M
Marc Faletti
Guest
Not to oversimplify things, but when we approach player evaluations in fantasy football, we tend to assess 2 main elements:
1) the player’s talent/ability
2) the situation surrounding the player
Both are essential to making accurate projections of a player’s worth and output. You can never ignore either, and I’d never advocate that you should. But which one do you rely on the most? Because whatever we think about our own ability to consider both equally, most of us tend to lean on one more than the other.
On the Audible this week, Sig Bloom and Jeff Pasquino debated their dynasty RB rankings. These two men represent polar opposites when it comes to how they judge players in fantasy football.
Sigmund Bloom follows what I’ll call the inside-out model; he makes decisions based primarily on the player himself and then modifies his rankings slightly based on the situation surrounding the player. And when push comes to shove, he tends to value a great RB in a blah situation more than an average running back in a great situation.
Jeff Pasquino represents the outside-in model. He tends to judge players based on their situations and lets situational issues take precedence over a player’s ability.
I believe the majority of owners follow the outside-in model, like Pasquino. When I hear people debating a player, and especially whenever I hear them justifying a pick, their arguments usually have to do with what they expect the offense to do, or how much more balanced his team is, or how the lack of a potential RBBC made him more attractive. Sometimes we sacrifice talent for opportunity because we believe the opportunity is what creates the output.
But I don’t think this is nearly as effective as the inside-out model, especially when it comes to dynasty drafting. Here’s why.
1) Situations change suddenly and dramatically.
What will the Rams receivers do if Bulger goes down? Wouldn’t Reggie Bush’s numbers be awesome if Deuce got banged up? What if your QB’s LT goes down? Or what if a RB’s team drafted a sleeper stud on the O-line that no one fully notices until the season starts, as the Chargers did last year?
The list is endless. The point is simple. Situations are a factor, but they change overnight.
When explaining why he ranked Steven Jackson over Larry Johnson, Pasquino never mentioned talent levels. He expressed concerns about the number of carries Johnson endured last year, but his primary factor was the balanced attack in St Louis and the likelihood that teams would have to respect their passing game, which should open up room for Jackson. Johnson labors under the Edwards regime with a subpar QB/WR core, meaning his situation is less advantageous.
But again, what if Bulger goes down? Or Torry Holt? If you believe he’s the second most talented guy, great, take Jackson! But if you don’t, will you be happy you took a guy for his situation when that situation changes?
We may think a situation change is unlikely, but just remember how many players (not to mention coaches) “a good RB situation” depends on – the 5 linemen, the QB, the 2-3 WRs, the other RBs, etc. A change one way or the other in any of those could dramatically alter a team’s landscape, and most teams experience a fair amount of those changes during a season. If they didn’t, it’d be a lot easier to bet on the NFL.
I believe LJ is a more talented player than Jackson. While I’d like the situation in KC to be better, I wouldn’t hesitate to take Johnson 2nd because he’s a force of nature that doesn’t come around too often. In my mind, it’d take an injury to him specifically to prevent him from dominating. Jackson? Well, if any of those other cogs in StL break, he could drop from a top 3 RB to a top 15 RB mighty quick, couldn’t he?
2) Situations are unpredictable.
Ken Whisenhunt’s offense is exactly what they need in AZ – or will it be a flop with that O-line? Will Vince Young’s legs create more overall scoring opportunities for his team or simply vulture TDs from his other players? When Mike Martz leaves Detroit for a head coaching job, what will happen to that offense? Is Hasselback going to be fine in Seattle? Are we sure that Travis Henry’s deal means he’s the #1 no matter what – I mean, he got less guaranteed money from the Broncos than Daniel Graham did, right?
Who the heck knows. It’s good to make your own assessments of each situation and include them in your rankings, but let’s not assume we have it all figured out. Players suddenly improve, draft sleepers suddenly pop up, hotshot coaches get exposed as frauds, and so forth.
