Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Modog814

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    All Teams

Recent Profile Visitors

5,048 profile views
  1. I think you have Kyler Murray way too high. The Cardinal's slowed there pace of play down drastically over their last 10 games (67.5 plays per game dropped to 59.3 plays per game). I believe this was due to 2 reasons...1) the OL couldn't protect Murray long enough for him to pass down field, so they were forced to throw short, which became easier to defend and 2) the Cardinals linebackers couldn't cover anyone, which meant they couldn't get off the field (evidenced by 2nd most plays against). I don't believe the Cardinal's did enough (yet) to address either of these concerns so I don't expect either to change as of now. We'll see what they do in the draft. It doesn't matter how many all-pro receivers you add, you can only do so much in a limited number of pass attempts with a limited amount of time to actually throw the ball.
  3. K. Johnson: No competition for touches plus should have a strong role in the passing game. Bonus: Mark Ingram breaks top 12. This team will run run run. Ingram strong enough in the pass game to not have to come off the field. Dixon likely to get cut. Edwards isn't any thing special and Hill hasn't earned his role yet. Bust, a whole bunch: Lindsay finishes just outside as Freeman gets a little more run. Duke Johnson, will be a strong flex option but I see Houston going out and getting more help. Johnson has only had like 4 games of 10+ carries and not sure he'll be able to hold up. Ekeler: Will be okay on a per game basis but Gordon will likely report by week 10 and retake the starting role. Tough to finish in top 24 if you're not going to be the man for 6 games. Michel: Knees add injury risk. White takes most of passing game work and is a capable runner. Won't be a huge bust, but will finish outside top 24.
  4. Both sound reasonable. I have Drake down for 1200 and 7. Ballage I have for 970 and 8. TD's are a little high combined, but I do think that Miami will be better offensively this year and that they'll run a higher tempo than Gase did so there's also an uptick in volume. I have these 2 nearly splitting Carries with about 50 to Walton. Drake leading in targets but Ballage not as far behind as people think. Definitely a time share. Also think Drake will out touch Ballage, just depending on how much will make the difference between Drake being a low RB1 vs. a high RB3.
  5. This is essentially my take on Ballage as well. Out of curiosity what do you expect in terms of carries for Drake? I really don't know what to make of this situation. Don't expect Drake to be a bellcow but the range of possibilities is wide. I could see Drake taking the James White role in this offense (100 carries with most of the RB targets), but considering Drake is imo the more elusive runner, I can also see up to 180 carries + most of the RB targets. Unfortunately with Drakes recent injury it looks like we won't get much more clarity before the season starts.
  6. No problem. imo, assuming normal distribution is probably close enough if you understand that there is grey area. What I mean is if you're comparing Players A, B and C, vs D and E, and you calculate that A& B & C outscore D & E with 52% probability, then you can probably conclude they're even, not that ABC is definitely the better choice. FWIW, I just took a look at a random QB (Prescott) over the last 3 years and I would be okay with someone assuming his scores roughly follow a normal distribution.
  7. I was going to suggest Monte Carlo simulations as well. really the easiest and fastest way to get what you're looking for. Can do it easily in excel: I changed your sigmas a bit in your example to make a little more realistic, but this will work for whatever QB1 - avg 26, st. dev. of 8 Qb2 - avg 22, st. dev of 5 qb 3 - avg 31, st. dev of 4 In Cell B1, "=Norm.INV(rand(), 26, 8 ) In Cell C1, "=Norm.INV(rand(), 22, 5) In Cell D1, "=Norm.INV(rand(), 31, 4) In Cell E1, "'=IF(MAX(B1, C1)>D4, 1, 0) Copy these formulas down for a bunch of rows. In this example, results seems to stabilize around 2000. Take the average of Column E as your probability. I get some where around 34.5% probability that QB1 + QB2 outscored QB3. This can really be extended into any number of combinations
  8. Thanks for feedback. So much obviously depends on where you value players. Disagree with Lockett, think he hits 110-120 targets this year, which is enough for his skill set to be just outside WR1 territory. But to each their own. I see what you mean with Evans/Allen. Debated it and won't call it a mistake on my part b/c I have slightly ahead in points. Had gone with Allen because felt he was safer since Evans is much more TD-Dependent imo. But Evans definitely has higher ceiling, coupled with Allen's week 12 bye, maybe should have gone with Evans.
