Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SSOG

Staff
  • Posts

    12,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. I like the Dez call. Huge chance he goes Blaylon Edwards on us. With that's said I'd add Romo to the mix if you think Dez reverts to being a Diva.

    I agree somewhat with Romo, but is he a sell high?
    17 TD's to 3 INT's his last 8 games. That's around the sametime Dez Bryant decided to start dominating, if you don't believe in Dez you can't believe this is Romo consistently. Im also betting the Redskins and Giants defense gets healthy and The Eagles young defense improves by 2013, Romo takes a hit there.
    Ok, I'm sold, Romo is a sell high.
    That's business as usual for Romo, though. I've been saying it for two years now: fantasy-wise, he's Peyton Manning minus the starts streak and the name premium. Since 2007 (Romo's first full season as a starter), here are the top QBs in ppg (minimum 32 games):24.45- Rodgers24.25- Brady23.86- Brees21.72- Stafford21.36- Romo21.13- Peyton
    We all agree he's been underrated in the past but I can't ignore the what he looked like for the first half of the season. That second half spike with 9 of those 17 td's coming from playing NO and PHI twice is the definition of sell high. If you add in this years rookie class, mobile guys like Kaepernick n Newton along with the elite guys you just named where would you rank Romo next year? Add in a possible Eli bounce back and Vick with a new job. I've always been in the wait for Romo camp but now he looks worse just lofting balls up to Dez. Just making sure I'm not stuck with the next Palmer/Rivers because QB's literally fall off a cliff when they do decline.
    Missed this the first time through. I think he's clearly behind Rodgers, Newton, Griffin, Brees, Luck, and Ryan. After that, I think he's in the conversation, along with Brady and Stafford. Kaep, Vick, and Eli aren't even in the same stratosphere.
  2. Have Robert Griffin III in three of my dynasties. Will sell in all of them. As a fan of the game, I love watching RG3 play. As a fantasy owner and putting on my personnel cap, I'm going to sell high and try to get a king's ransom.

    It's clear to me at this point that Shanahan has no regard for RG3's long term health or career. It didn't come back to bite him in the last game, but the usage was IMHO egregious. The Skins are already getting their media shills to self generate interest in Cousins for the offseason. When Allen goes, Shanahan loses his safety valve, the patient and rational Tom Hagen to temper his impatient and reactive Sonny Corleone.

    And that's the last thing any Skins fan should want, Shanahan with complete control over personnel without any kind of opposition whatsoever. Shanahan, outside of his RB production, is a horrible personnel guy. His only saving grace is he's probably not as bad as Dan Snyder.

    Nobody in the NFL has a better track record developing QBs than Shanahan. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt. Also, rumors of Shanahan's (lack of) personnel acumen are greatly exaggerated. If Shanahan was really so bad- if Denver had so much trouble acquiring talent- it would have shown on the field. Shanahan coached 14 years in Denver and posted two losing seasons- a 6-10 season when he lost Elway, Davis, and Zimmerman (3 HoF caliber players) over a year and a half, and a 7-9 season 8 years later. His team certainly had a run of atrocious drafts in the early 2000s, but he acquired a lot of talent before that, he routinely made good trades (Portis for Bailey and a second, anyone?), and he had some good finds in free agency (Bertrand Barry, Gerard Warren, Lynch, Dawkins). Most importantly, the cold streak ended, and Shanahan went on a drafting streak so hot it should have reminded everyone that splits happen. He got Darrent Williams, Dom Foxworth, Elvis Dumervil, Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Ryan Clady, Chris Kuper, Chris Myers, Wesley Woodyard, Peyton Hillis, Tony Scheffler, and Eddie Royal, among others, all within a few years span. And this last year, he was responsible for Griffin and Cousins. His recent track record is a hell of a lot better than Pioli's, Belichick's, Polian's, or AJ Smith's.

    Shanahan has flaws, but personnel isn't one of them. He's fine as a personnel guy. Not the best in the league, but far from the worst. If I were a Redskins fan, I'd be far more worried about the way he chews up and spits out defensive coordinators.

  3. I like the Dez call. Huge chance he goes Blaylon Edwards on us. With that's said I'd add Romo to the mix if you think Dez reverts to being a Diva.

