Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Both "who do I start" and "who do I draft" involve a certain skill, and both involve a certain amount of luck as well. WDIS, imho, requires a lot more luck than the other one. I don't have any facts or figures to back it up, that's just the impression I have. Frank Gore could put up a dud against Detroit while Steven Jackson goes nuts against the Jets, for no real rhyme or reason. Heck, a guy could go for 180/2 against a team on the road and later play against that same team at home and go for 45/0? Why? Random chance.

Which would be a very compelling point if you just made a single WDIS decision and it decided your whole season. Outside of the playoffs, that's not the case. WDIS decisions are iterated 13 times in the regular season, which is enough iterations for the most skilled to overcome random chance.

I have to disagree with this. People here have been telling me that im taking a huge risk in taking Felix Jones this year with his injury history. So if i do, and he gets hurt, was that just bad luck for me? Also, if i start Adrian Peterson home against the Lions instead of Willis Mcgahee against the Steelers and Mcgahee goes off for 100 yards and 3 TD's. and AD puts up 40 yards and 0 TD's, was that a bad call, or a bad break?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that, except in a few of the most extreme cases, "injury risk" is a non-factor. Or, rather, it's a factor... but not in terms of how likely a player is to be injured. It's a factor in how likely coaches are to give him a big workload. Data suggests that coaches only give large workloads to players who are more resistant to injury. The result is that everyone winds up being a roughly equal injury risk at their given workload, but where that workload falls depends on their injury resistance. As a result, if Felix Jones is a greater injury risk, that's going to be reflected in his production, not in whether he actually gets injured or not. Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck. Edited by SSOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

Not all injuries are created equal. Poor conditioning can play a role. A reckless playing style (players who like to leave their feet for instance) can play a role. Some guys are just "wound tight". Injuries can also beget more injuries. a player stresses out a body part compensating for another injured body part or otherwise doing something that isn't natural because of an existing injury. Concussions make a player more likely to suffer additional concussions. Needless to say, I think only a subset of injuries are truly "almost entirely bad luck" - I don't know what that number is - say somewhere from 20-50% - but I think some players have an injury history that is 100% "bad luck", and some have an injury history that is 100% due to factors that are within their control, or at least known and not chalked up to random chance. Teams don't ignore injury history when they draft players, why should we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Both "who do I start" and "who do I draft" involve a certain skill, and both involve a certain amount of luck as well. WDIS, imho, requires a lot more luck than the other one. I don't have any facts or figures to back it up, that's just the impression I have. Frank Gore could put up a dud against Detroit while Steven Jackson goes nuts against the Jets, for no real rhyme or reason. Heck, a guy could go for 180/2 against a team on the road and later play against that same team at home and go for 45/0? Why? Random chance.

Which would be a very compelling point if you just made a single WDIS decision and it decided your whole season. Outside of the playoffs, that's not the case. WDIS decisions are iterated 13 times in the regular season, which is enough iterations for the most skilled to overcome random chance.

I have to disagree with this. People here have been telling me that im taking a huge risk in taking Felix Jones this year with his injury history. So if i do, and he gets hurt, was that just bad luck for me? Also, if i start Adrian Peterson home against the Lions instead of Willis Mcgahee against the Steelers and Mcgahee goes off for 100 yards and 3 TD's. and AD puts up 40 yards and 0 TD's, was that a bad call, or a bad break?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that, except in a few of the most extreme cases, "injury risk" is a non-factor. Or, rather, it's a factor... but not in terms of how likely a player is to be injured. It's a factor in how likely coaches are to give him a big workload. Data suggests that coaches only give large workloads to players who are more resistant to injury. The result is that everyone winds up being a roughly equal injury risk at their given workload, but where that workload falls depends on their injury resistance. As a result, if Felix Jones is a greater injury risk, that's going to be reflected in his production, not in whether he actually gets injured or not. Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

I agree 100% with this, and most of your post for that matter.

I just happen to think picking a starting lineup is mostly luck too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

Not all injuries are created equal. Poor conditioning can play a role. A reckless playing style (players who like to leave their feet for instance) can play a role. Some guys are just "wound tight". Injuries can also beget more injuries. a player stresses out a body part compensating for another injured body part or otherwise doing something that isn't natural because of an existing injury. Concussions make a player more likely to suffer additional concussions. Needless to say, I think only a subset of injuries are truly "almost entirely bad luck" - I don't know what that number is - say somewhere from 20-50% - but I think some players have an injury history that is 100% "bad luck", and some have an injury history that is 100% due to factors that are within their control, or at least known and not chalked up to random chance. Teams don't ignore injury history when they draft players, why should we?
If injuries were not mostly bad luck, they would be easier to predict. I agree that guys like AD or Marion Barber are more likely to get hurt due to their running style, but ultimately it still is impossible to predict with any sort of accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

Not all injuries are created equal. Poor conditioning can play a role. A reckless playing style (players who like to leave their feet for instance) can play a role. Some guys are just "wound tight". Injuries can also beget more injuries. a player stresses out a body part compensating for another injured body part or otherwise doing something that isn't natural because of an existing injury. Concussions make a player more likely to suffer additional concussions. Needless to say, I think only a subset of injuries are truly "almost entirely bad luck" - I don't know what that number is - say somewhere from 20-50% - but I think some players have an injury history that is 100% "bad luck", and some have an injury history that is 100% due to factors that are within their control, or at least known and not chalked up to random chance. Teams don't ignore injury history when they draft players, why should we?
If injuries were not mostly bad luck, they would be easier to predict. I agree that guys like AD or Marion Barber are more likely to get hurt due to their running style, but ultimately it still is impossible to predict with any sort of accuracy.
People predict every year that Bob Sanders will get hurt, and he does. I think some players have enough high risk factors that you can at least price in injury risk in a way that does accurately reflect the rough probability of injury for that player. Teams do this every year in the draft. It's why Jahvid Best was a late first round pick and CJ Spiller was a top ten pick even though they are players of similar talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Both "who do I start" and "who do I draft" involve a certain skill, and both involve a certain amount of luck as well. WDIS, imho, requires a lot more luck than the other one. I don't have any facts or figures to back it up, that's just the impression I have. Frank Gore could put up a dud against Detroit while Steven Jackson goes nuts against the Jets, for no real rhyme or reason. Heck, a guy could go for 180/2 against a team on the road and later play against that same team at home and go for 45/0? Why? Random chance.

At least when we're talking about player's success over the course of a whole season there are general reasons behind it, and they're often reasons that we knew about ahead of time, where people were separated by how important they think those reasons are. Beanie Wells could go for 1500/15 next year, or he could go for 500/5, and there are people in each camp. But those people are separated by one group seeing a guy that is talented enough to overcome stuff like a bad offense, Tim Hightower, etc while others do not believe he possesses that kind of talent. If he ends up in the 500/5 level, it will likely be because of a reason that many people were talking about before the season.