  9. First draft of the year from the 3 spot: QB: Watson, Garrapolo RB: Barkley, K. Johnson, Drake, Barber, M. Davis WR: K. Allen, Lockett, R. Anderson, J. Brown, Stills, Agholor, Ginn TE: Rudolph, Doyle, Waller PK: Gano Def: Den, Cle Planned on waiting on QB but Watson was available in the 7th and didn't feel like there were any other values out there at that point. Like my RB's, believe that I could end up with 2 top 10 RB's and 3 Top 15 RBs Allen is pretty safe WR1, debated Evans at this spot but ultimately went with Allen. I'm pretty high on Lockett and think he could end up high end WR2, low end WR1. Anderson a decent WR3. Agholor should provide steady points while Brown, Stills and Ginn offer some boom/bust options. Think TE's are serviceable. Have Rudolph and DOyle as low end TE1's. Waller has some upside. PK: A crap shoot, but I have Gano as my #2 PK Def: Committee approach. Think Denver has 4 strong weeks to start season. Cleveland's S.O.S. works well in my numbers.
  10. Tannehill Bradford Cousins Think Tannehill and Bradford both have shots at Top 5 QB seasons. Tannehill was locked into my lineup from the get go. Philly has made some bad QB's look fantastic, and now they have a QB with some talent they sky could be the limit. Added Cousins late because I don't see how Washington could possibly go back to RGIII unless due to injury. He threw multi-TD's in 4 of 6 games last year and had 250+ yards in 5 of 6. Nice bargain for $3. Brady is on a 1/3 of teams and while I think he's decent value for the price, I think those expecting him to come out "mad" and put up 2007 numbers are chasing a dream. He really struggled at times last year and was awesome at others. In the end I believe he finishes behind both Tannehill and Bradford. Jeremy Hill Latavius Murray Chris Ivory Ryan Mathews Matt Jones Javorius Allen Lorenzo Taliaferro Christine Michael Grabbed two good backs in Hill and Murray who I think are undervalued. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hill as a top 5 back this year and Murray a top 12. Hill has multi-TD potential and Murray has that home run ability which can help carry a team. Ivory has always had the talent, it was always just a question of playing time and health. He should be the lead horse on a team that's going to rely on the run. The next five picks are gambles that could pay off big time. I'm probably in the minority but have never been a fan of DeMarco Murray's talent. I think he benefited greatly from that line in Dallas. He's going to another great situation, but this time I think he actually has someone behind him that can challenge him for carries. Mathews should get enough plays to where he'll produce decent scores every now and then but could be a huge payoff if Murray disappoints. I bought into the Matt Jones hype. He's another that should get some playing time each week regardless, so that he can cover a bye or injury if needed. Alfred Morris is another where I wonder if opportunity/system was greater than his actual talent. J. Allen, Taliaferro and Michael are all picks based on the same reason. The teams they play for have incredible o-lines and I'm just not a believer in the named starter. Again, probably in the minority here, but I think Forsett was a product of right place, right time for Baltimore last year. Once healthy Taliaferro could vulture some GL work and Allen could vulture some passing down work. Michael was a last minute add, but same situation. I'm not convinced Randle is good enough to be the starter and that McFadden can stay healthy. For $3 he was worth the lotto ticket. Julio Jones Jarvis Landry John Brown Davante Adams Michael Crabtree Stevie Johnson Eddie Royal Corey Brown Was looking for players that get targets. Julio should continue seeing his 10 targets a game and has that big game potential you'll need in the final weeks. Landry became Tannehill's favorite target and wanted to pair the two for the upside in the final weeks. Towards the end of the season he too was seeing about 9 targets a game. In his last 8 games he averaged 9 targets, 6.5 receptions, 57 yards and .38 TDs. That works out to 144 targets, 104 receptions, 912 yards, and 6 TD's. There's also reason to believe he could improve on those numbers in his 2nd year. There were a bunch of WR's I liked in the $8-$12 range. Settled on Brown, Adams, Crabtree and Johnson. Adams is self-explanatory. The pain of fading him and having him put up a strong year was much greater than the pain of taking him and having him fail. So it was an easy decision. Extrapolating the 6 games John Brown played with Palmer he "would" have had 107 targets, 53 receptions, 840 yards and 8 TD's. His games provides the big days you're looking for in this contest and from this position. I think Crabtree and Johnson are both being written off pre-maturely. Crabtree is another year removed from an injury that cost him some time and I think he moves from a team that was run run run, that'll be forced to pass more often. I wouldn't be surprise to see a 1000 yard campaign from him. For someone who seems like he's been around forever, Stevie Johnson is only 29. He too moves from the Run first SF team (that barely used him) to a team that should be pass happy. Both these players should provide solid bye-week and injury fill in scores. Eddie Royal should pick up a ton of targets on a team that will be forced to pass. Someone will have to catch some passes in Carolina. They can't all go to Olsen. Not sold on Funchess, and Corey Brown has show he can produce some when given the opportunity. Another $2 lotto ticket. Kyle Rudolph Tyler Eifert Jordan Reed With the 1.5 ppr and TE-eligible flex, I wanted 3 high ceiling players. They are all injury concerns, but they also all have top 5 potential. The 3 of these guys cost less than Gronkowski and I wouldn't be surprise if I get similar combined production.