    I agree somewhat with Romo, but is he a sell high?
    17 TD's to 3 INT's his last 8 games. That's around the sametime Dez Bryant decided to start dominating, if you don't believe in Dez you can't believe this is Romo consistently. Im also betting the Redskins and Giants defense gets healthy and The Eagles young defense improves by 2013, Romo takes a hit there.
    Ok, I'm sold, Romo is a sell high.
    That's business as usual for Romo, though. I've been saying it for two years now: fantasy-wise, he's Peyton Manning minus the starts streak and the name premium. Since 2007 (Romo's first full season as a starter), here are the top QBs in ppg (minimum 32 games):24.45- Rodgers24.25- Brady23.86- Brees21.72- Stafford21.36- Romo21.13- Peyton
  4. FantasyDouche on Twitter (not sure how many of you guys follow him) lays out a case for Ryan, Stafford, and Flacco all being similar QBs, separated by quality of receivers. Here it is. Thoughts?

    Now that last year is increasingly looking like a fluke, I'd go one further and add Eli to that list.
    Agreed. Rivers, too. I'll probably be slammed for being a homer but I think Bradford will prove to be in this tier as well. Not sure any of these QBs would be much better than Bradford in his situation. Rivers is a perfect example of how situation can dictate how good or bad these QBs can look.
    Rivers was not a product of situation. Neither was Palmer in Cincy. Their decline is a product of injury and yips. They are not the same guys they physically and mentally as when they were putting up good years. Give 2012 Rivers in his prime Gates and he still looks off.

    Eli had 3 300 yd games in the first two months. Then reports of arm fatigue came out.

    Rivers has had no known injuries since his ACL in the 2007 playoffs.
    There's been rumor of arm issues My link. "Known" is a key word in your response.

    In 2010 he was nailing deep throws to Seyi Ajirotutu. It's not the talent around him. SD was plug-and-play. VJax sits out, Floyd comes in. Floyd gets hurt, UFAs come in. For all that is DX's breakout this year, Rivers really has still been terrible throughout.

    Rivers and Norv have repeatedly denied that he has been injured. If he has been injured, why would they be so adamant in saying he hasn't been? As a fan, I'd love to hear that he has actually been hurt, since it would explain what has happened and give insight on whether or not to expect a future rebound.

    I think his biggest problem last year and this year has been the poor OL, which has often kept him from stepping into his passes, especially his deep throws, and has led him to have happy feet at times. But it's not like it was a great OL before that, which is puzzling. I also think Norv has been a problem, in that he doesn't really adjust the offense when things aren't working.

    I like the Warner reference someone made and the potential for a resurgence from Rivers with a coaching change and potential upgrade over time in the supporting cast.

    Yeah, Rivers' fall baffles me. It really can't be explained by coaching staff or supporting cast. If someone told me tomorrow that he'd been abducted in the offseason after 2010 and was being impersonated by someone from the Arena League, I would only consider that mildly improbable.
  5. FantasyDouche on Twitter (not sure how many of you guys follow him) lays out a case for Ryan, Stafford, and Flacco all being similar QBs, separated by quality of receivers. Here it is. Thoughts?

    Now that last year is increasingly looking like a fluke, I'd go one further and add Eli to that list.
    Agreed. Rivers, too. I'll probably be slammed for being a homer but I think Bradford will prove to be in this tier as well. Not sure any of these QBs would be much better than Bradford in his situation. Rivers is a perfect example of how situation can dictate how good or bad these QBs can look.
    I wouldn't put Rivers in there. Pre-2011 Rivers was much better than those guys. Post-2011 Rivers is much worse.

    Plummer is really the perfect example of how much supporting cast affects a QB's production. Look at just his numbers from Arizona. They're putrid- bottom 5 QB bad. Now look at his numbers in Denver. They're amazing- top 5 QB good. This isn't homerism or exaggeration- go look at the numbers. Advanced stats like DVOA back me up on this, too. If his career had been reversed, we'd look at him as a great QB who got exiled to Siberia in Arizona. Instead, we look at him as a bumbling buffoon who lucked into a plush gig in Denver. The reality is he's neither- he's a competent NFL QB who will succeed or fail as much as you'd expect any competent QB to succeed or fail based on their situation.

    Also, we need to make clear that "supporting cast" includes coaching as much as teammates. Perhaps more so. It's not like Denver's offensive personnel was so amazing when Plummer was playing so far over his head. I always ask people what the odds are of Bill Walsh lucking into three of the top 10 QBs in history. Or this offseason, in RGIII discussions, I made clear that you had to account for the impact of Shanahan. Matt Cassel looked great in New England and terrible in KC. A lot of that is on Moss and Welker, but a lot of that is on Belichick and McDaniels, too. If Joe Flacco had Todd Haley instead of Cam Cameron, I'm sure his numbers would look dramatically better.

