Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SSOG

Staff
  • Content Count

    12,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. Thoughts on Vick Ballard?

    He's Donald Brown with a different jersey. Value accordingly. Honestly, what is the deal with Indy and mediocre running backs? Addai, Brown, Carter, Virgil Green, Ballard... has anyone in the league had a more anonymous stable of backs since Edge left?
  2. Not to mention that, statistically speaking, Gronk is absolutely pissing on Gonzalez if you compare their first three years. Or even if you compare Gonzo's three best years to Gronk's 1st three. Gronk has been that dominant.

    Well, not by VBD. Gronk has 18, 143, and 47 (112 if you pro-rate) in his three seasons. Gonzo, in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons had 7, 91, and 114. Gronk finished 7th and 6th (if you pro-rate) in overall VBD, which is higher than anything Gonzo ever did, but Gonzo had a 10th place, three 12th place, and a 13th place finish. So we're at least in the same ballpark of an in-his-prime Tony Gonzalez, at least in terms of what kind of difference he's making. And I'd say a 23 year old Tony Gonzalez would be very much worthy of a very high first round pick in startups. When you get down to it, too... sure, Brady won't play forever, but there's only one other player in the entire league who just dominates his physical matchups like Gronk does. And that guy would be my second choice in a startup.
  3. I'll pass on Gronk in the top 10. Injury prone and I don't think he can sustain his per game averages over a full career. I wouldn't say he's Jeremy Shockey, but I don't think he's Tony Gonzalez either. And I'd basically have to think that I'm getting the best TE to ever play the game if I were going to take one that high. I understand the whole positional scarcity difference-maker argument, but I'd just rather have a top QB, RB, or WR in almost every one of my leagues.

    Of course he's not going to keep up his per-game averages. His per-game averages are Moss 07-08 levels. Even Randy Moss didn't keep up Randy Moss 07-08 per game averages over his whole career. Calvin won't keep up his ppg averages going forward, either. You're not buying him because you expect him to perform the exact same. You're buying him because nobody in the league- nobody- can come anywhere near is combination of age and production. Even if he's not the next Tony Gonzalez, if he's just the next Antonio Gates you're still looking at 400-500 more career VBD. And I think he's got a great chance of topping that, even. As for the injury-prone tag... please. Broken bones are not predictive events, and he's been playing for three years with no indication that there are any lingering effects from his college back injury. Might as well call Adrian Peterson injury prone because he tore an ACL and missed some time in college. Or, better yet, let's talk about how injury prone Richardson is.
  4. I may or may not catch hell for this, but I think my #1 overall dynasty player today would be Gronkowski.

    I like the call. I think Gronkowski is underrated and consider him a tier 1 player. In this crop of players, getting Gronkowski late in the 1st sets you up very nicely. A lot depends on league setup, but I couldn't pull the trigger on Gronk 1.01, however. I simply worry about his production post-Brady. Of course it will still be great and he'll still be one of the best TEs in the league. But there is a big difference between "typical TE1 (overall)" points and what Gronk has done the last coulpe years. VBD supports your call as well. At least supports Gronkowski being in the conversation.
    Even if his VBD drops to 50 a year, 8 years of 50 VBD still works out to 400. And one or two more monster years could really run that up.

    I just ran a 16-game VBD for 2012 in one of my leagues and came up with this:Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 161 Martin, Doug TBB RB 125 Foster, Arian HOU RB 114 Johnson, Calvin DET WR 102 Rice, Ray BAL RB 97 Marshall, Brandon CHI WR 94 Gronkowski, Rob NEP TE 87 Richardson, Trent CLE RB 85 Lynch, Marshawn SEA RB 83 Considering age and expected career length I think you can narrow this list down to...MartinCalvinGronkTrentWhich was nice because those would intuitively be the first four players I'd take in a dynasty startup.

    What settings did you use? That seems low for Gronk if we take only his games played. No-PPR QRRWWWTF?
    Using PFR's VBD numbers, a pro-rated Gronk would have been 6th with 112. He'd be behind Peterson, Martin, Foster, Lynch, and Morris, ahead of Rice, and 10 points better than Calvin.
  5. I may or may not catch hell for this, but I think my #1 overall dynasty player today would be Gronkowski. He's 3rd in fantasy points over the last two years out of all pass catchers... Despite missing five games. He's less than 2 points behind the #2 (Welker). He scored 385.9 over the last two years, and if you pro-rate this year, he'd have 450. Here's a complete list of players in the last decade who have topped 385.9 over a 2-year span: 03-04 Holt, Moss, Harrison. 04-05 Harrison. 05-06 Smiff, Harrison. 06-07 Owens, Wayne. 07-08 Moss, Fitzgerald, Owens. 08-09 Andre, Fitzgerald. 09-10 (none). 10-11 Calvin. 11-12 Calvin, Welker. And here's the complete list of players who have topped 450: 07-08 Moss (454), 10-11 Calvin (452), 11-12 Calvin (492).

    Look at those names for a second. Holt, Moss, Harrison, Smiff, Owens, Wayne, Fitz, Andre, Calvin, Welker. Those are the only guys to put up a two-season stretch like Gronk's- and only Calvin and Moss could match his pace if you pro-rate for the missed games. He's 23, a beastly talent (man among boys), and he's already performing on par or above the best fantasy WRs in history. As crazy as it sounds, I think people are holding the fact that he's a TE against him- no one wants to spend a high first on a TE. Which is insane. Remember when Yahoo gave Marques Colston TE eligibility, how many leagues he won? Gronk is basically like giving Randy Moss TE eligibility.

    Meanwhile, who are the other contenders for #1? Rice is a rock, but he's 26 and has never been as dominant as a Tomlinson, Faulk, or Holmes. Peterson has, but he's 28. McCoy had his backup burst onto the scene and faces the specter of a new system and potential timeshare. Richardson is young and talented, but the Browns are a mess and might Steven Jackson him. Green is a young stud, but Gronk is out scoring him straight up. Maybe Rodgers or Cam, but as Coop pointed out, QB is deep. Calvin's a fantastic choice, but right now Gronk is essentially matching his production from a higher-leverage position, and is 4 years younger to boot.

    I can't really argue with anyone who goes Rice, Calvin, Cam, Rodgers, or Green at #1... but looking at it, if it were me, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Gronk would be the play.

    Edit: actually, trading down in the first and grabbing Gronk later would be the play. But if it were a no-trade league, then Gronk would be my guy.

