Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

ZWK

Members
  • Content Count

    3,606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,144 Excellent

4 Followers

About ZWK

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CA

Recent Profile Visitors

15,743 profile views
  1. I'm seeing Carter ranked around RB39 in redraft. So if you're drafting him based on his opportunity for immediate production, that's the level of immediate production that people who are doing drafts/rankings/projections for this year are expecting.
  2. I got them from Arif Hasan's consensus big board (paywall). Other sources like NFL Mock Draft Database mostly had pretty similar projected picks.
  3. OK, I see how that phrasing is confusing (the last sentence which says "The biggest fallers are Josh Palmer..."). I was trying to say "The guys who lose the most value by doing reach-adjusted generic rookie rankings rather than ordinary generic rookie rankings are Josh Palmer, Kene Nwangwu,the guys who have less value according to this method than they do with my usual generic rookie rankings method are Josh Palmer, Kene Nwangwu, etc." I'll go back and edit that.
  4. If I put in the work to get 3 years of data, then I'll take the 3-year total for each player. That helps distinguish "the good players at this position are really valuable" from "every once in a while a random player at this position has a big year". You can also discover things like "hey, the bit of value that Justin Tucker provides each year actually adds up to something not-so-tiny."
  5. I usually start by looking at last year's scoring, sorting players by VBD (last starter method, based on ppg) for the scoring rules of the league I'm joining. I did that here for 2020 RB/WR/TE for ppr, TE prem with 1.5 ppr, and TE prem with 2.0 ppr, assuming a 12-team league where you start 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, and 1 flex. I'll often also look at the year before that, and projections for the upcoming year.
  6. Yes, it's often called victory points (VP). You get 1 VP if you win your head-to-head matchup and 1 VP if you finish in the top half of teams in scoring that week. (There are also other variations, like giving 2 VP for being in the top third of teams in scoring and 1 VP for finishing in the middle third.) MFL definitely has this option. Probably some other sites do too but I don't know.
  7. Based on random variation in the strength of different draft classes, you'd expect there to be 4+ "two per year" caliber QBs in the same draft class once every 7 years. The breakdown is
  8. Reaches rate better after the draft than they did before the draft, but they rate lower after the draft than drafted-as-expected guys who were drafted at the same spot in the draft. Steals rate worse after the draft than they did before the draft, and (according to the PFF analysis) they rate the same as the drafted-as-expected guys who were drafted at the same spot in the draft.
  9. The first / most important thing I look for in a WR prospect is: did he ever have a good season? I think there's a pretty strong case for Toney that the answer is yes, or at least borderline. In 11 games this year he had 70/984/10 receiving, plus another 19/161/1 rushing, for 1145 YFS & 11 TD. So we're looking at 1 touchdown and over 100 yards per game, which is pretty good. Other ways of looking at it: in the 11 games he played in, it was 2.31 recyd per team attempt, 23% MS of recyd, 22% MS of rectd, 1.58 scrimmage yards per team play, 20% MS of offensive yards, 20% MS of offens
  10. Timo Riske (pff_moo) has a new article at PFF (paywalled) looking at the track record of draft reaches & steals who were drafted earlier / later than projected. The basic finding is that "steals" are mostly an illusion - players who fall in the draft do so for good reason, and are worth about as much as the pick they're drafted with - but reaches are real. Eyeballing the graph, the value of a reach is worth about 60% where he was drafted & 40% where he was projected. One thing that this means is that I can make reach-adjusted generic rookie rankings, which use that 60/40 split for
  11. Cool. It's been a good discussion, even if we're not that far apart (PPR rookie 17 vs 22). Sounds like we might disagree more about Amon-Ra and at least 1 other guy in your top 20 than we do about Carter.
  12. A bit of tinkering: I've moved Eskridge up to the top of his tier, Fitzpatrick up ahead of Felton, Powell up behind Fitzpatrick's new spot, and added TE Kenny Yeboah to the last tier. Eskridge - my formula liked him pre-draft (albeit with some question marks), he was projected to be a 3rd rounder, and then he was drafted in the late 2nd. Doesn't really make sense to have him behind someone like Amari Rodgers who my formula didn't like & was drafted a round later. Rodgers's biggest plus is a quarterback who might not even stick around for long (or at all). I can even see a case for Esk
  13. Our rankings might not even be that far apart - you can see that I have Carter a tier or more behind Bateman & Marshall. And part of why he's as high as he is is that I'm not excited about many of the players who were drafted in the 50-120 range. I like Marshall, I like Dyami Brown (relative to his draft pick, but he only went 25 picks ahead of Carter), not much after that. Maybe I'm being too harsh on Eskridge? Do you actually have 24+ players ahead of Carter or are you just assigning him a round 3 grade? Maybe one difference is that I try to look at things more as a continuous
  14. The amount of draft capital spent on RBs keeps declining. The total fantasy value of RBs stays basically constant. That means that a given amount of draft capital buys a larger share of the pie than it used to. Michael Carter at pick 107 accounted for about 6% of all the draft capital spent on RBs this year (according to the OTC chart). If this year had been on the trend line rather than being an unusually bad year, then it would've been 5% of the draft capital. In 2008-12, an RB drafted with pick 84 would've accounted for 5% of the draft capital spent on RBs. Which suggests that a RB tak
  15. Both, but more the awful class (just look at last year). Also, the NFL isn't just starting to wise up about RB value - the amount of draft capital spent on RBs has been declining steadily for 50+ years. The gradual decline in RB positional value means that RBs drafted in the 4th round now are probably about as good as RBs who were drafted in the 3rd round several years ago.
×
×
  • Create New...