Meanwhile, if Beanie runs for 200/3 against the Jets and 27/0 against the Lions, what people out there had reasons that would lead them to foreseeing that?

I don't really know a good way to put this into words, but when we're talking about whether or not a choice was more skill or more luck, typically the longer something lasts the more the luck will balance out. If you choose to draft someone you get a whole year for all the flukey, lucky weird stuff to balance out and get a true estimation of how good a job you did with that pick. When you're talking about a decision (like "who do I start at RB2 this week?") that only has one game to work itself out, there's no chance for the luck to balance itself out. Granted, you're doing WDIS with more than one position so that helps balance it out some, but it's still a small number because your RB1, WR1, TE1, etc are all probably still pretty set in stone.

Most of these WDIS decisions are either really obvious or are basically toss-ups. The fact that in the majority of cases where it's not obvious, you probably don't feel very strongly one way or the other and just kind of see it as a toss-up is proof enough of that. It's close, but you're picking one and hoping you get the right one. By comparison, with draft picks, people often feel VERY strongly, and have a laundry list of reasons for strongly preferring one player over another even if other players view that person completely differently.

That's what I am trying to say - in an 8-teamer, it very often isn't set in stone. Lineup decisions take more thought when you have four to five very viable starting options as opposed to two or three. I play in roughly nine 12-14 team dynasty leagues. In most of them, I can right now pretty clearly see a starting lineup - it's rare when I have more than 2 "studs" at any position. Of course, that will change with injuries, sleepers emerging, etc. But generally, I have a few nice options at each position, and the rest are filler. In my one 8-teamer, I always end up with studs across the board - every week I end up benching guys like Boldin, Ocho, M Austin, VJax, etc because there just isn't room to start them. It makes for a harder "start" decision.

I do agree that anyone can lay an egg at anytime - that's really not what I am saying.

Maybe this will make what I am saying clearer:

Here's an 8-team wr group: (pick 2 to start)

Fitz, AJ, VJax, M Austin, Ocho

And here's a 12 team: (pick 2 to start)

Fitz, AJ, Avery, Cotchery, D Bess

Based on what we know now, which group gives you more options to play matchups? Sitting Fitz isn't so far-fetched when you have VJax or M Austin to replace him, is it? Say Fitz draws revis next week, and VJax or Austin gets some patsy. You sit Fitz in the 8-teamer. But in that 12 teamer, there's almost no way you sit Fitz for Avery/Cotchery, no matter who he draws. There's really no decision to make in the 12-team league. There's a pretty big decision to make in the 8-team one.

Now, there are some 12 team teams that have a ton of studs, and some 8 team teams that have only 2 options. But it's generally not the norm - there are usually more viable starting options in smaller leagues, making the decision a little more meaningful.

I'm basically disagreeing with the assumption stated earlier that smaller leagues require less skill. They definitely don't. No less so than larger ones, imho - it's just different.

Edited by jwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

Not all injuries are created equal. Poor conditioning can play a role. A reckless playing style (players who like to leave their feet for instance) can play a role. Some guys are just "wound tight". Injuries can also beget more injuries. a player stresses out a body part compensating for another injured body part or otherwise doing something that isn't natural because of an existing injury. Concussions make a player more likely to suffer additional concussions. Needless to say, I think only a subset of injuries are truly "almost entirely bad luck" - I don't know what that number is - say somewhere from 20-50% - but I think some players have an injury history that is 100% "bad luck", and some have an injury history that is 100% due to factors that are within their control, or at least known and not chalked up to random chance. Teams don't ignore injury history when they draft players, why should we?
If injuries were not mostly bad luck, they would be easier to predict. I agree that guys like AD or Marion Barber are more likely to get hurt due to their running style, but ultimately it still is impossible to predict with any sort of accuracy.
People predict every year that Bob Sanders will get hurt, and he does. I think some players have enough high risk factors that you can at least price in injury risk in a way that does accurately reflect the rough probability of injury for that player. Teams do this every year in the draft. It's why Jahvid Best was a late first round pick and CJ Spiller was a top ten pick even though they are players of similar talent.
Im not saying teams, or fantasy owners dont try to predict injuries, im just saying it is still just a crap shoot. Sure, people have accurately predicted Bob Sanders being hurt. However, after their first couple years, poeple predicted Fred Taylor and Isaac Bruce would be injured every year, and looked what happened. Andre Johnson and Matt Schaub have slid in drafts over the last several years because they were "injury prone". Adrian Peterson was suppose to be injury prone comming out of college, how many games has he missed in the pros?The best way i have found to avoid injuries, particualrly in dynasty leagues, is to build my teams around QB's and WR's, they miss less games yearly and play well into their 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Both "who do I start" and "who do I draft" involve a certain skill, and both involve a certain amount of luck as well. WDIS, imho, requires a lot more luck than the other one. I don't have any facts or figures to back it up, that's just the impression I have. Frank Gore could put up a dud against Detroit while Steven Jackson goes nuts against the Jets, for no real rhyme or reason. Heck, a guy could go for 180/2 against a team on the road and later play against that same team at home and go for 45/0? Why? Random chance.At least when we're talking about player's success over the course of a whole season there are general reasons behind it, and they're often reasons that we knew about ahead of time, where people were separated by how important they think those reasons are. Beanie Wells could go for 1500/15 next year, or he could go for 500/5, and there are people in each camp. But those people are separated by one group seeing a guy that is talented enough to overcome stuff like a bad offense, Tim Hightower, etc while others do not believe he possesses that kind of talent. If he ends up in the 500/5 level, it will likely be because of a reason that many people were talking about before the season.Meanwhile, if Beanie runs for 200/3 against the Jets and 27/0 against the Lions, what people out there had reasons that would lead them to foreseeing that?I don't really know a good way to put this into words, but when we're talking about whether or not a choice was more skill or more luck, typically the longer something lasts the more the luck will balance out. If you choose to draft someone you get a whole year for all the flukey, lucky weird stuff to balance out and get a true estimation of how good a job you did with that pick. When you're talking about a decision (like "who do I start at RB2 this week?") that only has one game to work itself out, there's no chance for the luck to balance itself out. Granted, you're doing WDIS with more than one position so that helps balance it out some, but it's still a small number because your RB1, WR1, TE1, etc are all probably still pretty set in stone.Most of these WDIS decisions are either really obvious or are basically toss-ups. The fact that in the majority of cases where it's not obvious, you probably don't feel very strongly one way or the other and just kind of see it as a toss-up is proof enough of that. It's close, but you're picking one and hoping you get the right one. By comparison, with draft picks, people often feel VERY strongly, and have a laundry list of reasons for strongly preferring one player over another even if other players view that person completely differently.