  6. Getting ready for my off-season work and putting some rankings and VBD information together. The QB position is really sticking out to me and I'd like to get others thoughts?The average VBD of the top 5 QBs:2011: 173 (high of 203)2012: 84 (high of 120)That measures a strong shift in value away from the QB. Passing numbers returned to the mean and the number of quality starters increased. Manning, Brady, and Brees are a all a year older, but the 2012 class provided RG3, Luck, Wilson, and a couple more guys with potential. Kaepernick came onto the scene in a major way. Matt Ryan made a case for a top 5 dynasty ranking. Andy Dalton showed some promise, especially early on, as AJ Green established himself. Newton bounced back after a slow start to finish in the top 5 again, giving him the highest VBD total ever for a QB in his first 2 seasons.All of that is to say this: The QB position is slipping back to what it was before 2011's burst. Last off season saw Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton going top 3 often, in startups - those dynasty teams are likely suffering some for that. Surely those that drafted Stafford in the first 2 rounds are. This off season SHOULD reflect this trend; owners should be willing to wait and get value on their top 2 QBs. Kaepernick/Romo combinations could provide more value than Newton/RG3/Luck/Rodgers, and likely have a punchers chance to equal production. Peyton/Dalton is a nice mix of production/upside. Those feeling like a gamble could double/triple up on the young options and there is a fair chance than one hits - Tannehill/Wilson, for example. If the hobby isn't catching up - those willing to wait will be rewarded in their startups. RG3/Newton/Rodgers/Luck are all special players. But they are QBs in a potenial "golden era" for the position. Their value simply isn't what it would have been a year ago, and I hope to adjust and take advantage of that.

    I think you're underrating the value of 84 VBD. 84 VBD would rank 17th overall. 84 VBD is what AJ Green got in a very good year. 84 VBD is about what Calvin has averaged over the last 5 years. If all those top QBs get you is 84 VBD a season over the next 5 years, they will have more than justified the pick, regardless of where you took them- even #1 overall. I think a first for Aaron or Cam still represents good value in a startup.
  7. Have to shield out the white noise and make your own opinion. Heard of that effect, it's real, can't let it cloud your decision making though. It's why I just let others pick Brian Quick last year. Unknown WR, small school, good measurables, first pick of day 2 - everyone jumped. I never read a single glowing report about any of his specific workouts and the clips I was able to dig up were...a'ight. Pass. His stock got inflated because there wasn't a 4th WR in last year's class and it's a premium position in today's game, they were all flawed but since Quick was the unknown he artificially shot up. No on the field reasons for the jump though.

    You can't just "not let it cloud your decision making", though. It's an unconscious bias. It lies beyond the farthest reaches of our awareness. We cannot attribute anything to mere exposure effect, because our conscious reasoning processes are designed to take credit for ideas that weren't theirs in the first place. We can't blame any single decision on any single bias, because we have other biases designed solely to obscure the extent of our own bias (that's the "bias blind spot").

    I mean, look at the field of science. Current scientific practices are designed with an acute awareness of bias, taking painstaking efforts to rise above it. The Popperian scientific method, the process of peer review- these are massive inconveniences, stumbling blocks intentionally placed in the way of eager scientists lest their zeal for discovery outpace their prudence and attention to detail. And yet, despite all of these painstaking efforts to avoid bias, a large number of studies illustrate just how pervasive bias remains in the scientific literature. Journals are biased towards novelty. Scientists are biased against attempting to replicate previous experiments. A 95% confidence threshold (the industry standard for statistical significance) indicates that 1/20 "statistically significant" findings are likely false positives that occurred strictly through chance.

    If a field such as science- a field so obviously aware of the existence of bias and so steadfastly dedicated to countering its effects- still can't rise above our own human biases, then what hope do we, the humble fantasy football players, truly have? That's why numbers are so important. My mind can spin any story it wants, tell me whatever it wants about whomever it wants, and I have no choice but to accept it. The numbers can be misleading, they can be irrelevant, they can be incorrect... But they can never be biased. Interpretations of them can be subjective, but the numbers themselves are always objective. Often the only bit of objective reality we have to hold on to.

  8. Sometimes better? Sure. Frequently? Good luck arguing that. If you take a sample of casual players you'll probably get a positive response to your hypothesis, but most people in dynasty leagues (and especially those active in this thread year round) are not casual players. According to the formulas I'm sure I was supposed to bid heavily on Robert Meachem this past offseason. Former 1st rounder, progressively improved in New Orleans, signed big contract in San Diego to be their #1 with another proven QB slinging the rock to him. My eyes said stay the hell away from Meachem, it's a trap.Stats lie to me a lot more frequently than my eyes do...ok, to be fair it's at least very close, I'm sure I have some perception bias...so, I would rather be wrong with what I see than what a piece of paper tells me. I'm rarely comfortable making decisions based on data, much more likely to tinker with my lineup and roster too much if the data tells me one thing but my head says another and I listen to the data (I call this Beanie Wells syndrome when I see it being done by my friends). I'm much more comfortable with my decisions when I'm making them based off what I'm seeing - less likely to tinker and miss opportunities in other weeks because player A had a couple of bad statistical games. In general, for people that follow this game like most of us do - your gut >>>>> some flawed formula.

    First off, we need to be clear what we're talking about here. There's no magical fantasy football supercomputer named HAL out there where you plug in numbers from PFR and it tells you how best to run your team while singing Daisy Bell. "The formulae" or "the stats" are not literal formulas with arbitrary inputs and outputs. They're attempts to model behavior in a chaotic system by identifying key variables and calculating their impact. You can use stats to identify aging trends among top players (they suggest that age is far more important than mileage). You can use stats to identify who is likely to still break out (underperforming WRs), and whose play is just a harbinger of things to come (underperforming QBs). Often, the stats can't be used as a substitute for subjective judgments, because the variables are themselves subjective. Sometime the formulae return a result that you know isn't relevant due to extenuating circumstances that a simple algorithm couldn't possibly comprehend. At the end of the day, though, a lot of these patterns and trends are far more reliable than our own subjective judgments. Our judgments are faulty and flawed, the outcomes of overly simplistic heuristics prone to seeing patterns among the noise and noise among the patterns. Our judgments are intuitive, emotional, subject to countless unconscious biases, and unlikely to be checked by our own conscious reasoning processes, which are largely lazy. Formulas and statistics have a lot of weaknesses, but at least they aren't subject to bias. As an example of a fun cognitive bias, there's one called the "mere exposure effect" that says that mere exposure to a name is enough for you to view it more favorably. Seriously, if I just started ending every one of my posts with the name "Virgil Green", by the time next year rolled around, everyone in here would be drafting him higher than they otherwise would have. People who read my posts would compose more favorable scouting reports about him, praising his physical skills more, glossing over his weaknesses. Even if I never said anything positive about him- even if I just posted his name without any context or analysis- just contemplating his name compared to other, less familiar names would produce a sense of calm, a more pleasant thought process known as "cognitive ease". If I can make you rate a player higher just by randomly posting his name, then you have to wonder what other players you might be overrating based on factors that have no relevance to them as players. Introducing a little bit of objectivity from time to time is a good way to rebalance the evaluation process and clear a lot of the extraneous junk from the mechanisms.
  9. I think it's absurd to try to identify who the "best" RB was when comparing across eras and trying to judge talent rather than career. Comparing careers can be done with some effectiveness because one can compare players against their own peer groups and attempt to make accommodations in a comparison for differences in eras. Trying to gauge talent without making any such adjustments is comparing apples and oranges. "Talent" is partly God-given talent but partly due to the practices of the day with regard to physical training and medical treatments. And how talent is demonstrated is subject to the nature of offensive usage and rules of an era.You admitted you can't effectively judge Charles vs. Van Buren or Kelly, but I suspect there are others. For example, what about Joe Perry?IMO you are also comparing different kinds of talents. You say Charles is more talented than Bettis, yet Bettis was talented enough to win 2 1st team All Pro awards. Certainly his ypc was not close to Charles, but he was a different kind of RB with a different kind of talent and different type of usage.And I suspect your method has led you to overlook some players. Is Charles definitely better than Billy Sims was, for example? How about Fred Taylor?

