Melvin Gordon value

[StableOfRBs]

For those saying his ADP is overhyped, who are you taking ahead of him? He's currently RB4. The only other RBs that I can think of being in the conversation would be Freeman and Howard. If you're knocking Gordon for his ypc, then Gurley shouldn't be in the conversation, so I'm leaving him out. Other than those two RBs, there's no one else I'd rather have. Rookies are still question marks and there's a possibility that one or two of them pass him in ADP next year, but more so because they'll become studs and not because Gordon will suck. After the top rookies in ADP, it's a bunch of older vets, unproven players, and nothing else special. So even if his ADP of RB4 is hyped, at worst he's the RB6 in my book. You can throw out all the stats you want, but there's just no better option at this point once you get past the top 6 RBs.

Just to be clear, my issue isn't so much his ADP, but his valuation. While he probably belongs at the top based on age and touches, I wouldn't be comfortable trading for or drafting him at his price. I'd trade away for a RB "downgrade", or pass on drafting him entirely.

That said, the first two RBs I'd take over him I can think of would be Freeman and Ajayi. I would prefer either to Gordon.

I would definitely take Gurley over Gordon. That to me is a straight talent decision, even if Gurley's situation seems so bad right now. I think they're both young enough to take their college careers into account. Gordon had questions about his pro career that he hasn't dispelled in 2 years. One good year doesn't delete all the questions. Gurley was a stud prospect. I'll give him a half-way pass for being in such a bad situation last year.

After that, it gets tougher. Howard is interesting because he was so productive in a much worse situation. Here, I'd go Gordon, but I wouldn't be happy.

Right about here where I'd be comfortable slotting him. After this, there's either too much risk, too much age, or both.

Well compared to Gordon and Gurley, Howard had a better OL (Rams were ranked 27th, the Chargers 31st, and the Bears 15th per PFF) and Howard's strength of schedule last year was 6th easiest in the NFL per NFL.com so Howard was easily in the best situation of the 3 RBs here so he should, and did, out produce the other two (although had Gordon played 16 games he would've topped Howard by 250 total yards and 9 total TDs) so for me it's a little more difficult to gauge who is better talent-wise give how much better his situation was than either Gordon or Gurley

As for deciding between Gurley and Gordon, who were in similar situations last year in regards to OL and strength of schedule (Chargers 17th easiest, Rams tied for 19th easiest), had no competition in their respective backfields, both taken in the 1st round of the same draft so we can look at the two as very similar backs in very similar situations

Using 70 yards as a baseline for "good" RB production because that adds up to a little over 1000 rushing yards by the end of the season, ignoring week 17 since most leagues don't count it, and 1000 yards is generally accepted as the unofficial benchmark for a productive season
2015:
Gurley had 5 100+ rushing yard games and 5 games under 70 rushing yards (ignoring week 3 because he was still being worked into the offense)
Gordon had 0 100+ rushing yard games and and only 1 game OVER 70 rushing yards

2016:
Gurley has 0 100+ rushing yard games and 13 games under 70 rushing yards despite playing out an entire healthy season
Gordon has 3 100+ rushing yard games and 5 games under 70 rushing yards (ignoring week 14 because he didn't even finish the 1st quarter)

I'm only looking at rushing yards here and not total yards because in both years Gordon had more receptions and receiving yards than Gurley and I doubt that will improve for Gurley this year since the Rams went out and traded for Lance Dunbar, the receiving back for the Cowboys, and have come out and specifically said they want to limit Gurley's usage in the passing game

Because of the difference in receiving ability I think Gordon is likely to out produce Gurley for the next couple years, ceteris paribus, but I'd have Gurley ahead of Gordon by a spot in dynasty startups simply because of the 2 year age difference, that being said choosing between either Gurley or Gordon as the RB4 or 5 isn't likely to effect your team too much

[dm1129]

Well compared to Gordon and Gurley, Howard had a better OL (Rams were ranked 27th, the Chargers 31st, and the Bears 15th per PFF) and Howard's strength of schedule last year was 6th easiest in the NFL per NFL.com so Howard was easily in the best situation of the 3 RBs here so he should, and did, out produce the other two (although had Gordon played 16 games he would've topped Howard by 250 total yards and 9 total TDs) so for me it's a little more difficult to gauge who is better talent-wise give how much better his situation was than either Gordon or Gurley