WDID is a skill. WDIS is mostly luck. If there was some ability to apply skill to WDIS, I think we'd see more threads debating theories on WDIS than WDID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this will make what I am saying clearer:Here's an 8-team wr group: (pick 2 to start)Fitz, AJ, VJax, M Austin, OchoAnd here's a 12 team: (pick 2 to start)Fitz, AJ, Avery, Cotchery, D BessBased on what we know now, which group gives you more options to play matchups? Sitting Fitz isn't so far-fetched when you have VJax or M Austin to replace him, is it? Say Fitz draws revis next week, and VJax or Austin gets some patsy. You sit Fitz in the 8-teamer. But in that 12 teamer, there's almost no way you sit Fitz for Avery/Cotchery, no matter who he draws. There's really no decision to make in the 12-team league. There's a pretty big decision to make in the 8-team one.

Actually I think this example perfectly illustrates my point.Your example is not that tough of a decision. Most people would start Vjax/Austin over Fitz covered by Revis. That's what I'm saying about WHIS decisions, either they're so obvious that everyone is basically in agreement about it, or they're close and you really don't have much method for making your decision outside of a gut feeling, which amounts to luck. You don't have this big checklist of reasons why you're starting player A over player B, it basically amounts to a toss-up and you just pick one, in most cases where it's not obvious.Now, let's look at that same team. How did that guy get Fitz? He drafted him, likely just ahead of Calvin Johnson who most people had ranked similarly. Obviously there's a big difference in getting Fitzgerald over Calvin, so was it luck that Fitzgerald worked out and Calvin didn't (even beyond just Calvin's injuries)? Probably not, because most likely the reason someone drafted Fitz over Calvin last year was because of a list of reasons that mostly came true. Some people liked Calvin #1 overall because he could be a monster, whereas other people wouldn't take him there because they didn't feel the Lions had a QB that could get him the ball consistently, and didn't feel like they had enough other players to keep teams from focusing on Calvin. Now, here we are at the end of the year, and everyone's complaining about how Calvin was a bust this year because his QB was awful and because teams were triple teaming him, exactly as the people who were pimping Fitz over Calvin last year were arguing. They were right.Now, if you're choosing between Steven Jackson vs. Detroit or Frank Gore vs. Cleveland one week, how do you pick? I'm guessing you don't have some huge list of reasons and if you pick Jackson and he goes for 200/3 while Gore goes for 28/0, you basically just got lucky.Likewise, if you decided to draft Calvin over Fitzgerald, were you unlucky? Somewhat, but mostly you were just wrong.Just look back through this thread. Look at people's thoughts on players when we're determining if we want them on our team or not. We can take two guys who everyone has basically ranked equally and we can argue about it for 10 pages, because there are so many attributes associated with those rankings that people value differently. I say Beanie Wells will be a stud this year because his talent overrides all the things he has going against him. Other people can give me a list of reasons why he's doomed to be a RB3 this year. One of us will be right, and it's either that I'll be right because Beanie is uber talented, or they'll be right because he's not as talented as we thought and can't put Hightower away, can't overcome the stacked defenses, etc. Either SSOG will be right in thinking that Leinart will be better at throwing the ball downfield than Warner was last year, or he'll be wrong and Leinart will be completely inept throwing the ball downfield. These are all decisions we're making based on our ability to watch these guys play and evaluate these things.Meanwhile, when we take two players who are ranked similarly for the week and have to decide which one to start, pretty much the best you typically see out of someone who you ask about it is "I think I like player Z this week". It's just a toss-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can take this even further too. With larger leagues there are so many people who have different strategies about who you build around, and what overall strategy you take. Is loading up on WRs the way to go in a dynasty now? Should you take a QB early? Should you stick to the old school RB heavy method? Are 27 year olds like Gore/SJax who's value has fallen some, but not off a cliff yet, good guys to buy or good guys to sell?

There are so many fundamental questions that we all argue about all year long, even in addition to the stuff I listed in my last post.

In a small league, do you load up on good WRs, good RBs, or an elite QB? Why choose, you can have all of them. Do you build around veterans or try to get that guy with the potential to be the league's next young stud? No worries, you can do both very easily.

It's silly to say that 8-teamers have no skill, and a few more WDIS decisions (it's not like 12 teamers have no WDIS decisions, they still have a ton of tough choices on that front too) spice things up a little bit, but nowhere near as much as all the stuff that 8-teamers miss out on, skill-wise, IMO.

Arguing WDIS is as skill-injected as WDID is like arguing that H2H leagues are as much a reflection of skill level as roto leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, when we take two players who are ranked similarly for the week and have to decide which one to start, pretty much the best you typically see out of someone who you ask about it is "I think I like player Z this week". It's just a toss-up.

You're adding the stipulation that they're ranked similarly. Where are these rankings coming from? Dartboard? Dice? Coinflip? I'm assuming you're talking about the "experts" weekly rankings... in which case those already represent the skill required to compile them in the first place. Performing at a "toss up" pace against expert WDIS rankings simply means you do not possess more skill than the experts who compiled the rankings in the first place (just like going 50% picking games against Vegas doesn't mean you don't possess skill in picking games, it just means you don't possess more skill than Vegas).Of course, the exact same principal can be applied to the draft. Take a set of pre-draft rankings and label every player "overvalued" or "undervalued". Most people will wind up batting .500 in this exercise because they don't possess more skill than the person who made the rankings in the first place. If choosing between two players who are ranked similarly to start is a toss-up, then so is choosing between two players who are ranked similarly to draft. Applying the "ranked similarly" parameter to WDIS decisions and not to WDID decisions, however, creates a dishonest comparison.

WDID is a skill. WDIS is mostly luck. If there was some ability to apply skill to WDIS, I think we'd see more threads debating theories on WDIS than WDID.