  6. I don't understand. His cast is off. He's practicing. If he's healed, why wouldn't they play him?

    Today's practice was in shells, not pads. I wouldn't read too much into it.
    If he's healed, then he should play, no matter who the opponent is. If he's not healed, he should sit, no matter who the opponent is. I don't get this "resting" or "saving" talk. If he's healthy, there's literally no reason for him not to play.

    even if he played I'd be worried about limited snaps

    It's a broken arm. There's no reason to limit him. Either it's healed or it's not. Bones are stronger after they've been broken and healed than they were before they were broken. It's one thing if they have to limit him for conditioning reasons, although he's only missed 4 weeks and a broken arm wouldn't really prevent him from staying in game shape like a broken leg (or a hamstring or ankle injury) would. But if the bone is healed, I'd expect him to play close to a full workload.
  7. Trade value absolutely WILL win you your league. That's because it's a fluid commodity that you can redeem at any time for any type of player at any position. I've got Marqise Lee in my pocket in one of my dev leagues. Is he irrelevant this year because he has no VBD this season? Of course not. I could trade him for any number of productive veterans to help me win more games now. To borrow someone else's analogy, drafting a guy like Peterson in your startup right now is like buying a new car. It loses half its value the minute you drive it off the lot. If he ends up winning you a couple titles then you probably won't care about what you might have been able to trade him for, but if you wind up in a situation where you want to convert his value into a younger player or a different position, you will basically be SOL because everyone you approach with an offer will say, "Well, he's 28, so..."

    Trade value only has value insofar as it is a proxy which can be used to secure you points. Points are all that matter, and trade value is only useful insofar is it can lead to points. If you have a player worth X points, though, he's just as valuable as another player whose trade value is such that he can be traded for X points... regardless of the first player's trade value.
  8. FWIW, it's not a black-and-white all-or-nothing thing like people are trying to make it out to be. It's more like a gradient. I've had guys like Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, and Jahvid Best on my dynasty teams. They are borderline guys for me whereas guys like McFadden, Beanie, and Murray are players that I would never draft or acquire. I often get accused of being a black-and-white thinker on topics like this by people who don't even know my process or beliefs. All of this stuff about build is just one of the many variables that factors into my thought process.

    Okay. I'm telling you, though, that your gradient is wrong. Johnson has been a workhorse his whole career. Charles has become a workhorse (and was busy being one several weeks ago while you were holding him up as an example of someone who would never become one). Spiller will be a workhorse next year, putting up 300+ touches. Who knows what Murray or McFadden will do going forward. The results of your analysis, no matter HOW you define "non-ideal"- are not standing up as seasons go by. It's a different NFL. Size might make a difference, but scouts realize this, and if they take a small back, it's because they're not scared off by his size.

    There is a lot of room for these guys you'd take over Peterson to wind up being huge studs who will be remembered for decades and *STILL* not have as much career value in front of them as Peterson does.

    We don't know how much he has left in the tank. At this point it's pure conjecture and speculation. He could be dominant for 3-4 more years or he could completely fall apart next year. So I can't really buy into any assumption that he's going to have X or Y value. Morever, something like VBD will vary depending on the requirements of your league. And that's all assuming that VBD should be the sole driver of personnel decisions, which is not the case. Trade value is a big factor as well and that's where old players really suffer. If you're the guy who buys Peterson at his current price tag and your team bombs next year, you're going to have a really tough time cashing him out for fair value. Ask any Andre Johnson, Frank Gore, or Larry Fitzgerald owner how easy it is to get fair value for an aging star in a competitive league. It's basically impossible. Some people do well by targeting aging stars and buying veterans for cheap, but that's never been the approach that works for me. I build young teams and buy uncertainty. For me, a guy like Peterson isn't a compelling option given what it would cost to get him.
    You're right. We don't know. Peterson might be more like Dickerson, who tailed off quickly after 1600. Martin might be the next Edgerrin James (733 career VBD) instead of the next Frank Gore (410 VBD and counting). Still, which scenario would you rather bet on- Adrian Peterson being the next Faulk/Tomlinson/Smith/Sanders/Sweetness, or Martin being the next Clinton Portis or Edgerrin James, or Demaryius Thomas being the next Torry Holt? Or forget about Doug Martin or Demaryius, would you rather bet on Peterson or the guys going in the second in startups?Trade value is nice, but trade value should not be confused with value. Trade value will never win you leagues or games. Only points will do that. If you gave me a choice between the guy who would score more points, or the guy who would look a lot better on paper when I'm posting my team in the ACF, I'd rather have the guy who'll put up the points. And there are other considerations, too- shorter careers = freed up roster spots. Shorter careers = higher VBD per season, and as I've mentioned before, VBD becomes more valuable the more of it you have.
  9. Don't you think it's significant that a vast majority of the top RBs drafted by the NFL fit a pretty narrow mold? It is pretty clear that the job description favors a certain skill set which favors a certain body type. The fact that NFL teams favor thick RBs is no less significant than the fact that NBA teams favor tall centers. In both cases the physical quality contributes to success.