  11. Think I'm done. I think this is the largest roster (27) that I've ever put into it. QB - 3 for $31 RB - 8 for $90 WR - 8 for $85 TE - 3 for $27 PK - 3 for $7 TD - 3 for $10 Week 5 is only week where I have more than $50 on bye.
  12. Actually, i think the point is i could pencil any of those other guys in for #1 numbers and they'd finish #1. So you are saying that you could see any one of Lynch, Murray, Foster, Bell, Ball, Martin or Gio finishing as the RB1 this year? And more so than Lacy? Also, all you can do is pencil numbers in. 300 carries is not really an increase from last year (averaged 20 per game over 14 games last year, which would put him into 320+ territory), nor is 12+ TDs-he had 11 last year. Do you disagree that having a healthy Rodgers, Cobb, Nelson should push the defenses back a little, giving him more running room? Do you disagree that these pieces that were missing for most of last year will have a positive impact on the offense and should put Lacy in more chances to score? I agree that Mike McCarthy has a 14 year history of throwing the ball near the goal line and has had only one running back crack more than 11 total TDs in a single season during that time, Deuce McCallister with 16 TDs in 2002. Deuce is also the only back to crack 2,000 total yards in a McCarthy offense (2003). I think Eddie can achieve maybe 1,800 yards and maybe 15 TDs because of the reasons you state, but he is working against a lot of history on all fronts. And FTR I have him as RB#4 on my board, a lot of that also to do with the fact that I think he has a higher floor than many RBs. Yes, if he stays healthy, his floor is high. He can't hardly avoid a 100/10 season if he tried. IMO, there's a lot oversaid and thought about how McCarthy throws and hasn't run a lot in GB,etc. My opinion is the way you get to have a long coaching career in the NFL is by recognizing AND using your strengths. In Green Bay, it has been the passing, combined with a very pedestrian running game. When he DID have a great runner, he used him. Simple as that. We all know he's too smart to not restrain Rodgers. But he is smart enough to know he can lean on a good, capable runner and maybe preserve his star QB (throwing at the goal line can take a toll on a QB, especially if they bootleg to buy time). Much like how things set up for a perfect storm for Charles and Shady last year, it looks like this for Lacy. How on Earth do you even begin to put adequate defenders in the box with Aaron Rodgers, Randall Cobb, Jordy Nelson, and a host of other capable players? IF (I know it might not happen) Finley returns, wow...You can't possibly defend the interior middle of that field and you're going to have a stampeding bull coming right down at you. Sorry but I don't see this at all. Charles and McCoy both played in offenses that were run-centric and they were the offensive focal points. Lacy is neither in a run first offense nor the focal point of the offense.
  13. I think this hits it on the head. I'm not too impressed with him, but his situation more than makes up for it. He's a solid RB1, but I personally think that you're drafting him close to his ceiling. I just don't picture him being a top 3 RB. Outside of injury however I think he's mostly like a top 10 RB. So you're paying what you're most likely going to get for him, and there is nothing wrong with that.