    Of course it's all a subjective Just-For-Funsies exercise. Of course there'll never be a definitive answer. That's never stopped anyone from ranking the 10 best QBs of all time, or stopped any Bo fans from waxing poetic about where he would have gone down in history if he'd stayed healthy. As for Bettis... if he gets elected to the Hall, he'll be the most undeserving player in there. Watching him, I saw a player with a couple of great seasons, and then a huge stretch of replacement level play. He was basically Mike Tolbert for 75% of his career. I have no hesitation or compunction about calling Charles a better RB. And it's possible there are other RBs who my methodology missed (not Taylor- I'd take Jones-Drew over him, and Charles over Jones-Drew), but there are also other RBs I conceded who I'm really not that familiar with and I'm just giving them the nod based on reputation. Again, maybe "top 25" would have been a safer statement, but I'm happy with putting him in the 20-25 range.

    People want perfect formulas because it makes decision making easier. There aren't perfect formulas to determine things like wear and tear, all variable player to player. Trust your eyes and your head and you will make better decisions.

    Sometimes we'd all be a lot better off if we listened to our eyes/heads/guts a little less and the formulas a little more.
    What did the formula say about tony gonzalez four years ago?
    Not a whole lot. The best comp for Gonzo was Sharpe, who retired while still at the top of his game to chase a tv deal. But you're right that formulas miss sometimes. The question isn't whether they're perfect (they're not), it's whether they're sometimes better than human intuition (they frequently are).
  10. People want perfect formulas because it makes decision making easier. There aren't perfect formulas to determine things like wear and tear, all variable player to player. Trust your eyes and your head and you will make better decisions.

    Sometimes we'd all be a lot better off if we listened to our eyes/heads/guts a little less and the formulas a little more.
  11. I'm not calling Charles the greatest RB to ever lace up cleats, but he's among the top 20 to ever play his position (and yes, with Johnson's precipitous decline, Charles is the best back from his class). His ypc might drop with more carries, but it could drop by a half yard and he's still Jim Brown.

    OK, you've officially crossed the line here into absurdity.

    ETA: Since you have labeled Charles one of the top 20 RBs of all time, I'd be very interested to see your top 20 list.

    Assuming that the absurdity remark is from the "still Jim Brown" remark, I believe SSOG is talking about career YPC. Brown's YPC is 5.2. Charles' career YPC to this point is 5.8. So Charles could drop down a half yard and still be above Brown when looking at YPC.
    No, I read SSOG's post as saying Charles is among the top 20 greatest RBs to ever play the game. I find that notion to be absurd. That's why I asked for his top 20 list.

    The absurdity is merely compounded by suggesting that if his ypc dropped, "he's still Jim Brown." That part could just be phrasing, if he really meant "his ypc would still be as good as Jim Brown's."

    I was talking about ypc- Jamaal Charles's ypc could drop a half a yard and it's still essentially Jim Brown's ypc. I thought the first half of the sentence provided the context necessary to make that clear, so I'm sorry for the confusion. EBF was talking about his efficiency could fall with usage, so I was illustrating just how elite his efficiency metrics really were and how much room they had to fall while remaining elite.

    As for my top 20 RBs... the easiest way to go would be to just start with the list Chase produced over at the pfr blog. Here are his top 30 most dominant RBs, as of 2009:

    Brown, Smith, Sanders, Payton, Faulk, Tomlinson, Dickerson, Davis, Simpson, Thomas, Holmes, Taylor, Campbell, Martin, Van Buren, James, Alexander, Barber, Allen, Kelly, Harris, Riggins, Lydell Mitchell, Chuck Foreman, Ottis Anderson, Westbrook, Portis, Dorsett, Bettis, Ahman Greeen.

    Now, this metric is who had the most dominant careers, not who was the best RB. As a result, it misses Bo, Sayers, Marion Motley, and Peterson (whose career was still in its infancy). Add those four guys in and we've got 34 names as a starting point. How many of those 34 RBs is Jamaal Charles better than? I'd submit the following: Curtis Martin (unbelievable longevity, amazing career, but if I were picking an RB for a single season, I'd take an in-his-prime Charles over Martin). Shaun Alexander, Harris, Riggins, Mitchell, Foreman, Anderson, Westbrook, Portis, Dorsett, Bettis, and Green.

    I can't really speak intelligently to compare Charles to Van Buren or Leroy Kelly. If we assume both are better than Charles, that leaves him at 22nd. If we assume Charles is better than both, that leaves him at 20th.

    Look, Charles is nowhere near the class of the top 10-15 guys, but there's a steep drop off after that, and I think Charles absolutely deserves consideration there. When you're comparing Charles to guys like Bettis, Westbrook, Portis, and Ahman Green, I think Charles does very well. Maybe I would have been better saying "top 25" instead of "top 20". You're free to disagree, and I'd love to hear your thoughts to the contrary, but looking at the names, which of the guys I listed would you take over him? Looking at Chase's list, where would you put him? Are we really quibbling over 10 spots, and if so, is it really that absurd?

  12. This is something you've never made any attempt to do. Small backs have a hard time making it into the league, but once they're there, there's nothing stopping them from getting a big workload. The most recent example of this concept came this very season, as you repeatedly talked about how Charles wasn't going to get a big workload while Charles was busy getting a big workload.