We see a TON of threads debating WDIS theory. Not right now, because right now we're all in draft mode... but during the season, that's all this board is. The ACF is full of WDIS questions, the shark pool is full of people starting threads like "I'm sitting Randy Moss... am I crazy?" and "My QB2 plays for the same team as his WR1, should I try to cancel or not?". In the recent interview, Dodds offered the following: "And I feel confident that my in-season numbers are better than any other site. This is where having tried systems makes a world of difference (as the data is due so much faster each week). Our own Andy Hicks did an internal study and Sigmund and I crushed everyone. Some big sites don't even update things after Friday which is big considering all of the news that breaks Sunday morning.". How could someone consistently crush anyone if there was no skill involved? The mere fact that one party can outperform another over the long run proves that there's a skill component in WDIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

Not all injuries are created equal. Poor conditioning can play a role. A reckless playing style (players who like to leave their feet for instance) can play a role. Some guys are just "wound tight". Injuries can also beget more injuries. a player stresses out a body part compensating for another injured body part or otherwise doing something that isn't natural because of an existing injury. Concussions make a player more likely to suffer additional concussions. Needless to say, I think only a subset of injuries are truly "almost entirely bad luck" - I don't know what that number is - say somewhere from 20-50% - but I think some players have an injury history that is 100% "bad luck", and some have an injury history that is 100% due to factors that are within their control, or at least known and not chalked up to random chance. Teams don't ignore injury history when they draft players, why should we?
I agree with all of this, but as I said, I think NFL coaches do a great job of controlling for it. To explain my current hypothesis in one great big "for instance"... let's say that Shonn Greene is an iron man and Felix Jones is made of glass (disclaimer: I'm just speaking in hypotheticals). Now, the Jets coaches see that Greene is an iron man, so they give him 20 touches a game. The Dallas coaches see Felix is made of glass, so they limit him to 10 touches a game. At 20t/g, maybe Shonn Greene has a 2% chance of getting hurt in any individual game (which would give him about a 72% chance of making it through the season unscathed). At 10t/g, maybe Felix has an identical 2% chance of getting hurt. The net result is that Shonn Greene is half as likely to get hurt on any given carry... but since he's getting twice as many carries, he's just as likely to get hurt as Felix is. If Felix gets hurt and Greene doesn't, then that's just bad luck- just like if Greene got hurt and Felix didn't.If you look at the injury rates among RBs, they remain pretty constant across all carry ranges. Low-carry backs are about as likely to get hurt as high-carry backs. That's an example of coaches basing workload on an RB's ability to handle it. As a result, "injury prone" RBs aren't really any more likely to get injured as "injury resistant" RBs- which is different than saying that "injury prone" doesn't exist, or saying that "injury prone" has no impact on a player's NFL fortunes. The effects of "injury proneness" would be seen, not in injury rates, but in usage patterns.Like I said, it's just a current working hypothesis based on the data. And, of course, it's not without its exceptions. You mentioned Bob Sanders, for instance, and I think he's a great example of a guy who is so valuable to the team that the team doesn't naturally limit his usage to levels his body can bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually injuries themselves are almost entirely just bad luck.

Not all injuries are created equal. Poor conditioning can play a role. A reckless playing style (players who like to leave their feet for instance) can play a role. Some guys are just "wound tight". Injuries can also beget more injuries. a player stresses out a body part compensating for another injured body part or otherwise doing something that isn't natural because of an existing injury. Concussions make a player more likely to suffer additional concussions. Needless to say, I think only a subset of injuries are truly "almost entirely bad luck" - I don't know what that number is - say somewhere from 20-50% - but I think some players have an injury history that is 100% "bad luck", and some have an injury history that is 100% due to factors that are within their control, or at least known and not chalked up to random chance. Teams don't ignore injury history when they draft players, why should we?
I agree with all of this, but as I said, I think NFL coaches do a great job of controlling for it. To explain my current hypothesis in one great big "for instance"... let's say that Shonn Greene is an iron man and Felix Jones is made of glass (disclaimer: I'm just speaking in hypotheticals). Now, the Jets coaches see that Greene is an iron man, so they give him 20 touches a game. The Dallas coaches see Felix is made of glass, so they limit him to 10 touches a game. At 20t/g, maybe Shonn Greene has a 2% chance of getting hurt in any individual game (which would give him about a 72% chance of making it through the season unscathed). At 10t/g, maybe Felix has an identical 2% chance of getting hurt. The net result is that Shonn Greene is half as likely to get hurt on any given carry... but since he's getting twice as many carries, he's just as likely to get hurt as Felix is. If Felix gets hurt and Greene doesn't, then that's just bad luck- just like if Greene got hurt and Felix didn't.If you look at the injury rates among RBs, they remain pretty constant across all carry ranges. Low-carry backs are about as likely to get hurt as high-carry backs. That's an example of coaches basing workload on an RB's ability to handle it. As a result, "injury prone" RBs aren't really any more likely to get injured as "injury resistant" RBs- which is different than saying that "injury prone" doesn't exist, or saying that "injury prone" has no impact on a player's NFL fortunes. The effects of "injury proneness" would be seen, not in injury rates, but in usage patterns.Like I said, it's just a current working hypothesis based on the data. And, of course, it's not without its exceptions. You mentioned Bob Sanders, for instance, and I think he's a great example of a guy who is so valuable to the team that the team doesn't naturally limit his usage to levels his body can bear.
Awesome post SSOG. How do you determine if a RB's carries are being limited because he's made of glass, or because the back in front of him is a comparable talent with more experience? BTW, I know this is a broad question. Edited by GreatLakesMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this will make what I am saying clearer:

Here's an 8-team wr group: (pick 2 to start)

Fitz, AJ, VJax, M Austin, Ocho

And here's a 12 team: (pick 2 to start)

Fitz, AJ, Avery, Cotchery, D Bess

Based on what we know now, which group gives you more options to play matchups? Sitting Fitz isn't so far-fetched when you have VJax or M Austin to replace him, is it? Say Fitz draws revis next week, and VJax or Austin gets some patsy. You sit Fitz in the 8-teamer. But in that 12 teamer, there's almost no way you sit Fitz for Avery/Cotchery, no matter who he draws. There's really no decision to make in the 12-team league. There's a pretty big decision to make in the 8-team one.

Actually I think this example perfectly illustrates my point.

Your example is not that tough of a decision. Most people would start Vjax/Austin over Fitz covered by Revis. That's what I'm saying about WHIS decisions, either they're so obvious that everyone is basically in agreement about it, or they're close and you really don't have much method for making your decision outside of a gut feeling, which amounts to luck. You don't have this big checklist of reasons why you're starting player A over player B, it basically amounts to a toss-up and you just pick one, in most cases where it's not obvious.

Now, let's look at that same team. How did that guy get Fitz? He drafted him, likely just ahead of Calvin Johnson who most people had ranked similarly. Obviously there's a big difference in getting Fitzgerald over Calvin, so was it luck that Fitzgerald worked out and Calvin didn't (even beyond just Calvin's injuries)? Probably not, because most likely the reason someone drafted Fitz over Calvin last year was because of a list of reasons that mostly came true. Some people liked Calvin #1 overall because he could be a monster, whereas other people wouldn't take him there because they didn't feel the Lions had a QB that could get him the ball consistently, and didn't feel like they had enough other players to keep teams from focusing on Calvin. Now, here we are at the end of the year, and everyone's complaining about how Calvin was a bust this year because his QB was awful and because teams were triple teaming him, exactly as the people who were pimping Fitz over Calvin last year were arguing. They were right.