As for deciding between Gurley and Gordon, who were in similar situations last year in regards to OL and strength of schedule (Chargers 17th easiest, Rams tied for 19th easiest), had no competition in their respective backfields, both taken in the 1st round of the same draft so we can look at the two as very similar backs in very similar situations

Using 70 yards as a baseline for "good" RB production because that adds up to a little over 1000 rushing yards by the end of the season, ignoring week 17 since most leagues don't count it, and 1000 yards is generally accepted as the unofficial benchmark for a productive season
2015:
Gurley had 5 100+ rushing yard games and 5 games under 70 rushing yards (ignoring week 3 because he was still being worked into the offense)
Gordon had 0 100+ rushing yard games and and only 1 game OVER 70 rushing yards

2016:
Gurley has 0 100+ rushing yard games and 13 games under 70 rushing yards despite playing out an entire healthy season
Gordon has 3 100+ rushing yard games and 5 games under 70 rushing yards (ignoring week 14 because he didn't even finish the 1st quarter)

I'm only looking at rushing yards here and not total yards because in both years Gordon had more receptions and receiving yards than Gurley and I doubt that will improve for Gurley this year since the Rams went out and traded for Lance Dunbar, the receiving back for the Cowboys, and have come out and specifically said they want to limit Gurley's usage in the passing game

Because of the difference in receiving ability I think Gordon is likely to out produce Gurley for the next couple years, ceteris paribus, but I'd have Gurley ahead of Gordon by a spot in dynasty startups simply because of the 2 year age difference, that being said choosing between either Gurley or Gordon as the RB4 or 5 isn't likely to effect your team too much

It's worth mentioning that the PFF grades of O-lines is for both pass and run combined. The grade of an o-line for the individual components can be very different for some teams.

[StableOfRBs]

Well compared to Gordon and Gurley, Howard had a better OL (Rams were ranked 27th, the Chargers 31st, and the Bears 15th per PFF) and Howard's strength of schedule last year was 6th easiest in the NFL per NFL.com so Howard was easily in the best situation of the 3 RBs here so he should, and did, out produce the other two (although had Gordon played 16 games he would've topped Howard by 250 total yards and 9 total TDs) so for me it's a little more difficult to gauge who is better talent-wise give how much better his situation was than either Gordon or Gurley

As for deciding between Gurley and Gordon, who were in similar situations last year in regards to OL and strength of schedule (Chargers 17th easiest, Rams tied for 19th easiest), had no competition in their respective backfields, both taken in the 1st round of the same draft so we can look at the two as very similar backs in very similar situations

Using 70 yards as a baseline for "good" RB production because that adds up to a little over 1000 rushing yards by the end of the season, ignoring week 17 since most leagues don't count it, and 1000 yards is generally accepted as the unofficial benchmark for a productive season
2015:
Gurley had 5 100+ rushing yard games and 5 games under 70 rushing yards (ignoring week 3 because he was still being worked into the offense)
Gordon had 0 100+ rushing yard games and and only 1 game OVER 70 rushing yards

2016:
Gurley has 0 100+ rushing yard games and 13 games under 70 rushing yards despite playing out an entire healthy season
Gordon has 3 100+ rushing yard games and 5 games under 70 rushing yards (ignoring week 14 because he didn't even finish the 1st quarter)

I'm only looking at rushing yards here and not total yards because in both years Gordon had more receptions and receiving yards than Gurley and I doubt that will improve for Gurley this year since the Rams went out and traded for Lance Dunbar, the receiving back for the Cowboys, and have come out and specifically said they want to limit Gurley's usage in the passing game

Because of the difference in receiving ability I think Gordon is likely to out produce Gurley for the next couple years, ceteris paribus, but I'd have Gurley ahead of Gordon by a spot in dynasty startups simply because of the 2 year age difference, that being said choosing between either Gurley or Gordon as the RB4 or 5 isn't likely to effect your team too much

It's worth mentioning that the PFF grades of O-lines is for both pass and run combined. The grade of an o-line for the individual components can be very different for some teams.