    Part of the problem is that you're using the frame of a single season whereas I'm talking about entire careers. If a fragile beanpole like McFadden can survive 220+ carries in a season, then almost anyone can do it. The trick is doing it year in and year out. Part of the reason why guys like Edge, LT, Peterson, Gore, Portis, and Jackson have been dynasty gold is because they can answer the bell. Every. Single. Season. Chris Johnson is really the only RB of his stature in history to consistently accumulate the kind of workload routinely logged by 215-220 pound backs, and he's still not close to guys like Jackson, Tomlinson, and Portis on the career carries leaderboard. I'm not going to say that an undersized back can't possibly crack that list, but until somebody actually does it, I don't have a great incentive to think that it's likely or even possible. You keep bringing up Charles as refutation. In reality, he just supports what I'm saying. Even the best of the current thin backs (Charles and Spiller) still lag well behind the current best of the ideal lot (Foster, Peterson, Martin) in terms of volume. And that's my argument in a nutshell. It's not that thin backs don't have value or that they can't be great FF options. It's simply that bigger backs of comparable talent are more valuable. And again, this year doesn't disprove that. Guys like Foster and Martin are comfortably out-touching and outscoring guys like Spiller and Charles.
    Sanders, Dorsett, Dunn, and Portis did pretty well on the career charts despite pretty slight builds. Maybe Foster getting more carries had something to do with playing for a 12-4 team instead of a 2-14 team. This argument bores me.

    Adrian Peterson is a better back than Charles, sure. I'm not calling Charles the greatest RB to ever lace up cleats, but he's among the top 20 to ever play his position (and yes, with Johnson's precipitous decline, Charles is the best back from his class). His ypc might drop with more carries, but it could drop by a half yard and he's still Jim Brown. It could drop by a full yard and he's still Jones-Drew. Charles is not Jerious Norwood getting 6 ypc on 5 carries a game. He's had a pair of 1500 yard seasons rushing the football.

    Johnson at his peak was better than Charles is at his peak. Granted, it was a pretty brief peak, but overall his career has been much better if you value things like workload and total yards. And FWIW, Ray Rice is probably a better football player than either of them. That doesn't mean that you can't frame the stats to suggest otherwise. Again, it goes back to what I said about talent and how different people are impressed by different things. You can look at the stats and derive pretty much any conclusion depending on what you want to believe.
    Yeah, Johnson had the best peak, but if every RB were put into a pool by NFL GMs and drafted, you think Johnson would go before Charles today? You think Rice would?
  13. there are far more large backs in the league than small backs

    Right, and that's not by coincidence. There is an archetypal body type for playing the RB position. The farther you get from that ideal, the more exaggerated your other abilities must be to compensate. Reggie Bush, CJ Spiller, and Chris Johnson are some of the best athletes playing RB in the NFL. They have to be, because it's the only way that they could thrive without the 220 pound frame. It's like an NBA center who's shorter than 6'10". He has to be great in some other way in order to compensate for his simple physical deficiencies. And that brings me back to my point about talent. The jaw dropping speed of a guy like Spiller or Bush distracts you from the fact that he is lacking in other departments. A 220 pound back needs a lot less quickness and speed to be an effective NFL player than a 195 pound back. Does this mean that he is less talented, or just that his talents reside in different characteristics? I'd say it's the latter. To be clear, I'm not arguing that Cedric Benson is as talented as Jamaal Charles. I'm just saying that his talents are more subtle. Blinding speed and quickness are a lot more impressive to watch on the TV screen than a plodding Shonn Greene, so it's easy to understand why a lot of observers associate "talent" with things like speed and quickness. I'd argue that the equation is a bit more complicated. To go back to the Doug Martin comparison, it's pretty clear that he isn't as quick or fast as someone like CJ Spiller. On the other hand, he also weighs almost 30 pounds more despite being 1.4 inches shorter. He doesn't need to be as quick or fast because he is a hell of a lot bigger and stronger. When you watch him run, you might not notice those things as much as you notice the amazing cuts or speed of a smaller back. Hence my original point that people tend to associate "talent" with flashy physical qualities when it's not really that simple.
    I'm really getting tired of having the same argument for you. Yes, the lack of small backs in the league indicates that it's difficult for small backs to make it into the league. No, it does not mean ANYTHING AT ALL about backs once they've already made it in the league. If you want to claim that small backs are less likely to receive a big workload than large backs ONCE THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE LEAGUE, you need to show that the proportion of small backs receiving a high workload is smaller than we'd expect given draft position and the proportion of all backs in the league who qualify as small. This is something you've never made any attempt to do. Small backs have a hard time making it into the league, but once they're there, there's nothing stopping them from getting a big workload. The most recent example of this concept came this very season, as you repeatedly talked about how Charles wasn't going to get a big workload while Charles was busy getting a big workload. The speed of Charles or Spiller don't distract me from anything. I'm not a speed fanboy. Again, Tatum Bell, Felix Jones, Leon Washington... I've been around a long time. I've got a track record. That track record pretty clearly demonstrates that speed backs aren't really my cup of tea. If anything, my bias is towards the chain-movers. The fact that I like Charles and Spiller so much is in spite of their style, not because of it. Again, I've been a Frank Gore defender. I've been a Ray Rice defender. I like your "freaky good vs. sneaky good" analogy. Please don't paint me with an overly broad brush. Saying I like Charles more than Martin because he's flashier would be like accusing me of liking Barry Sanders more than Curtis Martin because he's flashier. No, I like Charles and Spiller because they're beasts capable of breaking a defense's back and dominating games, and they're extremely consistent in that domination. Game after game, year after year, both Charles and Spiller have consistently abused defenses and made them look silly.

    You want to talk about how Martin is more talented than Charles, though, and that's when I'm going to go all Kanye West on you. Yo EBF, imma let you finish. Doug Martin is a great back, but Jamaal Charles is one of the best backs of all time.