Even with Norv Turner, there’s no way SF’s situation should’ve allowed Gore his numbers, nor should KC’s have allowed LJ his. But they got them anyway, didn’t they? Their talent rose to the top.
3) Relying on situational assessments can cross you up.
In the same podcast, Pasquino talked about how he valued Steven Jackson over LJ b/c of St. Louis’s balance and strong passing game only minutes before he ripped on Willie Parker’s situation because the Steelers are threatening to air it out more. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Teams have been stacking the line against Pittsburgh for years; shouldn’t a more open gameplan create the same space for Parker that the Rams’ gameplan does for SJax as well as create more overall scoring opportunities for the team? After all, offense isn’t a zero sum game – more total scoring chances could mean Parker’s numbers stay the same or improve along with the QB and WRs. Then again, according to his logic, maybe we should we be ranking SJax behind LJ because of all the TDs the passing game will steal from him compared to the offense in KC.
Pasquino pointed out the concern in Pittsburgh because it’s a change from last season, a year in which Parker tore it up. That the situation changed at all made him a tiny bit more wary of Parker, despite the fact that the change was making Pittsburgh into the kind of team he was defending as better for a RB only a few minutes earlier.
As we’ve already discussed, situations almost always change on teams. When we rely on them as our primary gauge of future success, we can start moving one player up for the same reason we moved another down without even realizing it. This isn’t a good strategy.
4) Situational assessments can confuse you on talent issues.
“Poor David Carr. He had no offensive line and just needs a fresh start to blossom.“
You hear those sentiments all the time, and they were expressed again by Pasquino on the Audible when discussing dynasty QBs. At one time, they may have been true.
Looking at his sack numbers, it’s easy to blame the line. But if you watched Carr the last few years, you may have noticed how many of those sacks he caused himself. His jitteryness and indecisiveness led him to both hold the ball too long when he needed to get rid of it and make bad decisions when he felt pressure that wasn’t there.
Carr’s a guy who lost out to Billy Volek in college. His teammates have whispered about his petulance now that he’s gone. Just because he was taken #1 doesn’t mean he’s a #1 QB, and just because he started out with a bad line doesn’t mean most of his sacks are a product of other people. Maybe if he’d have started out in a better spot he could’ve become someone else, but [Denny Green voice] he is who we THOUGHT he was. [/Denny]
If you believe in David Carr, get him on your roster. But make sure you believe in him as a player and aren’t just assuming his situation was to blame without honestly evaluating his abilities.
5) Talent is the one constant, and it can often win out.
Vince Young should have been horrible last year... Travis Henry was uninspiring in 2005. Drew Bennett was okay but not a true #1. Vince’s line was hardly noteworthy. His defense had 3 good players, one of whom stomped another guy’s face. And Vince was a rookie.
But the kid’s got ability and moxie, and it’s tough to argue that he wasn’t great. He was a top 10 QB during his playing time, which few rookies accomplish, and he did it with a weak talent pool.
Naturally, Pasquino was flabbergasted Bloom had Young at #3; according to Jeff, the guy’s got no one around him!
Maybe you don’t believe in Young’s talent, and that’s fine. But if you do, why would you think the 2007 situation will be so much worse than the bad one last year? Henry and Bennett weren’t exactly considered world-beaters before. If you think a guy has greatness in him and he put up huge fantasy numbers as a rookie with little help, shouldn’t that be a guy you rate extremely high in dynasty?
We’ve already mentioned Gore and LJ having success despite their teams’ unimpressive passing attacks. Maurice Jones-Drew managed double-digit TDs and almost 1400 total yards despite being part of a red-flag RBBC.
Lee Evans had quite a season despite what looked like a bum situation going into 2006. Andre Johnson led the league in receptions even though his QB had to be replaced in the offseason. Somehow, Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin both manage to produce despite splitting the ball on a disappointing team with a bad rushing attack.
Tom Brady seemed to overcome that dismal receiving core so many people swore would hold him back, didn’t he? Nor did the Patriots drafting a 1st-round RB lessen his workload.