True, Football Outsiders did a full ranking of all the OLs in terms of run blocking http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol and while the Chargers graded out a bit better than on PFFs site (23rd vs. 31st) their ability to block at the second level was hot garbage (30th) and actually makes Gordon's ability to break for long runs (3rd highest % of rushing yards as 15+ yard carries) even more impressive and their open field ranking of 12th tells me more about Gordon than the OL since the OL's effect in the open field is minimal at best

"A team with a high ranking in Adjusted Line Yards but a low ranking in Open Field Yards is heavily dependent on its offensive line to make the running game work. A team with a low ranking in Adjusted Line Yards but a high ranking in Open Field Yards is heavily dependent on its running back breaking long runs to make the running game work." SD was ranked 23rd in ALY but 12th in Open Field Yards, Gordon actually made the line look better than they were

[austing]

I recently acquired Gordon for cam, Doug Martin, funchess and a 2018 1st and I'm ecstatic about it. It all boils down to if you are a believer in Gordon and/or the chargers offense. I have seen no info showing a decline in any category this year on offense save for a possible decline in carries with Oliver healthy and the wr core back and improved and even this should be offset by more scoring opportunities for gordon. Contrary to a decline, the beefed up oline should be the tide that lifts all boats here in my opinion and noone directly benefits as much from these acquisitions as mg.

[Sterling Archer]

Why does he have to improve it? Why can't he just maintain that?

Well, if he maintains that ranking then it's a wash, right? You sell a guy at RB5 value and he's still at RB5 after a year, it's a wash. But I'm saying the odds are like 90% he decreases in value, 7% he stays the same, 3% he improves.

Curious what you're basing this on, everyone in this thread who isn't already a fan of Gordon's seems to agree that last year was unimpressive from an efficiency standpoint and that he played poorly and was reliant on volume, so what changes have happened this year that make you think he'll be worse next year?

His volume shouldn't see any significant decrease because they made no moves to bring in anyone to share the backfield with, he's already proven to be the best back on the team either way, and his supporting cast on the offense has done nothing but improve. Even if he plays just as poorly as you seem the think he played last year, he'll do what, finish as a top 10 RB again? I just don't understand where you think he'll regress since all of his numbers are quite sustainable even if he is still "bad".

See below.

Why does he have to improve it? Why can't he just maintain that?

Well, if he maintains that ranking then it's a wash, right? You sell a guy at RB5 value and he's still at RB5 after a year, it's a wash. But I'm saying the odds are like 90% he decreases in value, 7% he stays the same, 3% he improves.

If you're selling, yes, it's a wash...assuming what you got in return maintained its' value as well. But if you're buying and paying RB5 prices and he maintains that, that's a great buy.

Also, not sure how you came up with the 90% likelihood that his value decreases. That seems very arbitrary and there's probably zero evidence to support that. However, everything the Chargers have done in the offseason would point to his value either staying the same or increasing.

It was based on hard science. There's an algorithm that requires a lot of computational power that will tell you these things if you have enough computers to run it. J/K, I thought it was obvious I was guestimating. But seriously, his value is going down almost certainly. He won't be RB5 next year. People will be fawning over rookies or someone will break out or Latavius Murray or Chris Ivory will get cut and the Cook or Fournette hype trains will become unstoppable. But the real issue is that (as I've mentioned before) Gordon's value can't survive another injury or another sub 4 ypc season. If EITHER happens, his value will plummet. I'm shocked he's not already labeled injury prone, but one more injury and people will finally connect the dots. One more <4ypc season and he's a plodder for life and will become un-trade-able. And from a dynasty perspective, I don't want anything to do with a guy with microfracture surgery. I once heard it described as similar to "removing concrete and replacing it with sand". So longevity would be an issue even if he hadn't been injured both of his first two seasons. I guess his rookie year sucked so badly that people didn't even notice when he went on the IR...

[StableOfRBs]

Well, if he maintains that ranking then it's a wash, right? You sell a guy at RB5 value and he's still at RB5 after a year, it's a wash. But I'm saying the odds are like 90% he decreases in value, 7% he stays the same, 3% he improves.

Curious what you're basing this on, everyone in this thread who isn't already a fan of Gordon's seems to agree that last year was unimpressive from an efficiency standpoint and that he played poorly and was reliant on volume, so what changes have happened this year that make you think he'll be worse next year?

