• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,069 Excellent


About ZWK

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

13,630 profile views
  1. In the first half of Dolphins' wins, Landry has been on pace for 123 targets per 16 full games, and 85/768/4.3 receiving. In the first half of Dolphins' losses, Landry has been on pace for 128 targets per 16 full games, and 95/803/1.9 receiving. In the second half of Dolphins' wins, Landry has been on pace for 118 targets per 16 full games, and 87/1024/9.6 receiving. In the second half of Dolphins' losses, Landry has been on pace for 198 targets per 16 full games and 132/1418/6.6 receiving. The Dolphins have averaged 17.4 passing plays per W 1H, 16.9 passing plays per L 1H, 15.7 passing plays per W 2H, and 24.9 passing plays per L 2H. So @matttyl looks to be correct - the difference is pretty much all about Miami throwing more when behind.
  2. I have also been going after Fitz, but at that price I'd let you have him. Maybe you should try trading for Edelman instead.
  3. ASJ didn't run at the combine. Or at a pro day. He had a private workout with the Jets, and one scout that was there claimed that he timed ASJ at 4.56. I would not put much stock in that number.
  4. One week later: Gotta love minicamp reports.
  5. The 2012-16 Colts RBs (sorted by rushing attempts) were: Frank Gore, Trent Richardson, Vick Ballard, Donald Brown, Ahmad Bradshaw, Dan Herron, Robert Turbin, Delone Carter. Not a great batch of receiving backs, except for Bradshaw. Bradshaw had 55 receptions in his 19 games in Indy as a change of pace back (46 per 16 games). That seems like a plausible projection for Hines assuming he earns that role.
  6. I have Hogan as worth a borderline 2nd/3rd rounder. The FBG rookie rankings have Tre'Quan Smith 24th and DJ Chark 25th, and I slot Hogan in between those two. That also seems like the right spot relative to the other rookies going around there. I put him behind other late-2nd round rookies like Hines & Darnold, and ahead of all the other 3rd rounders like Hurst, Ballage, Allen, and Callaway.
  7. Week-to-week consistency is basically irrelevant. If Hill outscores Thomas by 3 fpts over the course of the season then Hill will bring you more expected wins. If Thomas outscores Hill by 3 fpts over the course of the season then Thomas will bring you more expected wins. I have run numbers on this. One way to think about it: imagine that 1 of your players came with extra bonus points. A player who gives consistent bonus points gives you 2 extra points every week; a player who gives you inconsistent bonus points gives you 10 extra points 1/5 of the time and 0 extra points the rest of the time. (I expect that this roughly matches the size of the consistency difference between Thomas & Hill.) The consistent bonus turns a loss into a win any time that you otherwise would have lost by 0-2 points. The inconsistent bonus turns a loss into a win 1/5 of the time that you otherwise would have lost by 0-10 points. If cases where you otherwise would have lost by 0-10 points are about 5 times as common than cases where you otherwise would have lost by 0-2 points, then the two bonuses help you by the exact same amount. If you have a good team, then maybe cases where you would have lost by 0-10 points are only 4.8 times as common as cases where you otherwise would have lost by 0-2 points, in which case the inconsistent bonus is worth about 1.3 fpts less than the consistent bonus over the course of the entire season. So if the inconsistent player scores a grand total of 3 fpts more over the course of the season that would more than make up for this consistency difference.
  8. A conveniently timed new article from PFF: How we grade offensive and defensive linemen.
  9. The Jaguars signed Andrew Norwell to a big free agent contract, presumably without knowing the Panthers' blocking assignments in the tape that they watched of him. I expect that knowing all the play calls would've helped them a bit in making an accurate evaluation, but they still managed pretty well without that info.
