https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/
https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/viewtopic.php?t=182388
If Taylor kills the combine and then lands in KC as the first RB off the board, then I think it comes down to your format. "Superflex" means a lot of things. 10 team, 4 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 3Flex? I'll take the RB in the great spot. 14 team, 6 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1Flex? Gimme Burrow.
Very trueOhCruelestRanter wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:28 pmIf Taylor kills the combine and then lands in KC as the first RB off the board, then I think it comes down to your format. "Superflex" means a lot of things. 10 team, 4 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 3Flex? I'll take the RB in the great spot. 14 team, 6 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1Flex? Gimme Burrow.
Sure, but unless someone gives detailed set of their league settings, I'm just going to assume that value leans heavily to QB when they ask for advice or rankings in a "Superflex league", because in most cases that's exactly where the value leans in SF leagues.OhCruelestRanter wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:28 pmIf Taylor kills the combine and then lands in KC as the first RB off the board, then I think it comes down to your format. "Superflex" means a lot of things. 10 team, 4 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 3Flex? I'll take the RB in the great spot. 14 team, 6 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1Flex? Gimme Burrow.
I'm slowly coming to the realization that I'm not getting him at 1.02FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class or players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
Yeah, I have a feeling that's what's going to happen. Unless landing spots change something.Jigga94 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:59 pmI'm slowly coming to the realization that I'm not getting him at 1.02FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class or players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
That's interesting. It's not my experience. Most of the superflex startups I've joined the past three years are 12 teams with 8-10 non-QB starters, with PPR, TE Premium, and some other non-QB scoring bonus (threshold bonuses, big play bonuses, PPC). I have one 10 teamer where it should clearly be a RB, and one 14 teamer where it should clearly be a QB. I wonder how common these types of rules are among superflex leagues. I have no idea and wouldn't know where to look.bjd5211 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:34 pmSure, but unless someone gives detailed set of their league settings, I'm just going to assume that value leans heavily to QB when they ask for advice or rankings in a "Superflex league", because in most cases that's exactly where the value leans in SF leagues.OhCruelestRanter wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:28 pmIf Taylor kills the combine and then lands in KC as the first RB off the board, then I think it comes down to your format. "Superflex" means a lot of things. 10 team, 4 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 3Flex? I'll take the RB in the great spot. 14 team, 6 pt passing TDs, with 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1Flex? Gimme Burrow.
Can you give a Source/link for this?FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class of players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
https://www.pff.com/news/fantasy-footba ... ty-leaguesHankybro21 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:00 pmCan you give a Source/link for this?FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class of players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
As a 1.02 holder I hope this talk continues.. Swift should be 1.01 no matter what. I'd be thrilled to land him at 2.bjd5211 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:03 pmhttps://www.pff.com/news/fantasy-footba ... ty-leaguesHankybro21 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:00 pmCan you give a Source/link for this?FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class of players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
That makes a ton of sense. Speed guys get drafted for their on-field "clear out" benefit but, from a fantasy perspective, are overdrafted.FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:56 pmYeah, at least he couldn't find a correlation. The draft capital tends to be affected by combine, so guys with similar draft capital, it seemed the slower one was the better pick because the draft capital was skewed by the times. I thought that was funny. Draft the slower guy with similar draft capital to a faster guy.
He was pretty clear that as of now Taylor should be the runaway 1.01, though. Those names he lined up with were all elite.
Jesse Reeve's from PlayerProfiler seems to also think draft capital + breakout age is probably your best bet for a receiverstoneghost28 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:47 pmDid you hear the funny tidbit about how thoroughly irrelevant the combine seems to be for WR prospects. He found greater correlation between worse forty yard times for 2nd round WR's and future success than the faster guys. Basically the two things that seemed to be connected to future success were total nonsense (like different weight lifting drills) suggesting the combine was total noise, and not helpful at all w/WR's.FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class or players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
That would echo what I've heared from rotoviz: namely, draft capital, then breakout age, then dominator, and if you're looking for more details you can check out some regression trees they make, but basically with WR, you're best advised to just use a combo of draft capital and breakout age, and dominator to screen guys out. You'll miss on the occasional guy like McLaurin and Michael Thomas, but they are so rare (only about 10-15% of WR's that are producing WR1-WR4 type seasons have sub 50ish percentile breakout ages, and oddly, 2 of the most recent 4 or 5 were Ohio State guys-so paying attention to situations like Ohio State, this year's Alabama perhaps, for outliers probably makes sense for the rare exceptions) that it's just a highly effective tool for tossing out some players more likely to bust than others.
Jesse must have seen my spreadsheet and been inspired...gunfrees wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:33 amJesse Reeve's from PlayerProfiler seems to also think draft capital + breakout age is probably your best bet for a receiverstoneghost28 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:47 pmDid you hear the funny tidbit about how thoroughly irrelevant the combine seems to be for WR prospects. He found greater correlation between worse forty yard times for 2nd round WR's and future success than the faster guys. Basically the two things that seemed to be connected to future success were total nonsense (like different weight lifting drills) suggesting the combine was total noise, and not helpful at all w/WR's.FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class or players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.
That would echo what I've heared from rotoviz: namely, draft capital, then breakout age, then dominator, and if you're looking for more details you can check out some regression trees they make, but basically with WR, you're best advised to just use a combo of draft capital and breakout age, and dominator to screen guys out. You'll miss on the occasional guy like McLaurin and Michael Thomas, but they are so rare (only about 10-15% of WR's that are producing WR1-WR4 type seasons have sub 50ish percentile breakout ages, and oddly, 2 of the most recent 4 or 5 were Ohio State guys-so paying attention to situations like Ohio State, this year's Alabama perhaps, for outliers probably makes sense for the rare exceptions) that it's just a highly effective tool for tossing out some players more likely to bust than others.
https://twitter.com/JesseReevesFF/statu ... 7859127298
Depends on landing spot, and depends if you prefer explosiveness to elusiveness.Johnny B. Goode wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:45 amAs a 1.02 holder I hope this talk continues.. Swift should be 1.01 no matter what. I'd be thrilled to land him at 2.
For some reason PFF hates Swift. Keep it up!
I don't think he's head an shoulders above everybody else.....especially at 5 foot 8. Ba dum. But seriously, I disagree that he's the 1.01 regardless of when and where he goes. He's a good back, but he's not a transcendent talent by any means.Johnny B. Goode wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:45 amAs a 1.02 holder I hope this talk continues.. Swift should be 1.01 no matter what. I'd be thrilled to land him at 2.
For some reason PFF hates Swift. Keep it up!
He's mentioned this on a few podcasts over the past week, I think one was Dynasty Blueprint with McDowell and Williamson. Would have to check. I'd couch what he said as something along the lines of:Hankybro21 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:00 pmCan you give a Source/link for this?FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:26 pm Interesting hearing Scott Barrett from PFF saying Taylor should be the clear 1.01. The analytics he used had him in a class of players that is jaw dropping. He also said yards per route run was the most predictive stat for receiving at the next level for RB's, in which he finished first, and Swift 2nd.