17 Responses to “The DLF Dynasty Podcast”

  1. Kaleb says:

    Noticed you guys never got around to discussing the other Patriots players, which is kind of unfortunate. Luckily, it was basically covered in the Hernandez article about other options in New England but still would have been nice to hear the debates.

    • Jeff Beran says:

      Kaleb, you’re right! We never did. I think we got a little carried away with the other topics. I’ll give you the Cliffs Notes version of my thoughts here, though.

      - Even though people are scratching and clawing to get their hands on Jake Ballard and Zach Sudfeld, Hernandez played 2/3rds of his snaps from a split/joker position. Neither Ballard or Sudfeld have that type of ability so while I like them both as roster stashes, I don’t think either one will become a full-time fantasy starter.
      - The two guys who I really think receive the biggest bump in value because of potential opportunities are Shane Vereen and Julian Edelman.
      - Watch for the Pats to bring in either Brandon Lloyd or Dallas Clark. Also be ready to pounce when they bring in guys after roster cut-downs.
      - Everybody already knows that Patriots run the ball very well. Look for LaGarrett Blount to become a legit part of the offense, especially as a goal-line TD vulture. For that reason, I think Ridley’s value actually declines a tiny bit.
      - Lastly, the Patriots are trending in the wrong direction, there’s no doubt about that. I’d be real wary of drafting Tom Brady in a start-up.

      Hope that helps a little bit and thanks for listening!

  2. Chris in Chuck says:

    The ADP discussion was interesting because it reflects a philosophical debate, not the definitional one you guys tried to discuss.

    The one guy was talking about return on investment but seemed to concede he would not be particularly competitive early on. This repsents a short-term loss of investment in the league which he proposes he will recoup by being especially competitive in out years. Given the time-value of money, this is a dubious prospect at best.

    On the other hand, a person who invests in short-term success may experience immediate profitability and use those current profits to defer out year losses. All things equal the latter strategy is less risky – lower beta coefficient- and probably has a higher net present value.

    On the other hand, once we involve trading into the equation the above analysis falls apart. A person who believes him/her-self able to outperform through trading may be able to dopt the first strategy and parlay depth at one position (WR) into overall success.

    I would not be too quick to dismiss the guest’s theory, but only if one is very active and a good evaluator of rising talent.

    YMMV

    • Chris in Chuck says:

      Yes, I went to the gripping hand above. Hahahaha

    • sirhc20011 says:

      This is getting closer to the issue at hand than the podcast IMHO.

      The real issue is that we are functioning in two different markets with respect to dynasty we have the “real” market (weekly points scored) and the “expectations” market (future trade value). How you balance the two is the real art of dynasty.

      If no one is willing to draft S-Jax at some point he becomes a value because of his performance in the “real” market even if no one was ever willing to trade for him. The Q is what is that break even point where the shortcomings of his trade value is outweighed by his ability to put up points in the short term; and this point may be different for each owner depending on roster construction and personal preference.

      • Jesse Coleman says:

        I tried to play up that exact thing with a trade last week, and I would love to get a few opinions on this trade, since I thought it was a solid deal for me, but after it was done I caught a lot of flack for it and was told that I made a foolish move.

        I gave up:
        Steven Jackson
        Torrey Smith
        Brandon LaFell

        I got:
        Cam Newton
        Josh Gordon
        Shane Vereen

        (prior to this trade My top 2 QBs were Eli and Carson Palmer and my top 3 RBs were C.J., McFadden, and S-Jax, and my top 3 WRs were Cobb, Cruz, and Smith)

        I made this trade with the thought that any points that I lost this year would be made back tenfold thru the longevity of my acquisitions… was I crazy?

        • K says:

          I think that’s more than a fair trade, and all things being equal, I’d rather have your end. LaFell is a non-factor, and I think Cam and Gordon are dynasty gold. SJax has value for a contender, and Torrey Smith has WR2 upside at best, I think. Gordon has WR1 upside, and Cam has QB1 upside. Can’t really fault you for making that deal.

        • Doug Veatch says:

          That wasn’t even close to a foolish trade. I think you were the clear winner of this deal with Cam and Gordon being the two best players in the deal. It’s a move that keeps you competitive now, while also gives you a much longer competing window than the three guys you just traded away.

        • Paul says:

          Newton alone is worth more than what you gave up, by a mile.

          Well done.

    • Jeff Beran says:

      I love this type of intellectual feedback! Awesome!

      I wasn’t really expecting the debate to go in the direction it did. I thought it was going to boil down to a topic like this one (http://tinyurl.com/n9qvk8r) from our forum. Instead, I think it really came down to a discussion about when to draft older players in a start-up draft. The only thing I can add here is that the primary advantage younger players have over older players (ie Lamar Miller vs. Steven Jackson) is their salvage value. Basically, if Miller busts and ends up splitting carries with Daniel Thomas, he still has some trade value at the end of the season. That’s certainly not something that dynasty owners should sneeze at but, in my opinion, it doesn’t take precedence in all circumstances when it comes to building a dynasty team. As I stated in the podcast, I like to build balanced teams, good players at every position instead of stacking some and ignoring others, young players with upside, older players who will produce immediately and consistently, etc. As you pointed out, this strategy is less high risk/high reward than stockpiling young prospects might be but I prefer my portfolio to be diversified, so to speak. For people who possess strengths in working the trade market, the waiver wire, and rookie drafts, there really isn’t much of a reason to use a swing-for-the-fences approach that is inherent with drafting only young players. Of course, this just comes down to personal preference and building a team you feel comfortable with. Maybe I read the parable of the tortoise and the hare a few too many times as a kid. I dunno.

    • Jeff Beran says:

      A couple more thoughts:

      - The BPA strategy isn’t perfect, especially so in start-up drafts. It always needs a “sanity cross-check” in order to work properly. “Well, I draft Aaron Rodgers in Round 2 and Andrew Luck in Round 3 but RG3 is the ‘BPA’ here in Round 4 so I guess I’ve gotta take him.” Sure buddy, you go ahead and do that. Those bench points are gonna give you enough moral victories to wipe away the tears.

      - ADP is a metric used to measure concrete results. “Trade value” is an approximation of future returns based on a very large number of factors. There is some correlation between the two but they should never be used interchangeably. Ever.

  3. Chris in Chuck says:

    Let’s remember too that a guy who starts has potential “now” value.

    Benchearmers do not.
    So in order to have value a benchwarmer must have either trade value or a reasonable expectation of future value — starter or trade.

  4. Tim Stafford says:

    Yeah. Sorry to the poster who mentioned we didn’t get to the other Pats players. That was on me. I was shocked how long we went on A.Hern and Gronk and I needed to manage the time that night.. We’ll hit them in this week’s show, I promise.

  5. phesto604 says:

    Only 8 sighs from Tim this week.

  6. Brandon Standifer says:

    I think it’s important to point out that Doug’s example of a diminishing asset of older players is a good example to go by in START UP drafts and not necessarily in a dynasty league you’ve been in for an extended period of time.

    I currently have S-Jax, V-Jax, and Andre Johnson on a roster, but with the knowledge that their window is closing in the next couple of years and I need to be grooming their replacements. So I’ve tried to put some younger upside guys with them in V. Cruz, To. Smith, Michael Floyd, Ridley, Bryce Brown, Ingram, Ivory, Mathews (and everyone laughs), and this doesn’t include the guys I’ll pick up in my rookie draft this year.

    The old guys aren’t a long term solution, but they are nice in the short term and as long as you understand that and build your roster to account for their age you can have a winner with a nice balance of young and old.

Leave a Comment


+ 8 = thirteen