Now, if you're choosing between Steven Jackson vs. Detroit or Frank Gore vs. Cleveland one week, how do you pick? I'm guessing you don't have some huge list of reasons and if you pick Jackson and he goes for 200/3 while Gore goes for 28/0, you basically just got lucky.

Likewise, if you decided to draft Calvin over Fitzgerald, were you unlucky? Somewhat, but mostly you were just wrong.

Just look back through this thread. Look at people's thoughts on players when we're determining if we want them on our team or not. We can take two guys who everyone has basically ranked equally and we can argue about it for 10 pages, because there are so many attributes associated with those rankings that people value differently. I say Beanie Wells will be a stud this year because his talent overrides all the things he has going against him. Other people can give me a list of reasons why he's doomed to be a RB3 this year. One of us will be right, and it's either that I'll be right because Beanie is uber talented, or they'll be right because he's not as talented as we thought and can't put Hightower away, can't overcome the stacked defenses, etc. Either SSOG will be right in thinking that Leinart will be better at throwing the ball downfield than Warner was last year, or he'll be wrong and Leinart will be completely inept throwing the ball downfield. These are all decisions we're making based on our ability to watch these guys play and evaluate these things.

Meanwhile, when we take two players who are ranked similarly for the week and have to decide which one to start, pretty much the best you typically see out of someone who you ask about it is "I think I like player Z this week". It's just a toss-up.

My whole point is, you don't need to say that nearly as much in a larger league. That's it - really. Forget drafting - I'm with ya there. But in terms of lineups, in a larger league, you generally start the few studs you have, and that's that. In smaller leagues, there are many more lineup decisions to make, because you have many more options (typically at every starting slot). It takes more skill to choose 2 starters when you have four very viable options to choose from than if you had two. You really disagree with that last sentence? If not, then what do you disagree with? (I'm having a hard time understanding.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome post SSOG. How do you determine if a RB's carries are being limited because he's made of glass, or because the back in front of him is a comparable talent with more experience? BTW, I know this is a broad question.

The only people who know for sure are the ones who are doling out the carries. For starters, I'd pay attention to those guys- both their words and their actions. If they're talking about increasing a player's role, then that means they think he can handle the increased role. If they're bringing in more competition, that means they don't. To take the Felix Jones example... one thing that has always been a strike against Jones in my book is that Dallas drafted Tashard Choice in the 4th round of the same draft where they took Felix in the 1st when they already had Marion Barber on the roster. Talk about hedging your bets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome post SSOG. How do you determine if a RB's carries are being limited because he's made of glass, or because the back in front of him is a comparable talent with more experience? BTW, I know this is a broad question.

The only people who know for sure are the ones who are doling out the carries. For starters, I'd pay attention to those guys- both their words and their actions. If they're talking about increasing a player's role, then that means they think he can handle the increased role. If they're bringing in more competition, that means they don't. To take the Felix Jones example... one thing that has always been a strike against Jones in my book is that Dallas drafted Tashard Choice in the 4th round of the same draft where they took Felix in the 1st when they already had Marion Barber on the roster. Talk about hedging your bets.
Thanks. It's interesting that you view Dallas drafting Choice as Dallas hedging their bets. Unless I have information otherwise, I always take the approach that teams draft the best player available, and only draft for need when all things are equal. You might have information that I'm unaware of... really doesn't matter as I think we can safely assume by now that Felix is not a 20 carry back.The guy I'm looking to make a decision on is Bradshaw. I'm afraid that if he has another 160 carry year, then his value will tank much like Norwood and Leon. I have a man-crush on Bradshaw and can't seem to pull the trigger on moving him. I'm not asking for advice... the information you provided is more than enough for me to make a decision. It sounds like I better study the words of Mr. Tom Coughlin and the RB's coach for the Giants. I'm excited already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for anyone that knows, but...

Who's attending Larry Fitzgerald's 2010 off-season camp? Apparently Jermichael Finley will be attending, per rotoworld.. I'd love to know who exactly is attending as some of the talented players that attended last year had good years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome post SSOG. How do you determine if a RB's carries are being limited because he's made of glass, or because the back in front of him is a comparable talent with more experience? BTW, I know this is a broad question.

The only people who know for sure are the ones who are doling out the carries. For starters, I'd pay attention to those guys- both their words and their actions. If they're talking about increasing a player's role, then that means they think he can handle the increased role. If they're bringing in more competition, that means they don't. To take the Felix Jones example... one thing that has always been a strike against Jones in my book is that Dallas drafted Tashard Choice in the 4th round of the same draft where they took Felix in the 1st when they already had Marion Barber on the roster. Talk about hedging your bets.
Thanks. It's interesting that you view Dallas drafting Choice as Dallas hedging their bets. Unless I have information otherwise, I always take the approach that teams draft the best player available, and only draft for need when all things are equal. You might have information that I'm unaware of... really doesn't matter as I think we can safely assume by now that Felix is not a 20 carry back.The guy I'm looking to make a decision on is Bradshaw. I'm afraid that if he has another 160 carry year, then his value will tank much like Norwood and Leon. I have a man-crush on Bradshaw and can't seem to pull the trigger on moving him. I'm not asking for advice... the information you provided is more than enough for me to make a decision. It sounds like I better study the words of Mr. Tom Coughlin and the RB's coach for the Giants. I'm excited already.
Im a big Bradshaw fan myself, and have been holding him since his rookie year. Im not sure if he will every be a 200+ carrie back, but i do think this is the year we will find out. Everything is set up for him to be the featured back, its just a matter of him staying healthy and holding off Jacobs. If things dont work out for him in 2010, youre probably right, his value will bottom out, ie Jerious Norwood. However, his current value isnt that much higher now, and he could be a top 15-20 RB after the season, so i would he is definately a hold right now.As far as the Cowboys hedging their bet, i dont buy that too much either. Like you said, he was likely the best player left on their board. Not to mention it was a 4th round pick, i would have been more concernend had they used a higher pick in 2008 or 2009 for a 3rd back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a big Bradshaw fan myself, and have been holding him since his rookie year. Im not sure if he will every be a 200+ carrie back, but i do think this is the year we will find out. Everything is set up for him to be the featured back, its just a matter of him staying healthy and holding off Jacobs. If things dont work out for him in 2010, youre probably right, his value will bottom out, ie Jerious Norwood. However, his current value isnt that much higher now, and he could be a top 15-20 RB after the season, so i would he is definately a hold right now.

As far as the Cowboys hedging their bet, i dont buy that too much either. Like you said, he was likely the best player left on their board. Not to mention it was a 4th round pick, i would have been more concernend had they used a higher pick in 2008 or 2009 for a 3rd back.