    Of course it's significant! You're just confused as to its significance. Yes, being of a non-ideal body type makes it much, much harder to make it to the NFL. This is all irrelevant to this discussion, because we're discussing RBs who have already made it to the NFL. Once the scouts have gotten a hold of a prospect and put him through the ringer, performing all their due diligence, putting him under the microscope, and have still declared him an elite prospect (first three rounds), then that back has a patina of credibility about him. He's been certified. The scouting community has affirmed their belief that, unlike all the other non-ideal backs, this particular player has what it takes to succeed in the NFL.

    I liken it to small school WR prospects. Lots of players dominate at small schools and never make the NFL. If we see somebody putting up huge numbers at Appalachian State or the Colorado School of Mines, we shouldn't assume that they're a great pro prospect. If that same player passes through the scouting crucible and gets certified with a grade in the first three rounds, though, we have to stop holding his small school status against him. You seem to inherently understand this, even going so far as arguing that small school WRs are underrated still. You've never once pulled up a list of the all-time reception leaders and said "look how it's dominated by big school players!". And yet that's exactly what you're doing here with non-ideal RBs.

    Short QBs are another great example. There are not many short QBs atop the NFL lists, and yet, when the scouting community sees enough in a short QB to rate him highly (Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, Doug Flutie, etc), we should understand that they've evaluated that player's height and concluded that it won't be a problem.

    There's a clear qualitative difference between guys like Peterson, Portis, and Forte and guys like Charles, Johnson, and Spiller. Nobody who watches Peterson run would ever describe him as undersized or lacking power. And Portis was something like 220 pounds for the majority of his career. I don't see either guy as an indictment of what I've been preaching. Quite the opposite.

    Hey look, it's scouting with Dick and Jane. See goalposts. See goalposts move. Move, goalposts, move!

    Clinton Portis entered the league at 205 and was a workhorse for years... but because he at one point managed to edge just barely over your 215 minimum, you're counting his entire career as validation of the idea that a back needs to be 215 to be a workhorse? You're ignoring all those years where Portis WASN'T 215 but was still a workhorse because it's wildly inconvenient to your theory. You can't just throw out data because it's inconvenient. You can't ignore the fact that Portis was a workhorse with a non-ideal body type, or the fact that Mike Shanahan was quick to remind that he dominated at 205 and opine that his ideal playing weight was sub-215. The only reason Portis doesn't undermine your theory is because your definition of "ideal" is "any back who gets a workhorse workload". If NFL goalposts were as flexible as yours are, kickers would never miss.

    It's funny that you accuse me of seeing what I want to see when you're doing exactly that. The fact that teams spent high picks on guys like McFadden, Reggie, Spiller, and Johnson doesn't prove that they see these backs as workhorses. As I've said previously, the value of these players is their ability to deliver dynamic big plays that a thicker, slower back probably couldn't give you. The trade off is that very few of these backs can hold up under a full workload. This is exactly why guys like McFadden, Reggie, and Spiller haven't been workhorses.

    I'm not really interested in beating this dead horse any further, as it's clear that people on both sides will see whatever they want to see, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for guys like Spiller and McFadden to log Turner/MJD/Ricky levels of volume. Different players. Different bodies. Different strengths and weaknesses. At the end of the day, backs who fit the mold that I'm talking about dominate the season and career leaders for RB touches. I'm perfectly content to continue my foolish and old-fashioned bias of favoring them as long as they keep dominating the landscape.

    Oakland clearly drafted McFadden to be a workhorse. It's 100% obvious to anyone who watches his usage pattern. Oakland *DESPERATELY WANTS* him to be a workhorse. As for Spiller... again, Jonathan Stewart splits time with a pro bowler and it doesn't mean anything, while Spiller splits time with a pro bowler and it's proof positive that his team only viewed him as a CoP back. Small Back Double Standard (SBDS). That's fine, we'll revisit this discussion next season when CJ Spiller is putting the bow on the end of his 300 touch season and making your assertions that he'd never be a workhorse look almost as foolish as your assertions that Charles would never be a workhorse while he was in the middle of an unequivocal workhorse season.

    I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

    Emmitt Smith hit 1600 carries in 1994. He posted 4 more career top-10 finishes, three more top-24 finishes, a 25th place finish, and a 26th place finish, compiling 597 more career VBD.