There are countless examples of guys performing in spite of their situation. And sure, there are guys like Mike Furrey, who produce in spite of their talent. But I dare you to add up the guys you think produced primarily because of their situation and compare them with the players who outproduced their expected situation because they’re just that good. I think you’ll find the latter list a lot longer.
Barring injury and age, talent remains constant. It’s a lot more likely to stick around than all the surrounding elements that make up a player’s current situation. And evaluating your players based primarily on talent can give you a clearer head.
All of us can get caught up in what’s happening around a player. It’s fun and interesting to mull over, and we should absolutely factor it in. But it should seldom – if ever – overshadow how you feel about a guy’s talent.
All of that said, evaluating talent isn’t easy. Sometimes it’s simpler to just find a guy on a good team with solid numbers and plug him in.
Then again, this is the Shark Pool, right?
That’s what I thought.
1) the player’s talent/ability
2) the situation surrounding the player
Both are essential to making accurate projections of a player’s worth and output. You can never ignore either, and I’d never advocate that you should. But which one do you rely on the most? Because whatever we think about our own ability to consider both equally, most of us tend to lean on one more than the other.
On the Audible this week, Sig Bloom and Jeff Pasquino debated their dynasty RB rankings. These two men represent polar opposites when it comes to how they judge players in fantasy football.
Sigmund Bloom follows what I’ll call the inside-out model; he makes decisions based primarily on the player himself and then modifies his rankings slightly based on the situation surrounding the player. And when push comes to shove, he tends to value a great RB in a blah situation more than an average running back in a great situation.
Jeff Pasquino represents the outside-in model. He tends to judge players based on their situations and lets situational issues take precedence over a player’s ability.
I believe the majority of owners follow the outside-in model, like Pasquino. When I hear people debating a player, and especially whenever I hear them justifying a pick, their arguments usually have to do with what they expect the offense to do, or how much more balanced his team is, or how the lack of a potential RBBC made him more attractive. Sometimes we sacrifice talent for opportunity because we believe the opportunity is what creates the output.
But I don’t think this is nearly as effective as the inside-out model, especially when it comes to dynasty drafting. Here’s why.
1) Situations change suddenly and dramatically.
What will the Rams receivers do if Bulger goes down? Wouldn’t Reggie Bush’s numbers be awesome if Deuce got banged up? What if your QB’s LT goes down? Or what if a RB’s team drafted a sleeper stud on the O-line that no one fully notices until the season starts, as the Chargers did last year?
The list is endless. The point is simple. Situations are a factor, but they change overnight.
When explaining why he ranked Steven Jackson over Larry Johnson, Pasquino never mentioned talent levels. He expressed concerns about the number of carries Johnson endured last year, but his primary factor was the balanced attack in St Louis and the likelihood that teams would have to respect their passing game, which should open up room for Jackson. Johnson labors under the Edwards regime with a subpar QB/WR core, meaning his situation is less advantageous.
But again, what if Bulger goes down? Or Torry Holt? If you believe he’s the second most talented guy, great, take Jackson! But if you don’t, will you be happy you took a guy for his situation when that situation changes?
We may think a situation change is unlikely, but just remember how many players (not to mention coaches) “a good RB situation” depends on – the 5 linemen, the QB, the 2-3 WRs, the other RBs, etc. A change one way or the other in any of those could dramatically alter a team’s landscape, and most teams experience a fair amount of those changes during a season. If they didn’t, it’d be a lot easier to bet on the NFL.
I believe LJ is a more talented player than Jackson. While I’d like the situation in KC to be better, I wouldn’t hesitate to take Johnson 2nd because he’s a force of nature that doesn’t come around too often. In my mind, it’d take an injury to him specifically to prevent him from dominating. Jackson? Well, if any of those other cogs in StL break, he could drop from a top 3 RB to a top 15 RB mighty quick, couldn’t he?
2) Situations are unpredictable.