:)

Hold off Jacobs? How is he going to do that when Jacobs is the starter and Bradshaw is the change of pace? I've never seen anything to suggest that Bradshaw would be anywhere close to the Giants' feature back this year. Do you have a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a big Bradshaw fan myself, and have been holding him since his rookie year. Im not sure if he will every be a 200+ carrie back, but i do think this is the year we will find out. Everything is set up for him to be the featured back, its just a matter of him staying healthy and holding off Jacobs. If things dont work out for him in 2010, youre probably right, his value will bottom out, ie Jerious Norwood. However, his current value isnt that much higher now, and he could be a top 15-20 RB after the season, so i would he is definately a hold right now.

As far as the Cowboys hedging their bet, i dont buy that too much either. Like you said, he was likely the best player left on their board. Not to mention it was a 4th round pick, i would have been more concernend had they used a higher pick in 2008 or 2009 for a 3rd back.

:goodposting:

Hold off Jacobs? How is he going to do that when Jacobs is the starter and Bradshaw is the change of pace? I've never seen anything to suggest that Bradshaw would be anywhere close to the Giants' feature back this year. Do you have a link?

You didnt watch any Giants games last year? Im not suggesting Bradshaw is officially the starter right now, but i think he will be given a chance to have a bigger role than Jacobs this year. During that time, i believe he will just need to stay healthy to keep Jacobs as the "change of pace" back. I think Jacobs will play the role he did when Barber was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:goodposting: Hold off Jacobs? How is he going to do that when Jacobs is the starter and Bradshaw is the change of pace? I've never seen anything to suggest that Bradshaw would be anywhere close to the Giants' feature back this year. Do you have a link?

I guess the real question is can Jacobs hold off anyone? Eventually the back that performs best gets more carries. The situation is muddled right now cause Bradshaw isn't even practicing - still recovering from ankle/foot surgery. You can't be named the starter if you're in a boot.Jacobs averaged 17.5 carries per game in the first 8 and 12 carries per game in the next 7 (didn't play in week 17). The problem with Bradshaw is exactly what GLM mentions in an early post. The coaching staff probably doesn't think his body can take starter's carries. He will always be paired with someone and be limited to 9 to 12 carries.Jacobs is a pretty bad combo of age and body type. Probably a good time to gamble on Andre Brown or DJ Ware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didnt watch any Giants games last year? Im not suggesting Bradshaw is officially the starter right now, but i think he will be given a chance to have a bigger role than Jacobs this year. During that time, i believe he will just need to stay healthy to keep Jacobs as the "change of pace" back. I think Jacobs will play the role he did when Barber was there.

Jacobs injured his knee in Week 1 and played through it the rest of the way. From May 2: "The fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy," said offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride. Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.

First, the Giants gave him a contract with $13M in guaranteed money, which pays Jacobs $15M over the first 2 years. So in reality, if Jacobs can't stay healthy, this could easily end up being his last year in NY.Second, just because the Giants gave him more money doesn't mean he will be the starter. See M Lynch for an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didnt watch any Giants games last year? Im not suggesting Bradshaw is officially the starter right now, but i think he will be given a chance to have a bigger role than Jacobs this year. During that time, i believe he will just need to stay healthy to keep Jacobs as the "change of pace" back. I think Jacobs will play the role he did when Barber was there.

Jacobs injured his knee in Week 1 and played through it the rest of the way. From May 2: "The fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy," said offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride. Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.
Alot of RB's play hurt, but most manage to do it with some succuss. Fact is, Jacobs will spend alot of time playing hurt due to his running style. I just happen to think he will be more effective carry the ball 150 -180 times a year. Bradshaw should be given a chance this year to touch the ball 250 times. If that doesnt work out, i see the Giants drafting a RB early in the 2011 draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.

First, the Giants gave him a contract with $13M in guaranteed money, which pays Jacobs $15M over the first 2 years. So in reality, if Jacobs can't stay healthy, this could easily end up being his last year in NY.Second, just because the Giants gave him more money doesn't mean he will be the starter. See M Lynch for an example.
Or Marion Barber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.

First, the Giants gave him a contract with $13M in guaranteed money, which pays Jacobs $15M over the first 2 years. So in reality, if Jacobs can't stay healthy, this could easily end up being his last year in NY.Second, just because the Giants gave him more money doesn't mean he will be the starter. See M Lynch for an example.
2010 salaries: Marshawn Lynch: $885,000Fred Jackson: $1.445 millionFor the record, $13M is quite a chunk of change for a RB. But you're right that he could be on the outs if he can't stay healthy. The same goes for impending free agent Bradshaw, who also can't stay healthy. I'm no Jacobs lover, but he's the early-down back for the New York Giants barring a significant injury in August. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 10 years we're starting a Keeper league next season for the first time. 12 team league, 2 keepers (no keeper penalties), 6pts per passing TD, non-ppr.

I'm drafting in the 11th spot and have a dilemma... Based on previous drafting tendencies of my league-mates and our scoring system, I know that by the time it gets to me in the 1st round Brees, Rogers, and Manning will be gone. I will grab the best RB available but my question is what to do with the 2.02 pick? Looking back at the previous 4 season's draft results, there on average will be 7 QBs drafted by the time it gets back to me in the 3rd round (3.11).

I see the QBs being drafted (in no particular order):

Brees

Rogers

Manning

Rivers

Brady

Romo

Schaub

So, with my 2nd pick should I draft a 2nd RB (or AJ/FItz) and later pick a less consistent QB later in the draft that is not on the above list?

or

should I draft Brady/Rivers with my 2nd pick to ensure that I have one of these top 7 QB (where I see the drop off being at QB) before my 3rd pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of RB's play hurt, but most manage to do it with some succuss. Fact is, Jacobs will spend alot of time playing hurt due to his running style. I just happen to think he will be more effective carry the ball 150 -180 times a year. Bradshaw should be given a chance this year to touch the ball 250 times. If that doesnt work out, i see the Giants drafting a RB early in the 2011 draft.

All injuries are not created equal. Jacobs' knee injury obviously affected his particular running style more than Bradshaw's injuries or those of some other runners. And how do you figure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches? He's just as injury-prone as Jacobs, if not more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.

First, the Giants gave him a contract with $13M in guaranteed money, which pays Jacobs $15M over the first 2 years. So in reality, if Jacobs can't stay healthy, this could easily end up being his last year in NY.Second, just because the Giants gave him more money doesn't mean he will be the starter. See M Lynch for an example.
2010 salaries: Marshawn Lynch: $885,000Fred Jackson: $1.445 millionFor the record, $13M is quite a chunk of change for a RB. But you're right that he could be on the outs if he can't stay healthy. The same goes for impending free agent Bradshaw, who also can't stay healthy. I'm no Jacobs lover, but he's the early-down back for the New York Giants barring a significant injury in August.
I think we both know, F&L, why 2010 salaries aren't exactly a good way of comparing how Lynch and Jackson are valued by their franchise.Lynch: 6 year, $18.935M rookie contractF Jackson: 4 year, $7.5M contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no Jacobs lover, but he's the early-down back for the New York Giants barring a significant injury in August.