    LaDainian Tomlinson hit 1600 carries in 2005. He posted three more top-10 finishes and five more top-20 finishes, compiling 557 more career VBD.

    Marshall Faulk hit 1600 carries in 1999. He posted two more #1 overall finishes, a pair more top-20 finishes, and had 504 more career VBD.

    Barry Sanders hit 1600 carries in 1994. He played four more seasons, finishing top 10 every single time (including #1 overall in his 2000 yard season), and compiling 488 more VBD before walking away at the top of his game.

    Sweetness hit 1600 carries in 1979. He posted 5 more top-5 finishes and a pair of 13th place finishes after that, compiling 701 more career VBD.

    To put this 500-600 VBD into perspective, here is a brief list of players along with their career VBD totals:

    Joe Horn- 311

    Hines Ward- 325

    Andre Johnson- 364 (and counting)

    Jamal Lewis- 382

    Jerome Bettis- 438

    Ricky Williams- 445

    Chad Ochocinco- 454

    Larry Fitzgerald- 464 (and counting)

    Steven Jackson- 468 (and counting)

    Isaac Bruce- 501

    Torry Holt- 561

    Terrell Davis- 595

    Clinton Portis- 597

    Tiki Barber- 642

    Priest Holmes- 673

    In other words, a post-1600-carries Sanders, Tomlinson, Sweetness, Faulk, or Smith would have provided as much or more value than a rookie Hines Ward, Andre Johnson, Ricky Williams, Chad Ochocinco, Steven Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Terrell Davis, or Clinton Portis. All of these guys were legitimate first round picks in dynasty startups (and deservedly so!). These guys were long-time fantasy studs, guys with amazing careers. Doug Martin is great, but is he better than Portis or Jackson? Is he a more desirable prospect than Ricky Williams or Terrell Davis were at this point in their rookie campaigns? Is Dez Bryant better than Andre Johnson, Torry Holt, or Isaac Bruce? There is a lot of room for these guys you'd take over Peterson to wind up being huge studs who will be remembered for decades and *STILL* not have as much career value in front of them as Peterson does.

  10. Again, it's all there in the numbers. Determinism in general is something that bothers a lot of people and I think a lot of people take exception to the idea that a player's physique limits how he can be used, but recent history paints a pretty clear picture.

