Search results

Guppies also tend to be very easy to influence with a little bit of table talk. I'm in a guppy league with some college buddies, and every year I've been able to incite a TE run just by saying "well, it looks like this is the start of the annual TE run" sometime in the 5th or 6th round. Guppies...

You know, unless you play best ball, you still have to pick who to start each week. That's a skill, too. That league would emphasize different skills, but skills nonetheless. Actually, I think looking at the number of teams involved is the wrong way to go. Look at the number of players started...

Those Kolb numbers still extrapolate to 74/1316/4. I'm willing to overlook the TD numbers due to obvious sample size caveats. That's still 1300 yards from the greater of the two evils.

What's wrong with a 70/30 best case scenario? Unless you're Maurice Jones-Drew, you're not getting more than 70% of your team's rushing offense. As a patient Stewart owner... You know what? I'm okay with this. It would have been nice to have him go somewhere to be the undisputed starter, but...

I would very much like to see you make that argument. You could argue that Thomas is the most physically gifted WR Manning has ever worked with, but if physical gifts were the same as talent, then Matt Jones would be the second most talented WR in the league today. And the whole discussion would...

Three, not two. I was talking about it in the Ken Anderson thread, but Bill Walsh really only spent multiple years working with 3 QBs during his career. All three guys were league MVPs, two of them are in the HoF, and the third is largely considered the best QB not in the HoF. One of three...

It's a valid concept, but people need to be clear just whose mean we are referring to. Regression to the mean doesn't mean regression to the league average. Jimmy Graham and Tony Scheffler are not regressing to the same mean. To illustrate using a baseball analogy: let's say you have a .300...

There's your problem right there. Why on earth would you do that? Well it's a good thing I'm not saying anything like that, then. The point of FF isn't to measure how one player played in comparison to another. It doesn't measure talent, it measures production. What's that old saw, talent +...

Yeah, WRs are different, which is why I'm focusing more on RBs and QBs. For a WR, the metric is targets, not receptions. Targets correlate to QB attempts, receptions correlate to QB completions. Completions and receptions are not inherently negative statistics. They aren't inherently positive...

I think Kelly is a fair comparison. Anderson was a better QB. Kelly made 4 straight SBs. Both are guys who I wouldn't get worked up over either their inclusion or exclusion from the hall. I'd be fine if one made it but not the other. I'd be fine if both made it. I'd be fine if neither made it...

First off, you can't use logic to prove something illogical. This is something of a tautology. If a math professor used a series of premises which seemed sound, but which led to an illogical conclusion, then there was a flaw in one of his premises. Second off, look at the language you're using-...

Montana and Young were both better than Anderson in that system. I already said that I'd have no problem with Anderson making the Hall. If I have no problem with Anderson making it, and I think Montana and Young were better than Anderson, then surely I'd have even less of a problem with their...

No. I'm the guy who posted in the thread already saying that the whole alternate scoring system was useless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I can dislike a scoring system and still defend the merits of certain parts of it.

Eh, for me, that's not the stuff that makes Warner a HoFer. It's a good start, but it's not enough to get him there on its own, especially given his supporting cast. For me, Warner's a hall of famer because he essentially won a SB with the Arizona freaking Cardinals. He led the game-winning...

RB1 has 15 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. RB2 has 40 carries for 60 yards and a score, with 5 first downs. Who had a better day?QB1 went 15/20 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. QB2 went 15/50 for 250 yards, 2 scores, and 0 interceptions. Who had the better...

Again, I don't like this business of comparing Anderson to his peers. He was playing an offense that was 10-20 years ahead of its time. He had, to borrow from Charlie Weis, a "decided schematic advantage" every time he stepped on the field. And we know this for a fact, because history tells us...

There's some logic to it. An attempt is an innately negative thing, it just happens to be the only way to produce positive value. Think of it this way: a team only has so many offensive plays. Every time a player takes one of those plays, that leaves the offense with fewer to work with going...

I don't think you can have any discussion of Anderson's supporting cast without mentioning Bill Walsh.

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Tell me, how many times in your league last year was a mediocre-to-bad QB traded for a really good RB/WR/TE? It didn't happen a single time in any one of my leagues, and I'm in quite a few. I would wager it didn't happen in any of your...

Anderson put up statistics that were 10 years ahead of his time because he played in an offense that was 10 years ahead of its time. Comparing his stats against his peers' is as inappropriate as comparing Otto Graham's stats against his peers'. Anderson is a very good QB, and I wouldn't be upset...