Ken Whisenhunt’s offense is exactly what they need in AZ – or will it be a flop with that O-line? Will Vince Young’s legs create more overall scoring opportunities for his team or simply vulture TDs from his other players? When Mike Martz leaves Detroit for a head coaching job, what will happen to that offense? Is Hasselback going to be fine in Seattle? Are we sure that Travis Henry’s deal means he’s the #1 no matter what – I mean, he got less guaranteed money from the Broncos than Daniel Graham did, right?
Who the heck knows. It’s good to make your own assessments of each situation and include them in your rankings, but let’s not assume we have it all figured out. Players suddenly improve, draft sleepers suddenly pop up, hotshot coaches get exposed as frauds, and so forth.
Even with Norv Turner, there’s no way SF’s situation should’ve allowed Gore his numbers, nor should KC’s have allowed LJ his. But they got them anyway, didn’t they? Their talent rose to the top.
3) Relying on situational assessments can cross you up.
In the same podcast, Pasquino talked about how he valued Steven Jackson over LJ b/c of St. Louis’s balance and strong passing game only minutes before he ripped on Willie Parker’s situation because the Steelers are threatening to air it out more. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Teams have been stacking the line against Pittsburgh for years; shouldn’t a more open gameplan create the same space for Parker that the Rams’ gameplan does for SJax as well as create more overall scoring opportunities for the team? After all, offense isn’t a zero sum game – more total scoring chances could mean Parker’s numbers stay the same or improve along with the QB and WRs. Then again, according to his logic, maybe we should we be ranking SJax behind LJ because of all the TDs the passing game will steal from him compared to the offense in KC.
Pasquino pointed out the concern in Pittsburgh because it’s a change from last season, a year in which Parker tore it up. That the situation changed at all made him a tiny bit more wary of Parker, despite the fact that the change was making Pittsburgh into the kind of team he was defending as better for a RB only a few minutes earlier.
As we’ve already discussed, situations almost always change on teams. When we rely on them as our primary gauge of future success, we can start moving one player up for the same reason we moved another down without even realizing it. This isn’t a good strategy.
4) Situational assessments can confuse you on talent issues.
“Poor David Carr. He had no offensive line and just needs a fresh start to blossom.“
You hear those sentiments all the time, and they were expressed again by Pasquino on the Audible when discussing dynasty QBs. At one time, they may have been true.
Looking at his sack numbers, it’s easy to blame the line. But if you watched Carr the last few years, you may have noticed how many of those sacks he caused himself. His jitteryness and indecisiveness led him to both hold the ball too long when he needed to get rid of it and make bad decisions when he felt pressure that wasn’t there.
Carr’s a guy who lost out to Billy Volek in college. His teammates have whispered about his petulance now that he’s gone. Just because he was taken #1 doesn’t mean he’s a #1 QB, and just because he started out with a bad line doesn’t mean most of his sacks are a product of other people. Maybe if he’d have started out in a better spot he could’ve become someone else, but [Denny Green voice] he is who we THOUGHT he was. [/Denny]
If you believe in David Carr, get him on your roster. But make sure you believe in him as a player and aren’t just assuming his situation was to blame without honestly evaluating his abilities.
5) Talent is the one constant, and it can often win out.
Vince Young should have been horrible last year... Travis Henry was uninspiring in 2005. Drew Bennett was okay but not a true #1. Vince’s line was hardly noteworthy. His defense had 3 good players, one of whom stomped another guy’s face. And Vince was a rookie.
But the kid’s got ability and moxie, and it’s tough to argue that he wasn’t great. He was a top 10 QB during his playing time, which few rookies accomplish, and he did it with a weak talent pool.
Naturally, Pasquino was flabbergasted Bloom had Young at #3; according to Jeff, the guy’s got no one around him!
Maybe you don’t believe in Young’s talent, and that’s fine. But if you do, why would you think the 2007 situation will be so much worse than the bad one last year? Henry and Bennett weren’t exactly considered world-beaters before. If you think a guy has greatness in him and he put up huge fantasy numbers as a rookie with little help, shouldn’t that be a guy you rate extremely high in dynasty?