    Here are the players in my database who entered the league with a BMI under 29 that weren't DQd from being a good prospect for some reason, and who were drafted in the first three rounds:C.J. SpillerJahvid BestChris JohnsonJamaal CharlesMatt ForteDarren McFaddenAdrian PetersonReggie BushClinton PortisI'm not sure you can really make a case that the usage of those guys is noticeably different than their thicker counterparts. Best came into the league with concussion issues and McFadden is 6'2" (which I do think lends itself to more injuries). But Portis was at his workhorse best as a thinner runner when he entered the league. Peterson is a monster. Forte has put up a gazillion touches since entering the league. So has Chris Johnson. Jamaal Charles is now a workhorse (and only Todd Haley and an ACL kept him from being one sooner). Reggie Bush has been used differently, but may have been limited by his size (we'll see what happens from here though). Spiller sure looks the part lately.I really think that if you took a random sample of nine thicker backs it'd be unlikely that their touches were different in a meaningful way, and that you're seeing what you expect to see.ETA: for whatever reason, between 1998 and 2005 Portis is the only qualifying back who entered the league. So it might appear that those sized backs are at a disadvantage when in fact there just weren't any of them coming into the NFL for nearly a decade.
    Exactly! Pointing to the leaderboards means absolutely nothing without context. If 100 RBs enter the league, and 98 of them fall between 215-230 pounds, then you can't point to the leaderboards and say "look, 8 of the top 10 workhorses are between 215-230 pounds, so guys outside that range are less likely to become workhorses!" No, what that hypothetical would demonstrate is that "non-ideal" backs are less likely to join the league, but if a non-ideal back makes it, he shouldn't have any additional obstacles on his path to workhorsedom. I see that the list of workhorses is dominated by "ideal" backs. The list of injured RBs who miss the most games to injury will also be dominated by "ideal" backs. The list of busts will also be dominated by "ideal" backs. Any list you look at will be dominated by "ideal" backs, because the vast majority of backs entering the league are "ideal". For this to be at all meaningful, you have to compare not total numbers, but the RATES of success. Wdcrob provided 9 names of undersized backs considered elite prospects. Of those 9, more than half (Johnson, Charles, Forte, Peterson, Portis) are/were workhorses. One (Spiller) is in the TBD category, but trending up. That leaves three in the clearly non-workhorse category. One (McFadden) is there because of injuries that may be linked to his size. One (Best) is there because of injuries that have absolutely nothing to do with his size. One (Bush) is there because he simply was not that talented. Still, that's a 55-66% success rate of producing workhorses. Wanna bet that the success rate of "ideal" prospects (BMI 29-31) drafted in the first 3 rounds is much lower?You just have so many biases and double standards that you can't look at this from an objective, statistical standpoint. In your mind, ideal backs succeed because they're ideal, and non-ideal backs succeed despite being non-ideal. The very definition of ideal is fluid (sometimes weight, sometimes BMI, sometimes thickness of legs), and your unwillingness to define it allows you to move the goalposts to include non-ideal backs like Peterson in with the ideal backs (even though he's way too tall to be an RB). And your Small Back Double Standard is so thick it's palpable- Jonathan Stewart splits carries with the talented Mr. Williams, and this doesn't mean he can't carry the load. MJD splits carries with the talented Mr. Taylor, and this doesn't mean he can't carry the load. CJ Spiller splits carries with the talented Mr. Jackson, and this is just yet more proof that he'll never be able to handle a workhorse load, just like you always predicted. Like I said, this is all antiquated thinking. It's the same antiquated thinking that led the NFL to avoid taking any "non-ideal" backs early for most of a decade, except for the transcendent Mr. Portis (who still fell a round further than he would have if he had a better body type). The NFL has since grown wise to their errors and started giving smaller backs a legit shot, and the smaller backs have been rewarding them. It's time for us to get rid of the small-RB bias, too, just like it's time for us to move past our short QB bias (Brees, Wilson), and our short WR bias (Harvin, Smiff), and start embracing the fact that, while some body types are in fact better suited for the demands of the NFL, if the scouting community endorses a non-ideal player, they've already vetted that player and opined that he'll hold up just fine, thankyouverymuch.
  11. You keep mentioning this- Charles doesn't have the "bulk of a conventional three down back". Hogwash and poppycock. Charles plays for the worst team in the league, his coaches have admitted that they had no idea how few carries they were giving him at times, and he still ranks 8th in the league in carries. He's on pace for 300. Trent "bulk of a conventional three down back" Richardson has a whopping seven carries more than Charles. You need to give up the ghost, here. Maybe in your grandma's NFL, guys who look like Charles don't get huge workloads, but this isn't Granny's NFL. Highly drafted, first team AP All Pros like Peterson, Chris Johnson, and yes, Jamaal Charles actually get stereotypical, prototypical three-down RB workloads now. You better get on the Spiller train while you have the chance, too, because despite your antiquated biases, he's hopping on the 300 touch train starting next season, too. Choo choo!

    Five years into his career Charles hasn't even come close to the 300 carry barrier. I would draft players like him and Spiller because they have dynamic big play skills, but not because I ever expect them to log insane volume. The fact that guys like Richardson and Martin are putting up touch numbers that would be career highs for guys like Charles and Spiller as rookies kind of illustrates why, all else being equal, I favor that kind of back. 9 of the top 10 NFL leaders in rushing attempts are right in that 215-230 pound sweet spot.
    :penalty:Charles gets a mulligan for year 1. He was drafted to sit behind Larry Johnson, and as a rookie, that's what he did. He also gets a mulligan for year 4, because he tore his ACL, and you have yet to demonstrate any link between size and torn ACLs, making it a non-predictive event (Jamaal Lewis, Terrell Davis, Rashard Mendenhall- way more ideal backs shred their ligaments than small backs). That leaves us with three seasons. Carry totals? 190, 230, 295 (pro-rated). Total touches? 230, 275, 332 (pro-rated). Why, what do we have here? It looks to me like we have a bona-fide workhorse back! He wasn't one from day 1, but neither were ideal backs like MJD, Rice, Priest Holmes, Stephen Jackson, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall, etc, etc, etc. Or, for that matter, neither were non-ideal backs like Chris Johnson, Brian Westbrook, Warrick Dunn, etc, etc, etc. Doesn't change the fact that he's been trending towards workhorse status for his entire career, and now he's finally reached it, and anyone with eyes could have seen it coming from miles away if they weren't so hung up on their own biases and preconceived notions about ideal body types for workhorse RBs. Face it, you were sleeping on Charles's ability to handle a heavy workload, just like you slept on Chris Johnson's, and just like you're sleeping on Spiller's.Fun fact! Jamaal Charles has essentially as many touches per game over the last four years (17.22) as your pet favorite "ideally sized" mediocrity, Rashard Mendenhall (18.08). All this hue and cry you keep raising about how Mendenhall is a proven workhorse with multiple consecutive workhorse seasons and is an ideal size and that's the kind of guy you like to bet on, while Charles is this undersized, sub-ideal CoP back who will never get a real workload and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves... yeah, all that drama is over what essentially amounts to less than 14 touches per 16 games. If that's what "ideal size" is worth- 14 extra touches a year- then ideal size isn't worth wasting bandwidth debating over. Increasing yards per touch by just a single tenth will have more than double the impact of increasing total touches by just 14 a year.
  12. He'll be 24 next month, which is still plenty young, but not young enough to value him over guys like Spiller, Charles and Rice, just due to age. Assuming you think the 3 mentioned are better talents, I don't think 1-2 years should cause you to bet against that.