I do agree with this BTW. 100%. Enough that I traded away Bradshaw in the offseason (odd league that is mix of keeper and auction league) for the equivalent of Greg Jennings and a 1st rd pick in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an 8-team wr group: (pick 2 to start)Fitz, AJ, VJax, M Austin, Ocho

Hate to see that team's starting RBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we both know, F&L, why 2010 salaries aren't exactly a good way of comparing how Lynch and Jackson are valued by their franchise.Lynch: 6 year, $18.935M rookie contractF Jackson: 4 year, $7.5M contract

Most of Lynch's money is gone like a fart in the wind. That contract is ancient by NFL standards. A good portion of Jacobs' money is still coming to him because he just signed last year.Not to mention, Lynch got paid by a previous regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no Jacobs lover, but he's the early-down back for the New York Giants barring a significant injury in August.

I do agree with this BTW. 100%.
So what are we debating? That's the major issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of RB's play hurt, but most manage to do it with some succuss. Fact is, Jacobs will spend alot of time playing hurt due to his running style. I just happen to think he will be more effective carry the ball 150 -180 times a year. Bradshaw should be given a chance this year to touch the ball 250 times. If that doesnt work out, i see the Giants drafting a RB early in the 2011 draft.

All injuries are not created equal. Jacobs' knee injury obviously affected his particular running style more than Bradshaw's injuries or those of some other runners.

And how do you figure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches? He's just as injury-prone as Jacobs, if not more so.

:thumbup:

Both players were injured last year. One of those players (Bradshaw) still performed at a high level, despite needing offseason surgery. The other (Jacobs) looked like a shell of his former self.

And how do you figure that Jacobs knee injury affected his running style more? Bradshaw had surgery on both feet. It seems to me that a RB like Bradshaw relies quite a bit on....well.....his feet. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no Jacobs lover, but he's the early-down back for the New York Giants barring a significant injury in August.

I do agree with this BTW. 100%.
So what are we debating? That's the major issue here.
:thumbup: I just didn't find a few of your arguments compelling (compared to your typical takes on subjects), even though the conclusion makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of RB's play hurt, but most manage to do it with some succuss. Fact is, Jacobs will spend alot of time playing hurt due to his running style. I just happen to think he will be more effective carry the ball 150 -180 times a year. Bradshaw should be given a chance this year to touch the ball 250 times. If that doesnt work out, i see the Giants drafting a RB early in the 2011 draft.

All injuries are not created equal. Jacobs' knee injury obviously affected his particular running style more than Bradshaw's injuries or those of some other runners. And how do you figure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches? He's just as injury-prone as Jacobs, if not more so.
Im not 100% sure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches, but i like his chances better than Jacobs due to their running styles. After recent surgery to repair injuries to his feet(the injuries that have been his issue) he said he felt 10 times better than he has in a long time. The fact that Giants didnt pursue a RB in FA or the draft, i have to believe the Giants are going to give Bradshaw a chance to carry a bigger load in 2010. Either way, i have little faith in Jacobs to be anything more than a part time player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbup: Both players were injured last year. One of those players (Bradshaw) still performed at a high level, despite needing offseason surgery. The other (Jacobs) looked like a shell of his former self.And how do you figure that Jacobs knee injury affected his running style more? Bradshaw had surgery on both feet. It seems to me that a RB like Bradshaw relies quite a bit on....well.....his feet. ;)

You just answered your own question. Bradshaw's injuries did not affect his running style as much on game days. He averaged 4.8 YPC after averaging 5.3 the year before. Jacobs' injury obviously affected his running style. You could see it from his hesitation at the line of scrimmage. If you didn't watch him play, you can see it in his production. He went from 5.0 YPC and 15 TDs to 3.7 YPC and 5 TDs. Also, both players needed offseason surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of RB's play hurt, but most manage to do it with some succuss. Fact is, Jacobs will spend alot of time playing hurt due to his running style. I just happen to think he will be more effective carry the ball 150 -180 times a year. Bradshaw should be given a chance this year to touch the ball 250 times. If that doesnt work out, i see the Giants drafting a RB early in the 2011 draft.

All injuries are not created equal. Jacobs' knee injury obviously affected his particular running style more than Bradshaw's injuries or those of some other runners. And how do you figure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches? He's just as injury-prone as Jacobs, if not more so.
Im not 100% sure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches, but i like his chances better than Jacobs due to their running styles. After recent surgery to repair injuries to his feet(the injuries that have been his issue) he said he felt 10 times better than he has in a long time. The fact that Giants didnt pursue a RB in FA or the draft, i have to believe the Giants are going to give Bradshaw a chance to carry a bigger load in 2010. Either way, i have little faith in Jacobs to be anything more than a part time player.
I'm pretty sure Jacobs can hold up to a higher workload than Bradshaw can, and I bet the Giants coaching staff agrees. Jacobs also said he feels 10 times better than last season, and I would bet they give him a chance to carry a bigger load than he carried last year. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Marion Barber

Ahmad Bradshaw is no Felix Jones.
Maybe not, but the situations are very similar. When Bradshaw has played, he has produced. I have to think at some point, he will be given a shot to prove if he can do it for an entire season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no Jacobs lover, but he's the early-down back for the New York Giants barring a significant injury in August.

I do agree with this BTW. 100%.
So what are we debating? That's the major issue here.
:shrug: I just didn't find a few of your arguments compelling (compared to your typical takes on subjects), even though the conclusion makes sense to me.
There's not much else I can say. Jacobs is the lead back for the Giants. He just is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Marion Barber

Ahmad Bradshaw is no Felix Jones.
Maybe not, but the situations are very similar. When Bradshaw has played, he has produced. I have to think at some point, he will be given a shot to prove if he can do it for an entire season.
You could say the same for Darren Sproles, Jerious Norwood, or Leon Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shrug: Both players were injured last year. One of those players (Bradshaw) still performed at a high level, despite needing offseason surgery. The other (Jacobs) looked like a shell of his former self.And how do you figure that Jacobs knee injury affected his running style more? Bradshaw had surgery on both feet. It seems to me that a RB like Bradshaw relies quite a bit on....well.....his feet. ;)

You just answered your own question. Bradshaw's injuries did not affect his running style as much on game days. He averaged 4.8 YPC after averaging 5.3 the year before. Jacobs' injury obviously affected his running style. You could see it from his hesitation at the line of scrimmage. If you didn't watch him play, you can see it in his production. He went from 5.0 YPC and 15 TDs to 3.7 YPC and 5 TDs. Also, both players needed offseason surgery.
You could just as easily use your logic above to support the idea that Bradshaw is simply a superior RB at this point. Both were injured, both needed surgery - yet Bradshaw still produced. Anyway, despite my belief that Bradshaw is the superior player at this point, there is no doubt Jacobs will be the starter in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bradshaw get 45-50% of the carries though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just as easily use your logic above to support the idea that Bradshaw is simply a superior RB at this point. Both were injured, both needed surgery - yet Bradshaw still produced. Anyway, despite my belief that Bradshaw is the superior player at this point, there is no doubt Jacobs will be the starter in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bradshaw get 45-50% of the carries though.