    Charles isn't even a top 2 back in his own draft, much less of all time. He's not fit to carry Adrian Peterson's pads. The YPC is impressive, but as much as I like efficiency stats they aren't the be-all end-all of determining who is the greatest player. Charles has never been asked tote the ball as much as a guy like Adrian Peterson or LaDainian Tomlinson. If he were, his efficiency stats would drop. Efficiency stats are often a really good way to identify up and coming players, but it's also important to recognize that there's a difference between thriving on a modest amount of touches and thriving on a massive amount of touches. It's the same reason why I'm quick to point out that RGIII and Russell Wilson's efficiency stats aren't directly parallel to Andrew Luck's. Luck is chucking the ball something like 38% more. The usage is so warped that it's almost like comparing the ERA or WHIP of a closer to that of a starter. Completely different roles.If you follow baseball, you know how ridiculous it would be to assume that every reliever with a low ERA would be contending for the Cy Young if he were thrust him into the starting rotation. What we're talking about is something similar, albeit not nearly as extreme.
    Adrian Peterson is a better back than Charles, sure. I'm not calling Charles the greatest RB to ever lace up cleats, but he's among the top 20 to ever play his position (and yes, with Johnson's precipitous decline, Charles is the best back from his class). His ypc might drop with more carries, but it could drop by a half yard and he's still Jim Brown. It could drop by a full yard and he's still Jones-Drew. Charles is not Jerious Norwood getting 6 ypc on 5 carries a game. He's had a pair of 1500 yard seasons rushing the football.
  14. Okay, so there are lots of different kinds of talent. I'll take the kinds that lead to you averaging half a yard more per carry than any other RB in the history of the game. In case you missed it, this is me vehemently disagreeing with your claim that Doug Martin is as talented as Jamaal Charles. Nowhere close.Edit: and don't try to tell me I conflate speed with talent. I was down on Tatum Bell and Felix Jones and Leon Washington way before it was fashionable. I've long sung the praises of Mike Anderson. I think Emmitt Smith was as talented as Barry Sanders. I'm a frequent Rice defender- often from you. My favorite RB in the league is MJD. I'm one of the biggest pro-AlfMo guys posting. I don't think Charles is better than Martin because he's faster or has better highlights. I think so because he's better than Doug Martin. The NFL record for ypc just confirms what my eyes have always told me.

    Like I said, different strokes for different folks. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the ability to handle a high volume of touches is a talent and it's one that Martin has demonstrated to a greater extent than Charles. Martin's 368 touches are more than Charles has ever logged in his entire five season career. Small backs are generally more explosive than big backs, but they typically lag far behind in terms of touches. That's no different this year, with 8 of the top 10 NFL leaders in carries (and all of the top 5) being 215+ pounders. Even if you're right that Jamaal Charles is more talented than Martin, it doesn't show up in the FF numbers. Martin easily outscored Charles in all of my leagues despite Charles having the best season of his career. Charles was like the DeSean Jackson of RBs this year: all or nothing. In my most generic PPR league he had 7 single digit games compared to just 3 for Martin. Yes, Charles had some awesome weeks where he single-handedly won games for his owners, but he also had far more weeks where he would've killed your squad. I'm the type of owner who values solid, reliable scorers over feast-or-famine big play artists. I would much rather have a guy like Michael Crabtree than Torrey Smith. Likewise, I would rather have Doug Martin than Jamaal Charles. I'll be perfectly content to hear how wrong I am about this for the next several years as long as Martin continues to churn out superior FF seasons.
    We've got a couple of different threads going on here. You said that Martin is more consistent than Charles, but that's a meaningless distinction- consistency is highly inconsistent from year to year, and correlates to nothing except for points scored. You said that Martin outscored Charles this year, which is absolutely true, but 100% irrelevant when discussing talent (unless you also want to argue that Andre Roberts is more talented than Larry Fitzgerald). Martin played for an explosive offense. Charles played for the most anemic offense in the league, a year after blowing out his knee. You mention that larger backs dominate the carry charts, but we've discussed this a half dozen times already- there are far more large backs in the league than small backs, so they'll dominate EVERY LIST. And it doesn't matter anyway, since Charles was up on that carry leaders list, too- averaging an even 20 touches a game for a team that had no idea what it felt like to play with a lead. You want to talk about how Martin's more valuable in dynasty leagues, and I'll agree. You want to talk about how Martin will score more fantasy points over the next three seasons, and I'm all ears. You want to talk about how Martin is more talented than Charles, though, and that's when I'm going to go all Kanye West on you. Yo EBF, imma let you finish. Doug Martin is a great back, but Jamaal Charles is one of the best backs of all time.
  15. The time to buy Spiller was a year ago. Or better yet, before last season. His value is sky high right now and most of the people who own him in my leagues are huge fanboys. I don't even want to know what it would cost to pry him away.

    I'd disagree that he's more talented than Doug Martin though. I think too many people equate talent at RB with speed and explosiveness, which is why people rave about the talent level of flashy backs like Charles and Spiller. Not to say that those guys aren't supreme talents, but their speed and quickness comes at the expense of bulk and power. I think Doug Martin is as talented as Jamaal Charles. He just has a different kind of talent.

    I can understand the reasoning of ranking the smaller backs really high, but I wouldn't personally give up Martin or Richardson for a Spiller or Charles. He's got everything you'd want in a back for the NFL and for FF.

    Is this the sort of talent that leads to him setting an NFL record for career yards per carry and rushing for 1500 on the worst team in the league a year after blowing out his knee? Or is this more the kind of talent that Mendenhall has- the kind that leads to him getting passed over by Ike Redman and John Dwyer?
    :unsure:

    Shouldn't even dignify that with a response, but my point is that there's a lot of ways to skin a cat and one shouldn't necessarily be valued over the other. The difference between Martin and Charles is kind of like the difference between Dwayne Bowe and Mike Wallace. They can both get yards, but they do it in very different ways.

    Whereas Charles has better home run speed and quickness, Martin is bigger and stronger with better ability to bounce off hits. So saying that one is clearly more talented than the other is probably a bit misguided. They have a similar talent level, but are good at different things.

    I think people generally overrate the flashy aspects (speed/quickness) compared to the more subtle qualities. Hence why you tend to hear more about the talent level of speedy backs like CJ/Charles/Spiller/McFadden compared to guys like Gore/Martin/Rice who have just as much ability, but achieve their results in a different fashion.

    Okay, so there are lots of different kinds of talent. I'll take the kinds that lead to you averaging half a yard more per carry than any other RB in the history of the game.

    In case you missed it, this is me vehemently disagreeing with your claim that Doug Martin is as talented as Jamaal Charles. Nowhere close.

    Edit: and don't try to tell me I conflate speed with talent. I was down on Tatum Bell and Felix Jones and Leon Washington way before it was fashionable. I've long sung the praises of Mike Anderson. I think Emmitt Smith was as talented as Barry Sanders. I'm a frequent Rice defender- often from you. My favorite RB in the league is MJD. I'm one of the biggest pro-AlfMo guys posting. I don't think Charles is better than Martin because he's faster or has better highlights. I think so because he's better than Doug Martin. The NFL record for ypc just confirms what my eyes have always told me.

  16. The time to buy Spiller was a year ago. Or better yet, before last season. His value is sky high right now and most of the people who own him in my leagues are huge fanboys. I don't even want to know what it would cost to pry him away.