His volume shouldn't see any significant decrease because they made no moves to bring in anyone to share the backfield with, he's already proven to be the best back on the team either way, and his supporting cast on the offense has done nothing but improve. Even if he plays just as poorly as you seem the think he played last year, he'll do what, finish as a top 10 RB again? I just don't understand where you think he'll regress since all of his numbers are quite sustainable even if he is still "bad".

See below.

Well, if he maintains that ranking then it's a wash, right? You sell a guy at RB5 value and he's still at RB5 after a year, it's a wash. But I'm saying the odds are like 90% he decreases in value, 7% he stays the same, 3% he improves.

If you're selling, yes, it's a wash...assuming what you got in return maintained its' value as well. But if you're buying and paying RB5 prices and he maintains that, that's a great buy.

Also, not sure how you came up with the 90% likelihood that his value decreases. That seems very arbitrary and there's probably zero evidence to support that. However, everything the Chargers have done in the offseason would point to his value either staying the same or increasing.

It was based on hard science. There's an algorithm that requires a lot of computational power that will tell you these things if you have enough computers to run it. J/K, I thought it was obvious I was guestimating. But seriously, his value is going down almost certainly. He won't be RB5 next year. People will be fawning over rookies or someone will break out or Latavius Murray or Chris Ivory will get cut and the Cook or Fournette hype trains will become unstoppable. But the real issue is that (as I've mentioned before) Gordon's value can't survive another injury or another sub 4 ypc season. If EITHER happens, his value will plummet. I'm shocked he's not already labeled injury prone, but one more injury and people will finally connect the dots. One more <4ypc season and he's a plodder for life and will become un-trade-able. And from a dynasty perspective, I don't want anything to do with a guy with microfracture surgery. I once heard it described as similar to "removing concrete and replacing it with sand". So longevity would be an issue even if he hadn't been injured both of his first two seasons. I guess his rookie year sucked so badly that people didn't even notice when he went on the IR...

I agree he would have been labeled injury prone had the injury last year been serious, as it was he was lobbying to get back on the field during the second half and the only reason they held him out for the rest of the game/season was because the Chargers had absolutely nothing to play for and didn't want something serious happening to him like Keenan Allen

And really if Gordon deserves that label then so does Le'Veon Bell who has been injured each of the last 3 seasons, 1 of them involving 2 separate ligament tears and another this past year that was bad enough to require surgery in the spring

As for the microfracture surgery the success rate is about 80% and there's a decent list of players who have come back from it and played well for several years as well as a decent list of players who haven't so I think it's really up to the players conditioning and commitment to rehab as to whether they can play well in the long term following the procedure, granted the cartilage is more fibrous than the hyaline cartilage it's replacing but it's still better than nothing and the knee wasn't a problem at all last year even with a heavy workload

[maxhyde]

It was based on hard science. There's an algorithm that requires a lot of computational power that will tell you these things if you have enough computers to run it. J/K, I thought it was obvious I was guestimating. But seriously, his value is going down almost certainly. He won't be RB5 next year. People will be fawning over rookies or someone will break out or Latavius Murray or Chris Ivory will get cut and the Cook or Fournette hype trains will become unstoppable. But the real issue is that (as I've mentioned before) Gordon's value can't survive another injury or another sub 4 ypc season. If EITHER happens, his value will plummet. I'm shocked he's not already labeled injury prone, but one more injury and people will finally connect the dots. One more <4ypc season and he's a plodder for life and will become un-trade-able. And from a dynasty perspective, I don't want anything to do with a guy with microfracture surgery. I once heard it described as similar to "removing concrete and replacing it with sand". So longevity would be an issue even if he hadn't been injured both of his first two seasons. I guess his rookie year sucked so badly that people didn't even notice when he went on the IR...

