Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Catbird

Members
  • Content Count

    822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

About Catbird

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 12/14/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Mexico

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's a long way from anything I have seen to a general consensus that Daniel is the best QB in this draft.
  2. Maybe he's saying Kirk looks like the best alternative on his waiver wire?
  3. In dynasty that's crazy. Re-draft I wouldn't want to rely much on either of them.
  4. To me it's about the difference between what the guy scores and the alternatives available. If you are starting Hopkins(100) and Diggs(67) at WR and Everett(45) at TE, and if Thomas(97) and Waller(67) are available adding Thomas replacing Diggs is worth 30 points to your lineup. Waller replacing Everett only increases your scoring by 22 points. If you are starting Hockenson (31) however, and face the same choice, Waller represents an point increase of 37 and so is much more valuable to your team than Thomas. The problem is that lots of things mess up this easy calculation. What really matters is what the guy you replace and the guy you pick do from here, which by injury or teammate injury or roster moves or whether one guy you pick just plays better or worse going forward ... many, many things - make using past performance extremely tenuous. This is true for the guy you pick up and for the guy you are replacing. That's why knowing the players and their situation can make a major difference in results. People who think its all luck miss this. Another factor that is very difficult to quantify is who might be available tomorrow that isn't today. If you are using Hockenson and Waller is available today, but Everett will come available next week, you are better to replace Digs with Thomas and then Hockenson with Everett. I don't means that you can predict this, but you can look at what level players are likely to become available. Usually, for example, far better WRs are developing and becoming available than TEs. What I try to do is look at relative rank of the player you are picking within that position and if they make a fairly similar difference in the points they will produce, I pick the guy who is closer to the top at his position - this because it is more likely, for example, that another player of Diggs caliber will come available among WRs than that another RB of Everett's caliber will come along among TEs. You also have to take into account what the players cost you in terms of draft poition or waiver capital, can't know who else in your roster and lineup will get injured after you make your decision (which hugely effects the 'wisdom' of the choice you make), nor can you know when the coaching will change to a new game plan. In short, and its one of the good things about fantasyball, is that there are way too many variables to ever make a concrete decision on roughly similar players. If anything were universally predictable, those who figured out how to predict that would be invincible.
  5. For there to be this grand conspiracy, it seems to me there would have to be a reason for a conspiracy? Why would they be making this up? Maybe he took a penetrating knee, limped somewhat for the rest of the game, though at first it would clear up and found it got worse rather than better, decidded to tell the staff about the severity and may need to sit out over it? If it is his knee, why not just say it is his knee and he continues to have trouble with it. I don't think they care about keeping secrets to damage your fantasy prospects or team. He's hurt and can't play. When he can, he will. Why would there be some huge 'coverup' of Gurley's actual condition?
  6. Go to Assistant Coach forum. Its all about who to pick.
  7. I think Cook was nearly universally preferred on what he would produce per game, but he dropped substantially in drafts because of injury fears. I don't think many people thought Mixon behind his OL would produce what Cook would behind his. That injury risk is still a concern. While Dalvin is probably outperforming what people expected and Mixon underperforming so far, if Cook gets hurt again and Mixon continues to stay healthy, the CIN OL would only have to get back to basic health to make Mixon the better pick. If you don't believe in some players being more likely than others to get hurt, of course, injury history doesn't matter (and you probably picked Cook way before you got to Mixon on your draft list).
  8. You get paid for what you bring to the team (not so much what effort you put in). They have a salary cap and so teams pay more for the positions where the difference in players makes a difference in results. That is, above all, QBs. On that scale, teams evidently believe the studies that say RBs matter less to results and see that born out on the field. If teams thought that the difference in RB talent made as much difference in game results as the difference in QBs, they would pay RBs as much as QBs - because they would need to have the top ones to win. That just isn't the case. A team that chooses to spend their salary cap paying everyone equally is not going to compete because they will have great people at less important positions and worse people at the more critical positions. Its just like real life, except that even the worst NFL players are making ten times (or a hundred times) what the average hard worker does. The CEOs who make the decisions that guide corporations make a lot more than their hard working mail clerks. Paying Gordon ten million per year was in keeping with the RB salary patterns and his talent. He chooses not to accept that (perhaps wisely, depending on what this course will bring him). No bad guy. The owners are just allocating their cap as effectively to win (admitting there is also some marketing concern mixed in) as they can. Each just trying to make their best choice for their goal. The fact that Ekeler has so effectively replaced Gordon with little apparent difference in result demonstrates exactly why they shouldn't be paying Gordon more.
  9. Sometimes I don't know what you are thinking or seeing, Zyphros, but your dogged faith and belief in PWilliams made me look again and start to maybe see some of what you did. I picked him up with 4ths in both my dynasty drafts and happily jumped on the bus. He hasn't done anything yet but have a good early pre-season game, but he's going to. Thanks!
  10. Pre-camp coachspeak building a guy up so as to trade him?
  11. I guess so ... if there were no other factors whatsoever contributing to RB performance.
  12. Since we are purely guessing, I will cast my hunch with Skeletore. Gordon has never shown a huge prima donna or 'me first' attitude - admitting there hasn't been much reason to before now. I think the Chargers will give Melvin some assurance that he is their guy and they will pay him and it blows over within the first week of camp, if not sooner. Owner though, so this may be more wishful than insightful.
  13. Why are the RBs with more forced missed tackles listed after the RBs with fewer? Who are RBs 6, 7 and 8?
  14. Its like people are speaking different languages here. Several think the clear consistency of the data makes consideration of the cutoffs valuable and the other half is saying either that draft order has been shown to be the most consistent predictor of WR success and so there is no need to look at other factors, or that the sample size of the last 8 years is insufficient to rely on. It seems pretty simple from there. People should use what they are comfortable with. Like everything, people are very unlikely to convince anyone with a strong opinion of anything that isn't consistent with it. People who are open to the predicability of the data, knowing the sample size and lack of absolute certainty, should be discussing whether that can be improved upon. People who aren't open to seeing the data as predictive or useful should go somewhere else and look at things they think are more useful to them. Using this thread to bicker between the two basic views just takes time away from both useful endeavors. Since no one is going to prove the data non-predictive, and with it clear that many people think it non-predictive or that this can't be shown clearly enough to be useful, can we keep this thread to talking about how best to use this data and how to improve its usefulness, rather than yelling back and forth whether or not people should use it at all?