  10. Agreed on Edelman being a good buy. The fantasy playoffs are basically half the season (having a guy for the fantasy playoffs but not the fantasy regular season helps roughly as much as the reverse, and is about half as good as having him for all the games), and Edelman is just missing about 1/3 of the fantasy regular season, so he loses about 1/6 of his value for this year. Some uncertainty with his age and returning from his injury, but more likely than not he returns to his 6+ receptions per game role. I don't pay much attention to week-to-week consistency because it just isn't that important. 1) An inconsistent player has almost no effect on how much your team wins, compared to a more consistent player who scores the same total points (unless the inconsistency leads to you make bad sit-start decisions). 2) As FreeBaGeL showed with Kelce, a player who we think of as "inconsistent" usually wasn't much (or any) more inconsistent than other players. 3) Past inconsistency is only a weak predictor of future inconsistency; the guy who was inconsistent last season won't necessarily be inconsistent next season. 4) I suspect that past inconsistency is a weak predictor of future total production, especially for guys (like Kelce) who have a strong multi-year track record of past total production. Christian Kirk didn't produce enough in college, by my numbers, so I'm relatively down on him as a prospect. I see him as part of a relatively big tier of guys in this year's WR class who are all clearly behind the top 3 (Moore, Ridley, Sutton); Derrius Guice fell to the end of the 2nd round. He went 20-30 picks behind Michel/Chubb/Jones; I have him just slightly behind those guys in my rankings so I'm still rating him ahead of where his draft position alone would place him. My formulas were even lower on him than his draft position, but before the draft I was inclined to put more weight on the love he was getting from the fantasy community than on my formulas (it seemed plausible that his numbers were down this past year just because he was playing through injuries). But then he fell in the draft too. Also, questions about his receiving chops are a negative in PPR.
  11. Last year Duke Johnson played 565 offensive snaps, which was 14th most among RBs. For comparison, Mark Ingram played 571 and Marshawn Lynch played 462. In 2016 Johnson played 457 snaps (27th) and in 2015 it was 561 snaps (15th). Not an every-down back, but still a pretty substantial part of the offense.
  12. Penny's rate stats are better than Pumphrey's on all of my metrics. Penny (2015-17) vs. Pumphrey (2014-16) Yards per att: 7.48 vs. 6.05 First downs per att: 29.2% vs. 24.1% First downs per first down att: 17.2% vs. 15.3% 20+ yard carries per non-RZ att: 11.1% vs. 7.2% TDs per RZ att: 26.3% vs. 21.6% First downs per short yardage att: 76.3% vs. 70.0% Yards per reception: 11.33 vs. 8.93 Yards per target: 7.91 vs. 7.44 Pumphrey does have the edge in most totals (attempts, receptions, rushing yards, receiving yards, touchdowns).
  13. Hogan gets a bump. Presumably some other WR too, but 1) possibly not by enough for them to be fantasy startable, 2) it's unclear who and will depend on how the competition plays out over the offseason, and 3) it's just for 4 games. So I still don't have much interest in the other Pats WRs. And Edelman still looks like a good buy, possibly an even better buy than before, since it's just 4 games from the fantasy regular season.
  14. I posted some stats like that earlier in the thread. Add Kamara & Ingram 2017 to the RB1 list (bringing it up to 8 Saints RB1s in 12 seasons), and add Kamara (plus 6 non-Saints) to the 4+ receptions per game club.
  15. Having peaks and valleys over the years is better than constantly having a decent team. Or at least, you'll win more championships that way. There are increasing returns to team quality - each time that you improve your team by 1 ppg, that increases your chances of winning the championship by a little bit more than the previous 1 ppg did. So there is some advantage to matching the timing of your studs. In practice, I don't worry much about that. I am greedy/arrogant enough to try to have a really good team year after year. Except occasionally when it looks like I'm not a contender I'll give up on the current season and try to reload for next year (trading away vets, acquiring injured players and draft picks, etc.). Startup drafts seem like a relatively bad time to try to go old. All the teams in the league are starting with roughly the same total value on their team, which means that you can't have that big of an edge. Going all in on winning now works better when you already have a good team and are investing more in the present to try to put your team over the top (because of the increasing returns), which you don't have in year 1. Also, in startups I've found that old players tend to be a bit overvalued compared to "fundamentals" through the first several rounds of the draft (although vets like Fitz & Edelman might be undervalued later in the draft), and the most undervalued players tend to be prospects & future draft picks. So I'll usually go young early and build for the future (maybe trading down some), and then maybe spend some mid-to-late-round picks giving myself a chance to win now.