RB value fluctuates more on a year to year basis than almost any position. Also if he is RB5 he really doesn't have far to move up so down becomes a greater share of the available scenarios. I don't think I could name you a RB that wouldn't have his stock drop wildly with an injury...maybe Elliott or one of the rookies that haven't played a down yet. Bell/DJ are advancing in age and carries and most RB's don't carry value through injuries (see early Jamaal Charles and AP for samples of top RB's that suffered this)

As far as the injuries on Gordon...season 1 for sure but season 2 if the Chargers didn't suck he wouldn't have been on IR. Gordon thought he was coming back but the Chargers opted to IR him. I also think rather than getting slammed for injuries he should be credited for playing as well as he did coming off microfracture surgery. Curious if you are avoiding microfracture surgeries does that mean Kelce is off your boards too? He had one after he was drafted by the Chiefs and seems to be doing fine. Others include Burfict/Reggie Bush/Marino/Colston(2)/Rod Woodson/ChrisJohnson/Winslow Jr so I am not sure it is the career killer you are attributing to it. It is something to be aware of for sure but hasn't prevented those guys from having AllPro seasons after the surgery...so it isn't like it is witchcraft or pseudoscience. There is a track record of success going back decades

Anyway I think where the argument loses me is if he maintains value that is a break even scenario. Seems to me it means you had a RB for a RB1 season which is kind of what you hoped you bought at the price. I would gladly give Gordon prices if I were guaranteed a top 5 RB season for one year...
Maybe that is break even but to me that is a massive victory when I get what I hoped I bought in gambling and can return my value a year later. If I can buy my car drive the hell out of it and then sell it for what I paid I am a happy guy because I will always have a new car.

[Sterling Archer]

RB value fluctuates more on a year to year basis than almost any position. Also if he is RB5 he really doesn't have far to move up so down becomes a greater share of the available scenarios. I don't think I could name you a RB that wouldn't have his stock drop wildly with an injury...maybe Elliott or one of the rookies that haven't played a down yet. Bell/DJ are advancing in age and carries and most RB's don't carry value through injuries (see early Jamaal Charles and AP for samples of top RB's that suffered this)

As far as the injuries on Gordon...season 1 for sure but season 2 if the Chargers didn't suck he wouldn't have been on IR. Gordon thought he was coming back but the Chargers opted to IR him. I also think rather than getting slammed for injuries he should be credited for playing as well as he did coming off microfracture surgery. Curious if you are avoiding microfracture surgeries does that mean Kelce is off your boards too? He had one after he was drafted by the Chiefs and seems to be doing fine. Others include Burfict/Reggie Bush/Marino/Colston(2)/Rod Woodson/ChrisJohnson/Winslow Jr so I am not sure it is the career killer you are attributing to it. It is something to be aware of for sure but hasn't prevented those guys from having AllPro seasons after the surgery...so it isn't like it is witchcraft or pseudoscience. There is a track record of success going back decades

Anyway I think where the argument loses me is if he maintains value that is a break even scenario. Seems to me it means you had a RB for a RB1 season which is kind of what you hoped you bought at the price. I would gladly give Gordon prices if I were guaranteed a top 5 RB season for one year...
Maybe that is break even but to me that is a massive victory when I get what I hoped I bought in gambling and can return my value a year later. If I can buy my car drive the hell out of it and then sell it for what I paid I am a happy guy because I will always have a new car.

I agree RB value fluctuates a lot and he doesn't have much room to go up... all I'm saying is that this is a bad time to be buying him and a good time to be selling. I don't know how you can say Bell is advancing in age like it's a valid point when he's only a year older than Gordon. If you gave me a choice of a year older vs. microfracture surgery, I'd take the extra year.

As for the injuries, I think you are missing the point. Most RBs value will not drop much from one year to the next after a single injury, but seeing as one more injury to Gordon and he'd have been injured 3 times in 3 years, I'm saying that will impact him much more than anyone else. He seemingly has not been dinged at all for back-to-back injuries, so if it happens one more time, people will put it together and suddenly his value will plummet.

I'm not saying MF = career killer. I'm just dubious about the long term outlook. I wouldn't let it impact my decisions for redraft, but I would take it into account for dynasty. And no, I'm not avoiding Kelce due to MF. I'm just not paying crazy prices for a guy whose 2016 TE1 season would've been TE7 in 2015. His price is inflated in general. Reggie Bush did have 3 nice seasons after MF and is definitely the poster child for MF success stories, but as far as I know he's the only RB of note with a successful surgery. So not a lot of data.