    I don't think Martin is any less talented than Foster. Probably the reverse, actually.

    I rate Martin over Rice from a dynasty standpoint. Two years younger and has about three years less of NFL mileage. Rice is probably the better overall player, but the margin is thin and Martin is already scoring on par with him as a rookie.

    Charles and Spiller have a flashier game than Martin, but neither has the bulk of a conventional three down back. I think those guys are exciting talents, but I'd like to see them have a complete season as a workhorse before I rank them as top 5 dynasty RBs. I wouldn't want to take a guy like that top 10 and then be stuck with a time share or injury.

    McCoy has negatives as well. Bryce Brown is nipping at his heels and he's facing a possible coaching change. If Andy Reid takes that system with him then maybe some of the numbers dry up. I don't think McCoy is objectively a better back than Martin. More elusive. More dangerous in space. Not as powerful.

    Peterson is for sure a better talent than Martin, but he's a strong sell for me after this season. This is his "Moss in New England" year where his insane production will cause people to overlook how old and spent he is. He's on the downslope of his career, hard as that might be to fathom given his awesome season.

    So if you're looking for a steady #1 RB for your team for the next 3-4 years, I'm not sure there's a better bet than Martin. I see the Seattle version of Lynch as a pretty reasonable estimate of his floor. He might not have the ceiling of a Faulk/LT/Peterson level player, but he should be a rock in the lineup for years the same way that Rice and Forte have been.

    You keep mentioning this- Charles doesn't have the "bulk of a conventional three down back". Hogwash and poppycock. Charles plays for the worst team in the league, his coaches have admitted that they had no idea how few carries they were giving him at times, and he still ranks 8th in the league in carries. He's on pace for 300. Trent "bulk of a conventional three down back" Richardson has a whopping seven carries more than Charles. You need to give up the ghost, here. Maybe in your grandma's NFL, guys who look like Charles don't get huge workloads, but this isn't Granny's NFL. Highly drafted, first team AP All Pros like Peterson, Chris Johnson, and yes, Jamaal Charles actually get stereotypical, prototypical three-down RB workloads now.

    You better get on the Spiller train while you have the chance, too, because despite your antiquated biases, he's hopping on the 300 touch train starting next season, too. Choo choo!

  13. Rodgers is still #1 imo. He's got 6-ish years of good/great production left, carries the greatest market value right now (in my leagues at least) and judging by Tom Brady's valuation in most leagues at the age of 35, Rodgers will hold his value for a long time as long as he keeps producing (which is the case for any great QB, young or old) so their will be ample opportunity to trade him for a younger model at a later date. Rodgers also has the least worrisome question marks for those that are risk averse.

    RG3 is my #2 followed by Cam. Luck is a close 4th.

    Very solid.

    I would be lying if I said I wouldn't have traded Cam for RG3 and Rodgers at one point this year, despite valuing him #1 going into the season. Now, however, in the leagues in which I do own Cam, I wouldn't make those moves now. The last month has been reinvigorating for me as a Cam owner; I've been reminded of the potential he offers every week. I know there are many theories out there, but a simple change in the running game philosophy seems to have sparked a major improvement in this offense. I have to think that positive factor will remain through the rest of this season, and into next, with potential for the situation around him to further improve, as he improves as a player.

    I valued RG3 as #1 until recently, and I still love the kid. I don't know how certain I am in this claim - it's easy to feel great about Cam right now - but, again, I wouldn't make that swap. Not only his Cam better built to take the hits, he has been much better at avoiding them.

    How quickly you forget that half-season of terrible play. And the mediocre numbers over the second half of last season.

    Cam has the upside, but he's not the top dynasty QB. He's probably not a top-3 dynasty QB. You're biased because he's on your team.

    I'd take Rodgers, RG3, Ryan and probably Luck over him. I think you'd do the same if you didn't own Cam.