    I'd disagree that he's more talented than Doug Martin though. I think too many people equate talent at RB with speed and explosiveness, which is why people rave about the talent level of flashy backs like Charles and Spiller. Not to say that those guys aren't supreme talents, but their speed and quickness comes at the expense of bulk and power. I think Doug Martin is as talented as Jamaal Charles. He just has a different kind of talent.

    I can understand the reasoning of ranking the smaller backs really high, but I wouldn't personally give up Martin or Richardson for a Spiller or Charles. He's got everything you'd want in a back for the NFL and for FF.

    Is this the sort of talent that leads to him setting an NFL record for career yards per carry and rushing for 1500 on the worst team in the league a year after blowing out his knee? Or is this more the kind of talent that Mendenhall has- the kind that leads to him getting passed over by Ike Redman and John Dwyer?
  17. 5. Brady6. Brees

    I never understood this. Over the last 4 years, Brees has 450 VBD. Brady has 402. In the most Brady-friendly comparison possible, he's averaged 129 VBD per season over his last 5- which is, of course, hugely inflated by that insane 2007. Brees, over his last 5 years, has 114. No matter how you slice it, Brees has been as productive as Brady, if not moreso, and he's 1.5 years younger. That's not a huge deal when comparing a 21 year old to a 23 year old, but it's a big, big deal when you're comparing a 34 year old to a 36 year old. Brees probably has 50% more career left in front of him than Brady.
  18. If Reid signs in KC, how much does that impact Charles' dynasty ranking? Most lists I see show him in the 5-10 range. Seems to me this (hopefully) gets Charles a consistent touch level, particularly in PPR.

    Had him at 5-6 before the carousel started spinning. I'll almost certainly have him at 5-6 after it stops, regardless of who his new coach is.

    what does a Reid deal in KC mean to the QB position?

    Does he turn Cassel into a starting fantasy QB?

    Does he make a deal for a guy like Flynn who's a product of the West Coast system?

    Does he draft a QB this year?

    Does a game manager like Alex Smith fit into this equation?

    What it means for the QB situation is that the 2013 starter is likely not on the roster. Geno, Vick, maybe even Kolb if the Cards cut him.

    If Reid signs in KC, how much does that impact Charles' dynasty ranking? Most lists I see show him in the 5-10 range. Seems to me this (hopefully) gets Charles a consistent touch level, particularly in PPR.

    In PPR I think there's a good argument for him at RB1, but it may be my longtime mancrush talking. I wouldn't be surprised to see him double his catch total under Reid, which easily puts him over 2000 YFS. If the offense is better overall (and how could it not be considering Reid >>>>>>>> Brian Daboll) his TDs should be up some even if they continue to use a goal-line RB, which they might not (Westbrook and McCoy were both 10+ TD guys under Reid).

    He just turned 26 a few weeks ago, so he's essentially two seasons younger than Peterson and one season younger than Foster and Rice, and has taken much less pounding than all three of them. We have no idea what type of system McCoy is in next year, which I weigh pretty heavily for RBs. I like both of this year's rookies, but Charles is far safer due to track record. He's also definitely more talented than everyone except Peterson -- the guy averages over half a yard more than Jim Brown per carry for his career, think about that for a minute.

    It's not an easy call right now on the RBs, but if I have a contending team, which I usually do as I'm not a huge fan of the whole "rebuilding" philosophy, I think a Reid signing has a pretty strong chance at making Charles the best PPR RB for the next 3 - 4 years.

    Charles is a month older than Rice, not a year younger.
  19. If Reid signs in KC, how much does that impact Charles' dynasty ranking? Most lists I see show him in the 5-10 range. Seems to me this (hopefully) gets Charles a consistent touch level, particularly in PPR.

    Had him at 5-6 before the carousel started spinning. I'll almost certainly have him at 5-6 after it stops, regardless of who his new coach is.
  20. If Wallace leaves, someone has to catch TD passes. Brown hasn't proven to be great in that area, though it's an unpredictable stat much of the time. Miller tore everything in his leg, and was already old. Roethlisburger is a great QB. He has to throw to someone.

    Not necessarily. He could run it in himself. He could hand it off. Maybe a Matt Spaeth emerges and vultures everyone again. Roethlisberger has never been a huge passing-TD guy. This year was actually the second best passing TD season of his career.
  21. When you see where he is now, it's amazing to think that Rivers led the NFL in YPA in 3 consecutive years from 2008 to 2010. Are there any comparable QBs who declined as precipitously as Rivers has in the last two years? Kurt Warner is the only one I can think of (and his rebound might indicate hope for Rivers).

    Thirty is young for a good QB to just plain lose it due to age. Thinking he might make a decent QBBC buy if you don't own a top-7 QB and River's is someone's QB2 on a team with one of the studs at QB1. Price would need to be right though.
    It's rare for good QBs to lose it so young, but not entirely unprecedented. Bernie Kosar, Ken O'Brien, Marc Bulger...
  22. Most horrifying thing I've ever watched. I'd be interested if he ever decides to play WR. Anyone holding needs to sell on hype before ppl actually watch him play

    Sell? There need to be buyers in order to sell. Prior to this weekend's games, I doubt I could trade him and my current waiver priority (5th) for the #4 waiver priority. People just don't see him as being worth more than whoever they have marinating at the very end of the bench. Now, there is an extremely remote- but still non-zero- chance that this weekend changes that. There's even an extremely remote- but non-zero- chance that he gets named the starter this offseason. Or that he makes a position switch. He's a lottery ticket, but unlike lottery tickets like Devier Posey or DJ Williams or Julius Thomas, we'll know whether we're going to be getting any return in 36 hours, not 8 months. That makes him preferable, in my eyes. If the overwhelmingly likely failure winds up taking place, I can cut him tomorrow for exactly what I could trade him for today- absolutely nothing. I need guys who will be expendable to make room for my rookies, anyway, and Pryor fits the bill.
  23. SSOG,I respect your football opinion, I always have. On this matter, we can agree to disagree. You believe Shanahan is a good personnel man. You could cite player X , Y and Z for it. I don't, I think he's horrible. I could cite players A, B and C. In the end, that argument will only become circular. My base reasoning here isn't to piss all over Shanahan and say he's a bad coach. I am saying - I don't think he's the right coach suited for RG3 and his long term health and success in Washington- I don't believe he can surround RG3 with elite personnel for the long haul to contend or save RG3's health from being one of the few weapons the Skins have offensively. - I believe he cares more about saving his job than considering RG3's long term health. I speak of mobility, not as a guy who will break out a 80 yeard TD run, but enough mobility for a guy to protect himself from an oncoming pass rush. - I believe from a personnel standpoint, Shanahan compromised the long term future of the Skins by selling the farm for RG3 to ensure he wouldn't eat a third losing season in a row and have to deal with Dan Snyder afterwards. I believe that cost will bear more heavily in later years compared to this year. I see RG3, even with Morris and hopefully a health Garcon around him, as someone who will have to consistently carry this offense and often use his legs to do it. And even with all the pro passing / QB safety rules, I see this kid getting his bell rung a lot. I see a kid who is going to miss chunks of the season on a regular basis for the kind of pounding he will take as a running QB1. And I see that all as a detriment to long term dynasty fantasy value. I respect your football opinion. Somehow I feel I've unintentionally pushed some button with you regarding Shanahan where this has all devolved into the equivalent of a prostate exam. We can agree to disagree and like I've always said on this board, time will tell. Time will tell which one of us was either right or wrong or both right and wrong.