Again, you're assuming that all injuries affect all running backs in similar ways. I'm not. I saw Jacobs alter his running style after he got injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that if healthy it's Jacobs first then Bradshaw, but Jacobs' running style and frame lends itself to lower extremity injuries, which he seems to be constantly battling. That said, even if something were to happen to Jacobs I don't think Bradshaw's the main beneficiary, I think it's either Ware or Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just as easily use your logic above to support the idea that Bradshaw is simply a superior RB at this point. Both were injured, both needed surgery - yet Bradshaw still produced. Anyway, despite my belief that Bradshaw is the superior player at this point, there is no doubt Jacobs will be the starter in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bradshaw get 45-50% of the carries though.

Again, you're assuming that all injuries affect all running backs in similar ways. I'm not. I saw Jacobs alter his running style after he got injured.
Guess we'll see what happens. I saw a guy who was simply done and afraid to take a pounding. If you're right, then he is a great buy-low this year.Edit to add: I'm not "assuming that all injuries affect all RBs in similar ways." I'm assuming that both Jacobs and Bradshaw had serious injuries last year that impacted them.You're assuming that Jacobs drop in production was primarily due to injury. I'm not. Edited by Michael Fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of RB's play hurt, but most manage to do it with some succuss. Fact is, Jacobs will spend alot of time playing hurt due to his running style. I just happen to think he will be more effective carry the ball 150 -180 times a year. Bradshaw should be given a chance this year to touch the ball 250 times. If that doesnt work out, i see the Giants drafting a RB early in the 2011 draft.

All injuries are not created equal. Jacobs' knee injury obviously affected his particular running style more than Bradshaw's injuries or those of some other runners. And how do you figure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches? He's just as injury-prone as Jacobs, if not more so.
Im not 100% sure Bradshaw can hold up to 250 touches, but i like his chances better than Jacobs due to their running styles. After recent surgery to repair injuries to his feet(the injuries that have been his issue) he said he felt 10 times better than he has in a long time. The fact that Giants didnt pursue a RB in FA or the draft, i have to believe the Giants are going to give Bradshaw a chance to carry a bigger load in 2010. Either way, i have little faith in Jacobs to be anything more than a part time player.
I'm pretty sure Jacobs can hold up to a higher workload than Bradshaw can, and I bet the Giants coaching staff agrees. Jacobs also said he feels 10 times better than last season, and I would bet they give him a chance to carry a bigger load than he carried last year.
Well, i guess we just see things differently. There a good possibliltiy that neither is ever going to be a usable fantasy starter, but if one does, my money is on Bradshaw. if for no other reason that he looks like a much better RB than Jacobs....not too mention he is much younger.By the way, good job on the TE rankings, i dont think i could find one thing that stuck out as a big miss. Im glad to see there is someone here on FBG that doesnt think Aaron Hernandez is a top 12 TE already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didnt watch any Giants games last year? Im not suggesting Bradshaw is officially the starter right now, but i think he will be given a chance to have a bigger role than Jacobs this year. During that time, i believe he will just need to stay healthy to keep Jacobs as the "change of pace" back. I think Jacobs will play the role he did when Barber was there.

Jacobs injured his knee in Week 1 and played through it the rest of the way. From May 2: "The fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy," said offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride. Jacobs is the clear lead back here. The Giants coaches know he played injured last year. They didn't give him a 4-year, $25M contract to carry Ahmad Bradshaw's golf clubs.
Seriously, I really like what you (and others) add to the site, but the selective quotes (and stats) is a bit maddening. The entire paragraph (from your May 2nd quote):“We see a guy like Ahmad and know how tough he is, coming back from both feet being operated on and an ankle being operated on. And he is so excited that for the first time in a long time he is not in pain. You can’t help but feel optimistic that he is going to be able to maybe last the whole season and give us some special performances. And then with Brandon, the fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy.”The least you can do is quote the entire paragraph, where he praises both RBs, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im glad to see there is someone here on FBG that doesnt think Aaron Hernandez is a top 12 TE already.

I'm glad I'm not the only one a little puzzled by all the love for Hernandez, seems like a lot of people just riding Bloom's coat tails. I was just as high on Dillard (whether right or wrong) as Bloom was last year, but the second he talks him up the entire pool explodes for him. Good thing (ok, maybe not a good thing) my leagues aren't in the pool so I was able to get him at a reasonable price.I'm all for ballsy predictions, but Christ people, make them your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just as easily use your logic above to support the idea that Bradshaw is simply a superior RB at this point. Both were injured, both needed surgery - yet Bradshaw still produced. Anyway, despite my belief that Bradshaw is the superior player at this point, there is no doubt Jacobs will be the starter in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bradshaw get 45-50% of the carries though.

Again, you're assuming that all injuries affect all running backs in similar ways. I'm not. I saw Jacobs alter his running style after he got injured.
Guess we'll see what happens. I saw a guy who was simply done and afraid to take a pounding. If you're right, then he is a great buy-low this year.Edit to add: I'm not "assuming that all injuries affect all RBs in similar ways." I'm assuming that both Jacobs and Bradshaw had serious injuries last year that impacted them.You're assuming that Jacobs drop in production was primarily due to injury. I'm not.
I don't think there's any question that Jacobs' drop in production was due to an injury. It's on film. Unless he made a conscious decision to start hesitating at the line of scrimmage during the 2009 offseason. The Jacobs of offseason 2010 reminds me of the Corey Dillon of offseason 2003. Bengals fans -- and most of the league -- thought his production was down because he was washed up. It wasn't. It was down because he was trying to play through a painful groin injury, and it obviously affected his running style.Again, I've never had Jacobs on any of my fantasy teams, and I never will. I've always been down on his value compared to other people doing rankings. I just think anybody who believes Bradshaw will usurp Jacobs is kidding themselves. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.