Ok, lets assume that Devonta was actually 21 and only look at those guys.
EEK.
Ok, lets remove the age filter and change it to seniors (what Devonta is).
Ok.... But lets now switch it to juniors and give Devonta the benefit of the doubt that he could have declared early last year and been a first round pick.
Ok, now we are removing the senior/junior filter and are tackling breakout age.
Here are the guys with an age 20 breakout age.
But Devonta *could* have broken out at 18 or 19 if he didnt play at Alabama so lets flip it to them.
Devonta would need to gain 30 pounds to qualify for alpha status, but lets presume that EVERYONE else's weight was inflated at the combine due to water weight and the only legitimate non-water inflated weight was Devonta's 166 pounds.
So our assumption is that he is closer to alpha than the weigh-ins would lead us to believe.
The Alphas tend to hit a lot when they hit in this range.
IF Devonta's 166 is in fact real, as is everyone else's weigh-in... Here are the Coinflip Betas
The hits tend to be one-hit wonders so far... And Calvin Ridley of course
I also thought I fixed it but it looks like his top 5 finish from last season is missing. Pretend its there
So like, Devonta would have been a much better prospect IF the following would have happened.
Henry Ruggs didnt hold him back from breaking out at 19.
He was an early declare
He dominated consistently
And he was an age 21 rookie...
If those would have happened... he'd have fit in this category:
So in summary, if he was a totally different prospect, he'd be a lot better prospect.
Until then, he will remain a Coinflip and no amount of configuring will change that.
If you are into a bunch of useless but fun analysis like this, I went through this with the patrons a month or two ago. 🤣
One of the most interesting debates on fantasy twitter is the film vs analytics war that wages on year after year.
I think, for the most part, everyone can agree that neither side has all of the answers. So then the question becomes "how to meld them together?"
Let's Dive In.
I am certain that everyone has their own way of doing this but I thought I'd share mine. If you do it a different way please share! I am always looking for a better way to do things
Anyway, here it goes...
I start with analytics. Analytics is really good at figuring out who NOT to draft. Its not as good at figuring out who TO draft.
I essentially "cast my net" with analytics and then try to "fish within the net" with film.
So as you know by now, buying rookie face planters is typically a bad idea.
But what about at the NFL's most important position, Quarterback?
Let's dive in.
I use 1 qb adp because superflex startup adp doesnt go back very far. That means that good QB prospects can go in rounds 1-4 of dynasty rookie drafts. So I am not going to break it down that way for QB.
Instead we'll separate by first and second round NFL picks.
Here are the first round picks that face planted for ADP when comparing their startup ADP before and after their rookie years.
The other day I had said that buying face planting rookie WR's was a bad idea...
But what about RB's?!
Let's dive in.
This is a look at all of the rookie RB's that went in the first round of dynasty rookie drafts since 2007 that lost more than 12 spots in startup adp after their rookie year.
4/23 went on to hit a single top 12 season or more. 17%.
Historically this has not been a good bet to make. Don't make bad bets.