    You're a good guy, Gecko, and I usually appreciate your contrarian take. I often find myself agreeing with it, actually. Sometimes (Myra Kraft comes to mind), it seems like I might be the only one. I just don't see this as an "agree to disagree" situation. I think there are a lot of objective truths in this situation, and I don't think any of them are on your side. First, let's start with the personnel again. You say Shanahan's "horrible"- your word, not mine. Let's quantify "horrible", shall we? I think "horrible" has to mean at least bottom 10, if not bottom 5. So let's assume that were the case- if Shanahan were "horrible", what would we expect that to look like? What would a team look like after 14 years of a "horrible" personnel guy running the show? I would contend- and I don't think this is a stretch- that 14 years with a bottom 10 personnel guy would result in one of the 10 least talented teams in the league. So if Shanahan were "horrible", we would expect the Broncos to be one of the 10 least talented teams in the league. And if they were one of the 10 least talented teams, we would expect them to have one of the 10 worst records in the entire NFL from time to time. But that's not what we see. Only once did Denver finish with one of the 10 worst records, coming on the heels of back-to-back superbowls, and that was only after losing 3 potential HoFers, (4 if you count Atwater, which I don't), and turning to a brand new starting QB. And Denver still finished "just" 6-10. And their scoring differential (-4 points) was better than 11 other teams. So you mean to tell me that Shanahan was a HORRIBLE personnel guy, and he ran the controls for 14 years in Denver, and not once were they worse than "mildly below average"? That's unbelievable! And I mean that literally. It is literally impossible for me to believe that could be the case. You know what a team looks like after years of a "horrible" personnel guy? Look at the 0-16 Detroit Lions, not the 8-8 Denver Broncos. And those Broncos managed to remain consistently competitive despite the fact that, as you pointed out, the NFL draft is rigged to favor losers, and Denver was never a loser. Second, let's look at your assertion that Shanahan drafted Griffin to save his job. I find this claim laughable- you claim Shanahan needed a playoff berth to save his job, so he drafted a rookie and immediately named him a day one starter at QB. First off, that narrative is implausible enough on its face; how often in history has a rookie started from day one at QB and led his team to the playoffs? Second off, that narrative is flatly contradicted by later events- when a coach is desperately trying to win now at the expense of the future, tell me, what earthly reason could he possibly have for drafting a SECOND QB in the 4th? Of all the players on the board, Cousins probably had the absolute least to offer from a "win now" standpoint. The only possible reason to draft two QBs in the first four rounds is if you're going BPA, and BPA means that instead of focusing on immediate needs, you're taking a long view. Finally, your interpretation is contradicted by Shanahan's history. In the 2006 draft, Shanahan stunned the punditocracy by executing two trades to move up to 11 and select Jay Cutler. He was coming off a 13-3 season where his squad hosted the AFCCG and his starting QB, Jake Plummer (more on him in a minute), had made the pro bowl and led the league in int%. When asked why he did it, he said that his years working with Elway and Young showed him how important it was to have a franchise QB, and his years since Elway had shown him just how rare it was to be in a position to get one, so when that rare opportunity arose, you paid whatever it took to get him. Washington's acquisition of Griffin (and Cousins) fits far better with Shanahan's previous words and actions (when an opportunity arises to get a franchise signal caller, you do whatever it takes), and far worse with theories that he was simply trying to save his job. Circling back to Plummer for a second... compare his numbers in Denver to his numbers in Arizona sometime. The Denver numbers were top 10 good. The Arizona numbers were bottom 10 bad. A case could be made that they were actually top5/bottom5 (and I'd be happy to make it, if you want). This leaves us forced to concede one of two things (possibly both). Either Denver had an awful lot of supporting talent helping Plummer elevate his game... or they didn't, and Shanahan oversaw the single most impressive job of QB development in the history of the NFL. Plummer speaks very well to Shanahan as a personnel guy, and to Shanahan as a QB development guy. You can't overlook this. Anyway, aside over. Now, your third assertion is that Shanahan is leaving Griffin high and dry and will get him killed. I think there's a chance Griffin's body gets wrecked, but I don't pin it on Shanahan. Griffin is a special player. You don't get a special player and than tell him not to do the things that make him special. You don't tell Earl Campbell to run with a little less intensity. You don't tell Cam Newton to stop trying to push the pile in short yardage. You don't tell Jamaal Charles to stop cutting quite so hard. Griffin has Olympic-caliber speed, and taking it out of his game is like buying a Lamborghini and keeping it in the garage. You can absolutely teach him when and where to pick his spots, but I don't know why Shanahan wouldn't be the guy to do that. After all, he's the guy who taught two of the most celebrated running QBs of all time (Elway and Young) how to pick their spots. It's possible Griffin gets killed before he learns these things (although not likely- Vick and Cunningham hung around into their 30s, didn't they?), but that has nothing to do with Shanny. Mike Shanahan is exactly the guy Griffin owners should want running the show for the foreseeable future. You ask that we just agree to disagree on this, and if this were just a matter of opinion (Scarlett Johannson vs. Jessica Alba), I would be happy to. The problem is that I don't think this is just a matter of opinion- as I said, I think there are objective truths, and that they fall overwhelmingly on my side of the equation. It'd be like if we were arguing who was the better coach, Bill Walsh or George Seifert. Sometimes, "agree to disagree" just doesn't cut it.
  24. Then we can agree to disagree on Shanahan's record as a personnel person.

    Here is what I see, I see a head coach who starts to feel his seat get warm as his past two season were only good enough for 4th place in the NFC East. He won 6 games in 2010 and 5 games last year. Despite having Super Bowl winning pedigree and linkage to the Walsh era, he can't reasonably expect to miss the playoffs three years in a row under Dan Snyder and expect nothing negative to happen as fallout. This is why Shanahan sold the farm to draft RG3.