On your last paragraph, I don't want to waste time quibbling over a minor point. That wasn't "the argument" at all. I think Gordon is destined to lose value this year, thus he's a good sell/bad buy. That's my point. I will be shocked if he maintains a RB5 value going into next season.

[StableOfRBs]

RB value fluctuates more on a year to year basis than almost any position. Also if he is RB5 he really doesn't have far to move up so down becomes a greater share of the available scenarios. I don't think I could name you a RB that wouldn't have his stock drop wildly with an injury...maybe Elliott or one of the rookies that haven't played a down yet. Bell/DJ are advancing in age and carries and most RB's don't carry value through injuries (see early Jamaal Charles and AP for samples of top RB's that suffered this)

As far as the injuries on Gordon...season 1 for sure but season 2 if the Chargers didn't suck he wouldn't have been on IR. Gordon thought he was coming back but the Chargers opted to IR him. I also think rather than getting slammed for injuries he should be credited for playing as well as he did coming off microfracture surgery. Curious if you are avoiding microfracture surgeries does that mean Kelce is off your boards too? He had one after he was drafted by the Chiefs and seems to be doing fine. Others include Burfict/Reggie Bush/Marino/Colston(2)/Rod Woodson/ChrisJohnson/Winslow Jr so I am not sure it is the career killer you are attributing to it. It is something to be aware of for sure but hasn't prevented those guys from having AllPro seasons after the surgery...so it isn't like it is witchcraft or pseudoscience. There is a track record of success going back decades

Anyway I think where the argument loses me is if he maintains value that is a break even scenario. Seems to me it means you had a RB for a RB1 season which is kind of what you hoped you bought at the price. I would gladly give Gordon prices if I were guaranteed a top 5 RB season for one year...
Maybe that is break even but to me that is a massive victory when I get what I hoped I bought in gambling and can return my value a year later. If I can buy my car drive the hell out of it and then sell it for what I paid I am a happy guy because I will always have a new car.

I agree RB value fluctuates a lot and he doesn't have much room to go up... all I'm saying is that this is a bad time to be buying him and a good time to be selling. I don't know how you can say Bell is advancing in age like it's a valid point when he's only a year older than Gordon. If you gave me a choice of a year older vs. microfracture surgery, I'd take the extra year.

As for the injuries, I think you are missing the point. Most RBs value will not drop much from one year to the next after a single injury, but seeing as one more injury to Gordon and he'd have been injured 3 times in 3 years, I'm saying that will impact him much more than anyone else. He seemingly has not been dinged at all for back-to-back injuries, so if it happens one more time, people will put it together and suddenly his value will plummet.

I'm not saying MF = career killer. I'm just dubious about the long term outlook. I wouldn't let it impact my decisions for redraft, but I would take it into account for dynasty. And no, I'm not avoiding Kelce due to MF. I'm just not paying crazy prices for a guy whose 2016 TE1 season would've been TE7 in 2015. His price is inflated in general. Reggie Bush did have 3 nice seasons after MF and is definitely the poster child for MF success stories, but as far as I know he's the only RB of note with a successful surgery. So not a lot of data.

On your last paragraph, I don't want to waste time quibbling over a minor point. That wasn't "the argument" at all. I think Gordon is destined to lose value this year, thus he's a good sell/bad buy. That's my point. I will be shocked if he maintains a RB5 value going into next season.

The reason Gordon hasn't been dinged for back to back injuries is because his injury last year was mild at worst, he could have finished out the game if he needed to but the Chargers had nothing to play for so they benched him rather than risk something much worse

Also it's not microfracture surgery vs. a year older it's microfracture surgery vs. a year older + groin surgery + two complete ligament tears + off the field issues, give me the MF surgery any day

Still also don't get how people are really worried about Gordon because he was consistently successful last year and had a successful recovery from his MF surgery but Jay Ajayi gets a pass despite being a bit of roller coaster last year and having almost no cartilage in one of his knees

[Goddard]

I just don't understand how you're so convinced Gordon is going to lose value, when the majority thinks he will only improve from last year with the moves (or lack thereof) the Chargers have made. I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect Gordon to either keep his top 5 ranking, or even move up a spot. Your whole argument, or at least the majority of it, is that if he gets hurt again he'll be considered injury prone. That could be said about more than half of the RBs in the league, but I'm not going to predict or assume injury to Gordon. Rather, I'm going to assume he continues to develop and improve from last year based on facts and trends...but I feel like I've already said this before and we keep arguing the same points back and forth.