We’ve already mentioned Gore and LJ having success despite their teams’ unimpressive passing attacks. Maurice Jones-Drew managed double-digit TDs and almost 1400 total yards despite being part of a red-flag RBBC.
Lee Evans had quite a season despite what looked like a bum situation going into 2006. Andre Johnson led the league in receptions even though his QB had to be replaced in the offseason. Somehow, Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin both manage to produce despite splitting the ball on a disappointing team with a bad rushing attack.
Tom Brady seemed to overcome that dismal receiving core so many people swore would hold him back, didn’t he? Nor did the Patriots drafting a 1st-round RB lessen his workload.
There are countless examples of guys performing in spite of their situation. And sure, there are guys like Mike Furrey, who produce in spite of their talent. But I dare you to add up the guys you think produced primarily because of their situation and compare them with the players who outproduced their expected situation because they’re just that good. I think you’ll find the latter list a lot longer.
Barring injury and age, talent remains constant. It’s a lot more likely to stick around than all the surrounding elements that make up a player’s current situation. And evaluating your players based primarily on talent can give you a clearer head.
All of us can get caught up in what’s happening around a player. It’s fun and interesting to mull over, and we should absolutely factor it in. But it should seldom – if ever – overshadow how you feel about a guy’s talent.
All of that said, evaluating talent isn’t easy. Sometimes it’s simpler to just find a guy on a good team with solid numbers and plug him in.
Then again, this is the Shark Pool, right?
That’s what I thought.
Last edited:
rew Brees / Donovan McNabbMarion Barber / Fred Taylor / DeAngelo WilliamsReggie Brown / Donte Stallworth / Reggie WayneAntonio GatesI drafted this team last year (aside from MB3, whom I got in a trade for MJD).Notice anything? All starters with 2+ years of experience except for FTaylor and DeW. Taylor's old and undervalued - but productive. When he's done I expect a younger talent to develop behind him and step in like DeW or someone else I get later, and if not, I'll find another underappreciated vet.Dynasty teams require a mixture. If you go for the all under 25 team, you'll likely be sorry. Veterans, especially on the "wrong side" of 30, have diminished value. People also say never to buy a new car, get one slightly used and run it into the ground to get max value. That works for some, not others. I'll take underappreciated veterans - in moderation - all day long.People who greatly favor talent over situation get burned. People who neglect talent and accept situations also get burned. See Addai, Joseph. I don't think he's stellar, but he's in a perfect situation. You can say that about prior Denver RBs as well - did they excell due to the system? Perhaps. Portis did well afterwards, but Rube didn't. Neglecting the situation in Cleveland would land you a terrible RB in a bad situation at a hefty draft price in 2006. It happens.Faletti, you contradicted yourself over and over, and I don't think it surprises anyone that you came down on Bloom's side of the argument. Feel free to load up on backup RBs and WRs that "if the situation goes just right" could explode in any league you and I wind up in. I'd enjoy that.
I always love to stock pile on under appreciated 30+ year oldsI like Sig and Jeff's rankings, Sig is a little more immotional with his picks, Jeffs a little more on the level headed side, Sig is probably better for up and coming players, I think he spots them a tad better. But Jeff has some really nice articles on his Dynasty watch so I think theyre a nice 1 2 punch.
Sig and Jeff are like the two guys on Mythbusters. They balance each other out and it's fun to watch their different approaches. 
ETA- come to think of it, should Sig's nickname be "Mutt"? 
for the contradiction to come. It didn't take long.
I'm very much in the VY camp, but even I was shocked to see someone have VY at #3 right now. In the future, he may very well be, but today? #5-10 seems more likely.
His stats in '04 were almost identical to last year's.
Addai is another example of how not just any Joe can judge talent, seeing that many on this board thought he was junk, and yet he was t one of the best rookie RBs
Addai is another example of how not just any Joe can judge talent, seeing that many on this board thought he was junk, and yet he was t one of the best rookie RBs
