of round 2, I'd say that unless you are drafting late in the first half of round 1 you may be better off drafting a QB in round 1 and 3 with a top WR or RB in round 2 as compared to QB-QB.

I see what you are saying. a dominant player is a dominant player. but this kind of info is more useful for those questionable players. case in point Cecil Shorts. solid receiver, and there was one year, where based strictly on stats, he was a high end #2 WR. But the reality is he was a garbage time champ. Really good at finding the soft spot in the zone and made a lot of fantasy owners very happy in the second half of the fourth Quarter. His red zone numbers were not great because lots of teams would switch from zone to man in the red zone and this type of stat tells you that he's not as good a WR as the numbers that year indicated. And truth be told, he was not able to duplicate those numbers and was never much more than a WR3 after that. My rationale is that it is tougher to make plays in the red zone because the field is shorter and there are more defenders per square foot of playing field. While there are many ways to use this data, one thing the red zone stats tell us is who has the ability to overcome these obstacles. sometimes it's a good way to tell if a WR is likely to break out or if he has hit his peak statistically.

okay, but here is the situation. If you are getting Aaron Rodgers, chances are, you used a top 3 pick to get him. Meaning you will be spending a bottom 3 pick in round 2 to potentially acquire another QB.(assuming this is a snake draft) Keeping that in mind, you have to ask yourself, how many of the teams out there go QB-QB? or further to that.... how many dont? Going on the assumption that a handful of teams grab a non QB with one of their first 2 picks, you are looking at: Eli Bortles Tyrod Palmer Bradford Flacco Dak Prescott Glennon some of these names will be left, some wont. If I'm picking near the bottom of round 2 why wouldnt you just take the top RB or WR off the board and take a QB near the top of round 3?

I hadn't heard about this. Are there any links out there? or is this mostly rumour?

It is a tough call. I suspect training camp may answer some of the questions I have. but I think the right value would be a middling RB2 if Gio cannot start the season and a low end RB2 if he can. of course there is RB1 upside in both scenarios, but the potential to be part of a 3 headed committee is hard to ignore so you cannot value him THAT high.

Well, it is a nice read. and the info is helpful to those who know how to use it.

That depends. This is a scenario where the old guy will produce more than the young guy for at least 1-2 years. so if this deal puts you over the top in terms of your quest to win a championship, you make it knowing that your future may be somewhat compromised.

Pertinent league rules/scoring are below: Best ball - Your best lineup is automatically started, no setting lineups each week. Start: 1qb 1rb 1wr 1te 1 superflex (qb/rb/wr/te) 5 normal flex (rb/wr/te) No kicker, no def This was cut from the original post. I didnt really question it and I assumed 1 QB was scored only. so it would appear our differences are not as a result of a difference of opinion, but interpretation of the original posting.

No. Even if the D is top 5, if the offense cannot stay on the field, the D will wear down and give up points late in games (or when the offense turns the ball over) I think I said earlier that they need one more playmaker to truly be a good D as well. Garrett is a beast, but one guy will not make all of the difference.

There is no doubt that 6 point TD's make QB's more valuable. but in a best ball format your #1 QB should be the QB scoring points for you in at least 80% of the games. your #2 QB will be an asset in a handful of games where your #1 QB does poorly or where your #2 lights it up. there is still more value in grabbing a #1 RB or WR who gives you an advantage at that position as compared to a backup QB who helps you some of the time. I still stand by my statement that you shouldnt go QB-QB unless you are starting 2 QB. You can do differently if you want, but if you have a top end #1 QB (say Aaron Rodgers) you can wait on your second QB because that QB will really only impact your team if Rodgers gets hurt or for that one week Rodgers does not play his best.

well, there is no doubt he's getting to the point where age is going to be a factor in the next 2-3 years. It does help having a top notch QB tossing him the ball. Personally, I think he has one more year at the top, and then we will start to see a decline. Whether that decline is sharp or mild remains to be seen, The fact the Pack didnt draft anyone until round 5 says to me they agree with this. but it would not surprise me if they draft somebody in next year's draft. As for Jordy.... if you dont think your team is competitive enough to win this year, you should look at possibly unloading him while the price is good. I still expect he will have good value next year, but he will be a year older and people will naturally not be willing to pay the same price for him. Your best return is now if you plan to trade him.

The only time you should ever even Think about going QB-QB with your first 2 picks is where you actually start 2 QB In a best ball league, it's just like redraft except that there is added value in your backup QB because of the best ball format. so a QB who is somewhat stable with a decent ceiling (ie. high upside) is your ideal second QB. as for the first QB, the value is roughly the same as in redraft.