[maxhyde]

Yeah even if he is RB10 it is totally possible RB10 next year has as much value as RB4 this year...not likely but possible. Value and rankings are separate entities imo. Related but not the same.
Rankings are a way to generalize value ranges but Freeman/Ajayi/Howard could be RB5 on anyone's board and I wouldn't argue it too fiercely.
Value is subjective but has an actual quantity associated with it and RB5 does not it is just providing a general idea of who costs more and who costs less without the quantitative aspect. RB4 could cost a 1st more than 5 while 6 or 7 may be less than a 3rd.
I actually think Gordon is as good a buy as probably most non Fournette RB which probably seems high but he is young enough and has shown he can handle volume even after a surgery. I mean his cost is essentially rebounded to what it was when he came out as a rookie. However, the arrow is trending up in NFL/fantasy statistics and that is something that is pure projection for rookies

[Goddard]

Yeah even if he is RB10 it is totally possible RB10 next year has as much value as RB4 this year...not likely but possible. Value and rankings are separate entities imo. Related but not the same.

Completely agree...and I think I tried to make this point earlier on in this thread as well. If Gordon drops in rankings, it's not necessarily going to be because he's not good anymore. It might be because rookies or other players are just that much better a year from now, but it shouldn't take away from his value.

[cweds]

Yeah even if he is RB10 it is totally possible RB10 next year has as much value as RB4 this year...not likely but possible. Value and rankings are separate entities imo. Related but not the same.

Completely agree...and I think I tried to make this point earlier on in this thread as well. If Gordon drops in rankings, it's not necessarily going to be because he's not good anymore. It might be because rookies or other players are just that much better a year from now, but it shouldn't take away from his value.

Maybe in terms of output he can produce the same but value is relative so if new players emerge that produce more wouldn't that decrease his value relative to the rest of the position?

[Goddard]

Yeah even if he is RB10 it is totally possible RB10 next year has as much value as RB4 this year...not likely but possible. Value and rankings are separate entities imo. Related but not the same.

Completely agree...and I think I tried to make this point earlier on in this thread as well. If Gordon drops in rankings, it's not necessarily going to be because he's not good anymore. It might be because rookies or other players are just that much better a year from now, but it shouldn't take away from his value.

Maybe in terms of output he can produce the same but value is relative so if new players emerge that produce more wouldn't that decrease his value relative to the rest of the position?

But I'm under the assumption that he improves his production. Also, players can produce less than others and still have more "perceived value." Look at Gurley, he's still ranked ahead of multiple players who produced more than him. So rookies or other players passing Gordon next year in rankings doesn't necessarily mean they're producing more. It can go either way I guess. If you look at other positions, a top 5 WR and top 10 WR can be very close in value and sometimes interchangeable. Right now, that's not the case with RBs, but who's to say it won't be next year.

[cweds]

Completely agree...and I think I tried to make this point earlier on in this thread as well. If Gordon drops in rankings, it's not necessarily going to be because he's not good anymore. It might be because rookies or other players are just that much better a year from now, but it shouldn't take away from his value.

Maybe in terms of output he can produce the same but value is relative so if new players emerge that produce more wouldn't that decrease his value relative to the rest of the position?

But I'm under the assumption that he improves his production. Also, players can produce less than others and still have more "perceived value." Look at Gurley, he's still ranked ahead of multiple players who produced more than him. So rookies or other players passing Gordon next year in rankings doesn't necessarily mean they're producing more. It can go either way I guess. If you look at other positions, a top 5 WR and top 10 WR can be very close in value and sometimes interchangeable. Right now, that's not the case with RBs, but who's to say it won't be next year.

I would agree with that. But I think you could make the case that there's a pretty big tier of backs after the top 3. Personally I haven't seen a huge difference in value among Gordon, Freeman, gurley, ajayi, Howard. You could even throw fournette/mixon in there although their value is based on potential rather than production like you were talking about