Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

BuckeyeArt

Members
  • Content Count

    1,422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BuckeyeArt

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  1. Am I the only one who puts the above items together and thinks that everyone burying Dez here might be rushing things just a bit? Add to that the fact that the police didn't arrest him initially on Saturday and guess who would appear on the witness list for the defense. I'm with Bankerguy on this. I don't see how the prosecutor even thinks about pursuing this.
  2. http://www.wfaa.com/...-162653756.html This seems a little odd. So, he assaulted her on Saturday and the authorities knew about it and didn't notice injuries at that time. But, he wasn't arrested until Monday after injuries were apparent. How does he not get arrested on Saturday? Do they need to wait for her to be injured before it's a crime?
  3. If I were rebuilding, I'd probably take Finley or Davis straight up. I'd take Miller, Keller, Hernandez, or Gresham with something added.I'd agree that next year you're likely returning to production equal to the last few years rather than this year. But, that's still top 3 production. The question is really how many more years he plays. After this last injury, he brought up the phrase "career coming to an end". That's a little scary if you are acquiring.
  4. I used to play in one that allowed trading and never really found they held much value. I would think they would be worth the most in the 1st few weeks of the season. That's when the surprise FAs get picked up and when most of the dollars seem to be spent.
  5. This is misleading. Most of the stuff that F/L cited as evidence of Marshall being a knucklehead is rumor/innuendo and some things that aren't even relevant. Without resurrecting that whole debate, VJ has a comparable "rap sheet," and his incidents are more recent and resulted in convictions in court. Marshall didn't have any run-ins with the law last year and he is finally happy on his team rather than a hold out.Personally, I wouldn't downgrade either player because it is too hard to predict and people's standards are too arbitrary. To me, use of performance enhancing drugs like Bowe was guilty of is the most serious issue because it suggests that the player's underlying talent may be a mirage--other people discount it as "diet supplements" or "just part of the game." And overall, when you look at the number of players in the NFL how many have been permanently or near permanently suspended/banned? Vick--check, and who could have predicted that? Plaxico--check, while he had had some issues no one was talking about him as a huge knucklehead who would end his career because of accidentally shooting himself in a club! Most players end up being suspended two to four games and that is the end of it. I can live with that for an elite player.The problem with VJ is that with 2 DUIs on his record, he really can't just worry about what Goodell will do in the future. One more DUI during his career and the judicial system will be his biggest problem.
  6. Agree.That's what I was trying to point out on the last page (and wasn't very clear). If his plan (or agent's plan) is to serve his suspension concurrent with his holdout, then take the money and sit out. If his plan is to not play much of the season, then do what you're suggesting - hold out for 10 games, report, serve the suspension, and not be eligible to play very much of the season.
  7. I'm very high on V-Jax, and I have no doubts at all that his actual talent is elite. I don't think there are a handful of WRs better than him right now.The jump from the rooftop paranoia surrounding V-Jax is getting out of hand. I don't like the DUI's, and it is a concern, but worrying about his contract situation is laughable IMO. I think it's time to contact the V-Jax owners.My guess is if V-Jax holds out into the season it goes exactly as long as any potential suspension.The only thing wrong with that is why wouldn't he then just have signed for the 3.2 mil? If he was only planning on holding out for the length of the suspension, why not take the money?
  8. I am not aware of any HB coming back from the kind of injury Brown sustained and becoming a star. Surgery keeps improving and he is young, so it's possible, but I would bet against him. Ware seems like the best bet after Bradshaw and Jacobs if you are looking for a deep sleeper.Could you list the HBs that have not come back from this type of injury? I know there are a couple of high profile players, but the names escape me at the moment and I think it would add some perspective to the discussion.No names in these 2 articles, but it doesn't look good for BrownONE TWO I remember seeing that study posted last year in a thread. Here is the main problem with that study and why it may not pertain so much to Brown: They were looking mostly at old players and 10+ year old surgery. Most RBs decline rapidly under normal conditions around age 30.
  9. I can see Hester as good value in a redraft but not in a dynasty. We're constantly being reminded (especially here) to go with talent over situation because situations can change quickly. I can't think of a more unstable situation than what they have in Chicago. Barring a deep run into the playoffs, Lovie is likely coaching his last year in Chicago. When he goes, likely so does Martz.
  10. Tip of the cap to ESPN.com's Mike Sando. Fitz's career numbers with Boldin in the lineup: 5.6 receptions, 73.8 yards, 0.6 TDs Fitz's career numbers without Boldin in the lineup: 6.1 receptions, 90.1 yards, 0.8 TDs. Fitz's career numbers without Boldin since 2005: 7.0 receptions, 105.5 yards, 1.0 TDs. For some reason, I read SSOG's posted excerpts as 'Boldin' instead of 'Warner'. I retract that statement. Thanks. I wonder what Boldin's numbers look like with and without Fitz.
