We’re excited to announce a nice, new addition to DLF.
Due to the overwhelming requests from our forum members, we’ve added strategic IDP rankings to our menu.
As with our other individualized rankings, they feature two different tiers.
Contending Team Rankings
Rebuilding Team Rankings
Contending Team Rankings fit the profile of teams who are built to win in the next 2-3 years. You’ll find a mix of young and old players who are contributors listed and valued very highly.
Rebuilding Team Rankings fit the profile of a building or rebuilding team. These teams aren’t in the running for a title any time soon, so they value younger players much more.
As with the strategic offensive player rankings, it’s always been something that we’ve felt could be improved on Dynasty sites and we’re glad to be the first to offer them.
Really, it’s difficult for two teams to see simple dynasty rankings and not disagree about value. That won’t change completely, but take Ray Lewis, for example. For a contending team, his value is enormous. To a rebuilding team, not so much. That’s why this is needed. Contenders need to focus on players who can help them win now, while rebuilders need to be more cautious of having aging players on their rosters.
We’ve also added a 2010 D/ST rankings page. With the fluidity of free agency, coaches, and so many other factors, it’s nearly impossible to place a “contending” or “rebuilding” tag accurately on an entire team.
You’ll find them on the menu, or right here:
Strategic Linebacker Rankings
Strategic Defensive Tackles and Defensive Line Rankings
Strategic Cornerback and Safety Rankings
2010 Defense and Special Teams Rankings
Enjoy!
Loading ...
Why not Nate Allen in your corner and safety rankings? He is going to be the Eagles starting free safety.
The last five out were:
Josh Wilson
Nate Allen
Asante Samuel
Champ Bailey
Jacob Lacey
Realistically, the difference between #20 and #50 is about 1.5 points per week. The big plays are typically what changes the balance in the scoring each year.
Very tough to predict those, so if you think Allen has a greater chance than the others, I’d go for it!
somehow my previous comment has been deleted… so again.. why London Fletcher at #22 in the ranking for contenders. He has been a top 10 LB year in and year out and there is no reason to believe him not doing that again in the next two years. Like in the pro bowl voting.. he´s not getting enough love imo.
Hey Brady T!
It wasn’t deleted, it was actually placed and answered here…
http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2010/strategic-rankings-unveiled
I love Fletcher and have had him in my main league for years. Unfortunately, the move to a 3-4 defense diminishes his fantasy value. While there are some exceptions to the rule, the ILBs in 3-4s are not nearly as productive fantasy-wise as the 4-3 MLBs.
I would have to disagree with the statement that “ILBs in 3-4s are not nearly as productive fantasy-wise as the 4-3 MLBs. Currently, there are 7, 3-4 ILBs ranked within my top 15 linebackers:
1. Patrick Willis
2. D’Qwell Jackson
3. David Harris
4. D.J. Williams
5. Karlos Dansby
6. Ray Lewis
7. Jerod Mayo
That’s very close to 50% of the top 15 linebackers coming from the inside linebacker position in a 3-4. In my opinion, 3-4 ILB can definitely keep up with the production of 4-3 MLBs.
Thanks for visiting Ryan!
Sure, as I stated, there are exceptions to the rule. Personally, I like to play it a little safer with my LBs and choose a 4-3 system LB if all things are equal.
Keep in mind that our competing team rankings take into consideration a dynasty team being in contention for the next 2-3 years, not just this one. That’s a note that can’t be lost.
Fletcher would be 38 at the end of that window, so it’s very difficult to move him too far up that list from a dynasty league perspective, even though he finished near the top ten last year.
I would agree with the ranking on Fletcher. I would expect him to be adversely affected by the switch to a 3-4 scheme since he is an undersized linebacker and may have difficulty shedding blockers. However, Fletcher is the Chris Carter of IDP and he always seems to make tackles no matter what scheme or age. I wouldn’t count against him.
Of the list of “3-4″ LB’s a few statements above… almost all of the ones mentioned are in hybrid D’s that play a 4-3 and 3-4, so they aren’t top LB’s in a 3-4, because they are 4-3 MLB against the run in most instances as part of the hybrid D that switches based on down/distance and what they expect from the offense. Willis is in more of a true 3-4, but the scheme is set up so that Spikes takes on blockers and leaves Willis free. Willis is almost a 4-3 WLB and MLB combined in a 3-4 scheme because the defense is set up for everyone else to take on blocks and leave him free to roam side line to side line without being blocked to make the tackle.
I believe these are the schemes for each team
3-4: KC, DEN, BUF, GB, SF, WAS, DAL, PIT, MIA, SD, CLE
4-3: HOU, NYG, TEN, OAK, PHI, ATL, SEA, DET, CIN, TB, JAX
TAMPA2/4-3: CHI, CAR, IND, MIN
Hybrid (3-4 + 4-3): BAL, NO, NYJ, ARI, NE
Props on getting the rankings up and running. IDP rankings should really go to 100 for each position. 12 team league starting 3 at any position means that each team is carrying 6 at each position and the players drafted are 72 at a minimum at each position. Then add flex and you can be easily over 100+ LB’s off the board in a deep league.
As more and more teams move towards the 3-4, it’s getting harder to find the sure thing 100+ solo tackle MLB. They aren’t extinct by any means, and there are some gems who currently play in a 3-4 like Poz and DJ Williams… but it’s not easy to get 3 stud MLBs in a 4-3 defense on your team.
And Brady, London Fletcher has been an iron man for a long time. But that can’t go on forever. You’ll wish you had Stewart Bradley instead by the end of the year.
@Mr. Rourke
You are correct in stating that the Ravens, Saints, and Jets use multiple fronts. However, I wouldn’t personally classify Arizona and New England as a “multiple front” defense. Technically, almost every team in the NFL runs some variations of the 3-4 and 4-3. I would argue that the Cardinals and Patriots spend the majority of their defensive plays in the 3-4 and are therefore considered to be running a base 3-4 defense.
My main point wasn’t to prove that 3-4 ILBs are just as productive as 4-3 MLBs. It was to argue against the statement that “ILBs in 3-4s are not nearly as productive fantasy-wise as the 4-3 MLBs” because I found that to be an incorrect and erroneous statement.