    That, or he did it because Griffin was one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last few decades, and Shanahan knows both how rare those players are, and how much they mean to a franchise when you get one. Because, historically speaking, hitching your wagon to a rookie QB really isn't a great move if all you're hoping for is job security. It's easy to forget it after Griffin, Wilson, Luck, and Newton... But rookie QBs are typically terrible. Appointing one as the starter on day 1 has historically made it nearly impossible to make the playoffs, so if your contention was Shanny needed a playoff berth to save his job, he sure picked a stupid way to try to get one.

    Having RG3 is great, he's a great player, I love watching him play, I'm glad Redskins homers have a true blue chip franchise guy to root for now. Skins fans have suffered long and hard the last decade and I think some good news for them is much needed. But he came at a great cost. If you want to win championships and make an extended run as a contender, you need to build through the draft. You need to hit on your drafted players to the a degree where you have several waves of players outperforming their rookie contracts to provide you with roster depth and value within a closed system with a built in hard cap. The more assets you surrender for RG3, the more pressure you put on your front office to absolutely HIT on the remaining picks you do have. You also force your franchise to dip into free agency more often. Draft, Free Agency, Trades. That's pretty much it, that's pretty much your ways to garner new talent. The problem with free agency is you are either paying or overpaying players who you are expecting to produce but at their market value. While their drafting team probably reaped the most value, those first few cost controlled years with over performance to market compensation, the team that signs you in FA is paying you to market for past performance and hope and projection you will either continue to rise or at least stay consistent. In essence, the teams that pay for the top free agents or dip into free agency a little too much are taking a magnified risking of "buying high" on a player.

    No, if you want to win a championship or have an extended run, you need a top QB. A top QB covers all manner of ills- look at Indy in Peyton's last season there. Look at Green Bay's yearly injury list. Peyton and Brady haven't missed the playoffs in a decade, despite some questionable personnel decisions around them. New Orleans never had any sustained success in the playoffs until they got Brees. I can name lots of teams with top QBs and talent deficits elsewhere that competed for championships. I can name several teams that relied heavily on free agency when assembling a contender. How many teams can you name who had a great drafting record, no top QB, and still competed anyway? The poster child for that is probably Baltimore, and how far has that strategy gotten them? If you don't have a top QB, all else is for naught. Luckily for Washington, Shanny did what it took to secure them a future top 5 QB, and now they can worry about building around him.

    Shanahan is married to the RG3 pick. If RG3 exceeds expectations, he gets the credit. If RG3 disappoints, he reaps the full blame. He's got a perfectly capable backup in Kirk Cousins but doesn't want to play him because he doesn't want to spur a potential QB controversy. One which says why did we spend X amount on a star QB ( three firsts and a 2nd) when we spent a 4th rounder on this kid here who is pretty good.

    Playing RG3 last week was not about the health and future of the Redskins franchise for the long term. Playing RG3 was about Shanahan doing his best to save his job and secure his job status. There was no reason to have your hurt rookie franchise QB1 go on the road, with limited mobility with his LCL injury, and when your right tackle is out so you give Maurice Hurt his first career start. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Tyler Polumbus on the right side, but you are going to throw your franchise guy out there while he's gimpy in hostile territory hoping a rookie will manage to protect him in a critical position? All while having a competent backup QB1 on your roster? That Skins O line is a top notch, top ten rushing O line, but it's in the bottom third in the league in pass protection. A gimpy QB1 with limited mobility is a sitting duck.

    Griffin was cleared to play by the medical staff. What's the point of employing a professional medical staff if you are just going to ignore them? Griffin wasn't his usual mobile self, but suggesting teams shouldn't play QBs who aren't very mobile on the road is ludicrous- what does that say about the QBs that aren't very mobile even when healthy? Cousins is a good backup, but Griffin gave the team the best chance to win, and they're in the playoff hunt. This has nothing to do with saving Shanahan's job- you NEVER concede the playoff race when you control your own destiny. How many 6 seeds have won the SB recently? What if one of them had said "well, football's a violent game, and we don't want to risk our QB's long term health, so how about we just shut him down for the year"? What if Washington made the playoffs- would you be okay with Griffin, who had been cleared to play by a professional medical staff, playing?

    Besides, name the last QB to suffer a career-ending injury. Young/Aikman? It's an absurdly rare occurrence. You can't coach football if you're afraid of getting hit by lightning.

    Here's what I see for the future

    - Shanahan running RG3 out there like Dusty Baker runs out his starting pitchers, regardless of situation and regardless of RG3's long term health ( how many times can a running QB1 go out there and survive getting his bell being rung, even in with all the pro passing rules?), which in turn is critical to the long term future for the Redskins, to justify the RG3 trade and to save his job. And winning just enough to bump out Allen and get Cousins traded and continuing to fail to build around RG3 in the same way he failed to build around his Broncos teams post Super Bowl, until of course the roster was so devoid of talent that eventually the "system" itself corrected the Broncos drafting. It doesn't make you a great drafter if you lose talent and lose games to the point where your picks are high enough to mitigate the risks of failure. It wouldn't take Bill Walsh to grab Stafford, Megatron and Suh for the Lions would it? At some point, personnel wise, the "system" of the NFL draft imposes a market correction on even the worst teams.

    I love RG3, but I'm not invested in seeing Shanahan grind him into the dirt.

    He's a sell high for me in dynasty. The rest of you are free to do as you wish.

    Holy hell, you're going to claim Denver finally started having good drafts because they started losing and were rewarded with high picks? Are you just throwing out whatever comes to mind and hoping it sticks at this point? During Shanahan's career, Denver was the only team that never had a top 10 pick in the entire league- largely because Shanahan never had more than 10 losses, and only finished below .500 twice. In 14 years, Shanahan only had four picks in the TOP HALF of the first round. He got Deltha ONeil and John Mobley at 15. He got Ryan Clady at 12. He got Jay Cutler at 11- a pick he only owned because he TRADED UP TO GET IT after a 13-3 season. But let's not let facts get in the way of the stories we make up to try to hide our lack of knowledge about the situations we're going off on great length about.

    Look, end of the day, Mike Shanahan is probably the best in the entire NFL at developing QBs. John Elway, Steve Young, Brian Griese, Jake Plummer, and Jay Cutler all played their best seasons under Shanahan. I said before the season that there was no one better for Griffin to be learning under, and got mocked for it (by people who were eager to say he couldn't succeed because, like you, they were fixated on the lost picks). Well, not a week goes by without someone else writing a story about how well the Shanahans have been developing Griffin and tailoring their offense to suit him. And for good measure, they turned a rookie 4th rounder into one of the most celebrated backups in the league while they were at it. Trying to use the presence of Mike Shanahan as some sort of negative for Griffin seems to me like doubling down on a position after it's already been killed and buried.

×
×
  • Create New...