  11. None of that matters. Who cares what everyone thought of Warner before he got to Arizona. It doesn't have anything to do with your projections. Fitz still put up his best numbers with Warner and not with Leinart. Just because Warner did as well as he did doesn't mean Leinart will also. So you're going to use just 8 games as a projection for the next 6-8 years? Why not throw in the more recent 6 games since 2006 that he played mostly without Warner? In those, he went 26-949-2 (a 16 game projection of 69-949-5). And, those should include a Leinart better than 2006 Leinart. Again, I don't see how this has anything to do with your projections. No matter how good Warner was, he was still the best QB in Arizona. Showing me that Fitz doesn't produce as well with mediocre QBs doesn't do anything but support what I was saying about him not matching his prior lofty VBD numbers in the future. Frist, from the prior Fitz discussions and the excerpts you posted below, I think his production without Boldin can be argued either way. That's why I didn't include it as a negative. I can easily take FreeBeGel's stance and numbers he posted to show that Fitz isn't as productive without Boldin, especially with a weaker QB. Second, it wasn't about whether he would be a stud or get his 160. It was about the expectation of him producing 60-90 VBD points for the next 6-8 years. Well, his 50 VBD season was a prorated 44 VBD season that you elevated to 50 and then 60 with 'seasoning' even though Leinart has failed to show any up to now. I think it's safe to say TO had some very good QBs. Same with Randy Moss, except when he was in Oakland and didn't produce at the same lofty levels. Again I'm not saying Fits won't be a top WR for the next 6-8 years. I'm saying you can't use his last 5 years with Warner and say that he will produce 60-90 VBD points for the next 6-8 years. Unless Leinart shows he can be at least adequate, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.
  12. No, it doesn't hurt at all. That's why I also posted the list of the top 10 fantasy receivers through 6 seasons (so everyone's on equal footing, experience-wise)- Moss, Rice, Holt, Harrison, Fitzgerald, Alworth, Rison, Sterling Sharpe, Owens, and Charley Taylor. Fitzgerald still rates ludicrously high, and he's still surrounded by uberstuds who couldn't be stopped by anything other than injury.The point of looking at it by age, though, was pointing out that by the time Jerry Rice, Torry Holt, and Terrell Owens had accumulated as much track record as Fitzgerald, they were 29. In Marvin Harrison's 7th season, he was THIRTY. Fitzgerald is 27. If we assume that age is the limiting factor on a player's fantasy career (and I do believe that it is), then Larry Fitzgerald has three more seasons of expected production than Marvin Harrison did by the time Harrison was this proven of an asset. He's basically a 30 year old Marvin Harrison in a 27 year old's body. Starting with his age 27 season, Marvin Harrison accumulated 786 more points of VBD. Starting with his age 30 seasons, he "only" accumulated 438 more points of VBD. The difference between a 27 year old Harrison and a 30 year old Harrison was a whopping 348 VBD. As I said, other than Randy Moss, no other receiver has ever been this good and this proven at this young of an age... and unless Dez Bryant becomes an instant stud like Fitzgerald, or unless Brandon Marshall goes for 4,000 yards this year, or unless Michael Crabtree starts averaging 1,600 yards a year, there's not anybody in the NFL today that can catch him, either.To look at it from another angle... Fitzgerald has averaged 60 VBD a year since he entered the league (including his first season as a rookie and his third season where he was hurt). He's averaged 86.5 VBD a year in his four healthy/prime seasons. If you pro-rate his 3rd year stats, then he's averaged 80.8 VBD a season since his second year. No matter how you slice it, Fitz's VBD average is somewhere in the 60-90 range. If we assume that he maintains that same average going forward, and we assume that he plays 6-8 more seasons (that would take him through his age 32-34 season), then Fitzgerald might have anywhere from 360 to 720 more career VBD left in front of him. For a little bit of perspective... Shaun Alexander's career VBD was 743. Priest Holmes' was 673. Clinton Portis's was 597. Larry Johnson's was 365. Ricky Williams was 445. And these career VBDs all include that RB's breakout season- i.e. by the time they were proven enough for you to draft them in the top 3 of a startup, you'd already missed out on a huge chunk of that career VBD (generally 100-200 points). Drafting Larry Fitzgerald today is much like drafting Clinton Portis his rookie season, except without the risk because Fitzgerald is a proven commodity and Portis was just a random rookie. Larry Fitzgerald's fantasy career from this point forward could conceivably wind up being more valuable than Priest Holmes' fantasy career from start to finish. Unless one of these young uberstuds winds up being the next Marshall Faulk (1160 career VBD) or LaDainian Tomlinson (1285 career VBD), I think it's perfectly conceivable for Larry Fitzgerald's career from this point forward to outshine theirs. If Adrian Peterson is "just" the next Shaun Alexander ("just" is in quotes because Shaun Alexander was still an absolute uberstud), then Fitzgerald is almost certainly the more valuable asset.The problem with this whole Fitzgerald study is, that moving forward, he no longer has Warner. Everything is based upon his production with Warner at QB. In his big VBD years, 2005 and 2007-2009 (where he averaged 86.5), Warner was the main QB. In 2006, even prorated for his injury, he had 44. While Leinart was just a rookie in 2006, Fitz clearly didn't produce the same that year. Until he (or another QB on AZ) proves he can be an adequate QB, it's tough to project lofty numbers in Fitgerald's future.
  13. I don't think that's true. A guy with 18 catches ran about 10 more minutes of the clock than the guy with 4. Controlling the ball, except when you're Miami playing Indy, is usually pretty significant.
  14. For whatever reason, Rodgers improved dramatically in the 2nd half last year. In the 1st 8 games, he had 37 sacks. In the last 8, he had 13 sacks. Of course, Arizona sacked him 5 times in the playoff game so maybe the splits are meaningless.
  15. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. In the 1st paragraph, it looks like you're saying his stats came from Cleveland excessive running of the ball. In the 2nd paragraph, you say you think that Cleveland will again be a run heavy team. That suggests his opportunity wil be the same.You are correct in that he likely won't carry the ball 30+ times per game. But, that works both ways. Defenses didn't have to defend against the pass, especially late in the game when Cleveland was playing with a lead. Harrison's success was worse in those 30+ (and even 20+) carries. Take a look at his 1st 20 carries in each game he had more than 20:Cincy: --- 20-95KC: ------ 20-192Oak: ----- 20-93Jax: ----- 20-94Those are pretty consistent and perfectly acceptable stats for even a #1 RB.