jenkins.math wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:24 am
ArrylT wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:35 am
I suppose that will depend on your definition of fantasy relevant when it comes to QBs. To me it is not much different than those guys you use as flex plays at RB/WR/TE. IE guys like Smith, Tannehill, Flacco, may not have been yearly QB1s but with matchups they had reliable floors and occasional QB1 games.
Take Flaccos 2016 where he finished as QB 17-19 overall depending on scoring formats (and same with 2014). Looking over that year he almost never had a performance out of the top 20 and had 4-5 QB1 performances, including one in the fantasy playoffs (Week XIV). Fast forward to 2019 and Flacco is currently a low end QB2 and has had 1 QB1 performance & 3 QB2 performances. Basically for the most part he has not hurt your team, and has had (except for Week 6) as safe a floor as Baker Mayfield or Jimmy Garoppolo.
I am not saying Mariota will re-emerge as a QB1 - just that part of dynasty is looking for value where it is to be found, and history has shown that the NFL will keep these guys (1st round draft picks with a proven baseline of talent) around for a lengthy period of time, allowing them to repeat over & over as guys you can plug in on any given notice. Maybe they are your QB3, but the whole point of a QB3 is insurance in case your top 2 options get the same bye week or 1 of them gets injured. Basically anyone who added Alex Smith after his first few years & hope of a QB1 in dynasty fizzled got 3-4 years of QB2 production (2013-2015 likely never finished lower than QB16) and then that 1 magical QB1 year in 2016.
Basically all I am saying when boiled down to a nutshell is that while their perception as potential QB1s has faded away they are now anti-hype bargain bin values that the astute owner picks up for a song & plugs in when needed. Don't forget about them is all I am saying. Obviously this could be league dependant - some 12 team leagues are more loose with QB valuations than others, but I am definitely in 3-4 12 team leagues where any QB who starts is gobbled up, if only to keep them out of other owners hands & then you have to pay to get them or pray, and about a quarter of my dynasty portfolio is 14-16 team 1 QB leagues ...
Relevant and rosterable mean different things to me. Is Kenyan Drake fantasy relevant? No he isn't as you aren't playing him at all unless you are just crushed by injuries or byes. Is he rosterable? Absolutely.
The guys you listed kind of prove my point though and back up essentially what I said. In 1QB leagues you weren't winning anything starting those guys, but if they were your QB2, they served their purpose for a couple of years. In SF you lived with their results for a couple of years but were constantly looking to upgrade. While depth has value, you weren't starting those guys with regularity and winning big save for maybe one season or your team was stacked everywhere else.
The problem with comparing Flacco, Smith, etc to Mariota is they were both given extensions by the team that drafted them. Even Tannehill and Bortles signed an extension with the team that drafted them. Mariota won't be. Which is my main point concerning Mariota. I can't think of one other QB who was let go after his rookie contract was up that ever found any sort of fantasy relevance elsewhere. Being traded somewhere; sure. But just outright being allowed to walk out the door? Teams are so QB starved that never happens at that stage. Especially when a team doesn't have a solution to the position on the roster.
FF is a numbers game. That's all it really is. So when you are looking at the bottom of your roster and thinking of rostering Mariota you have to ask yourself "will Mariota will be the very first QB to be let go after his rookie deal and find success elsewhere?" While the odds are low that a guy like Jarrett Stidham will be fantasy relevant (day 3 QBs have a low hit rate overall), we have at least seen it happen before. Same thing with WRs/RBs/TEs as you're typically starting anywhere from 6 to 8 from that crop of players weekly depending on your starting requirements. He may be the first QB to do it, but it won't be on my team. The probability just doesn't warrant it in my opinion.
That is totally fair - a lot will definitely depend on different owners determination of rosterable & relevant.
For example to me fantasy relevant is any player on my roster that I can see under normal circumstances as being placed in my teams starting lineup. Whereas rosterable is players, that even if I do not think they will have usefulness immediately, could have it later in the season, or in a year+ - depending on your roster requirements. Obviously a 12 team 20 man roster league that starts a Kicker & a Team D will have different roster needs than a 12 team 30man roster that has no K or Team D or leagues with Taxi Squads.
For example Gardner Minshew pre-season would NOT have been fantasy relevant or rosterable even in SF (save really large ones), but obviously he is now even in smaller 12 team 1 QB leagues. Same with Allan Lazard - since it took several / multiple factors to fall his way. Neither was rosterable, much less fantasy relevant prior to the season.
With QBs it is pretty easy (for me) because most teams only dress 2 QBs a week, and carry a max of 3 on a roster. So going into the season a guy like Ryan Tannehill was still rosterable even in some of my 1QB leagues (roster size dependant) and in fact I traded him away in 1 (so still has trade value) recently.
As per your comment regarding 1st round QBs being let go (ie QBs that did not earn an extension with their original team) there are 3 categories
(a) traded away in 1st contract
(b) cut / released prior to end of contract
(c) let go after end of 1st contract
Mariota will likely fall into the 3rd one - but won't know for sure until end of 2019. He could fall into A or B.
A - Traded away
Jay Cutler (got starts)
Blaine Gabbert (got starts)
Brady Quinn (got starts)
Josh Rosen (got starts)
Tim Tebow (got starts)
B - Released before their contract ended
Paxton Lynch - off-field concerns
Johnny Manziel - off-field concerns
Robert Griffith - (was named starter for Cleveland)
Jamarcus Russell - off-field concerns
Brandon Weeden - was a 28 year old rookie (but still got at least 1 start with 2 more teams)
C - QBs that played their full contract (assuming 4 years or 5 with option) and were then let go
Teddy Bridgewater (got starts)
EJ Manuel (got starts)
Mark Sanchez (got starts)
Christian Ponder (got starts)
Jake Locker - retired
Basically every single 1st round QB going back to 2007 (looking back further doesnt really change anything imo), that was not extended by their 1st team, still got starts with another team, unless they had documented off-field concerns or major injury history (Locker never played more than 11 games in any 1 of his 4 seasons). Neither of which really applies to Mariota. Every QB on those lists either had a chance at winning a starting role, or took over as a starter (even for a short period).
Anyways I was not saying Mariota should be rostered, athough I guess it is implied by my argument, but if anyone re-reads my original statement on Wed I simply stated that Mariota will likely get another shot & owners should not forget about him.
"So all I am saying is that things may look dismal for Mariota right now - but tomorrow do not be surprised if Mariota has landed another starting gig. The right team, the right situation, the right time, anything goes."
Maybe your league size will mean you leave him on WW, just that you should keep his name on speed dial because history suggests he will end up back starting games at some point.
Please speak to clarion contrarion before considering the use of vetos..