    I really wish people would quit with this "Cam got figured out last season!" garbage. From weeks 11-17 (aka after the byes), Newton was the #4 fantasy QB (#5 in PPG, since Rodgers sat out week 17). His per-game average over that span (26.2) pro-rated over 13 games would rank him FIRST IN ALL OF FANTASY FOOTBALL this year. Those are some pretty spectacular mediocre numbers! His actual production this season ranks him 3rd. Somebody far, far, far smarter than I will have to explain to me just what, exactly, qualifies as mediocre about Newton's resume.

    The fact that people think Newton was somehow average down the stretch last year is proof positive that if you say something authoritatively enough and often enough, people will eventually believe it.

  14. Yes. A good way to balance it isn't to change the points awarded for rush yards...it's to SUBTRACT the points for yards taken in sacks

    That wouldn't change things at all. Running QBs would still get an equal bump in value. Even if they score 0 points a game, compared to the average QB who scores -10 points from rushing total, it' still an advantage.
    Running QBs take more sacks, so I think it'd help, but not be enough on its own. I'd say add 1 point per completion and subtract one point per incompletion. Running QBs get fewer attempts (every run is, by definition, not a pass). Doing that would bring Peyton 68 points closer to Griffin this year, for instance.
  15. Players should never be ranked as highly as you want to rank them in the middle of a hot streak, or as low as you want to rank them in the middle of a cold streak.

    I see your point, but don't know if it is applicable here. Newton's nearly 2 year sample size has been pretty consistant, save an outlier: a few bad games over the first half of the season.
    Those poor games to start the season were part of what I was referring to. People were ranking him during a cold streak as if it represented the new normal. Things have equalized a bit, but now the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. Looking at the last 4 games and dismissing his slow start to the season as an "outlier" is ranking him based on his hot streak. Big games, small games, you can't dismiss any of them as outliers or anoint any if them as the new normal. You have to look at the whole body of work. Calvin is another fantastic example of this. After scoring 2 TDs a game for each of the first 4 weeks last year, people were declaring that the new normal and speculating about 30 TD seasons. Wouldn't you know it, though, his TD pace over the last 12 games conformed pretty much exactly to his career averages, not to his "new normal" hot streak. And the opposite was true after his slow start to this season.
  16. Can I ask a stupid question. How do I get hold of this VBD data that everyone talking about. Like ADP has been over 100 virtually his whole career ???I remember reading many years ago a posts from SSOG about how Gates VBD was through the roof time and time again. Thanks in Advance.

    Pro football reference has it. Go to the player page, scroll to the bottom, and there's a chart with his career VBD ranks. On occasion you'll encounter a glitch (for some bizarre reason, ADP doesn't seem to exist this season), but it's the best in-one-place reference around.
    Thank You. Thank You. Time to waste the next week crunching those numbers. Cheers Again.
    Send my apologies to your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/parents/children/family. They won't be seeing you again for a while.
  17. For a non-ideal back who'll never be used as a workhorse, Jamaal Charles sure looks like someone who is being used as a workhorse. After today's game, he's back over 5 ypc and back on pace for 1500 rushing yards. Hope everyone took the opportunity to buy before the window closed again.

  18. The fact that Mendenhall is a healthy scratch for the second straight week reveals the truth. The only thing special about him is how he managed to be in the right place at the right time. Ditto that for Greene, or Knowshon. These guys aren't better than Ivory, or Pierre Thomas, etc. They're just a lot luckier in their landing spots.

    If Mendenhall was as bad as you're suggesting he wouldn't have been a starter on a playoff team for three years. And that's kind of the point that I'm illustrating. Teams don't just hand long term starting jobs to bad players. So anyone who manages to survive for 3-4 years as a starter in the NFL is probably very good at what he does. Guys like Mendenhall, Benson, McGahee, Greene, and Lynch are kind of like the RB versions of Flacco, Cutler, Palmer, and Alex Smith. They aren't good enough to hold down a starting job on every team, but they're good enough to start somewhere. That's why teams keep trotting them out there. Anyone who says guys like this are average has a skewed frame of reference. They might be average in comparison to all of the other starting players in the NFL, but that is pretty select company. You have to be pretty special to be a long term starter in the NFL. If you're a mediocre player, you'll be found out and benched within a year or two. That's just how the league works. The same applies to all of the other positions.
    You know the old joke about the bear chasing the two guys, and one saying to the other "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you"? Well, to start in the NFL, you don't have to be great, you just have to be better than the other guys on the roster. That's how Mendenhall was a long-term starter (only had to beat out a thoroughly uninspiring Redman and a fat/lazy/unmotivated Dwyer- and now can't even do that), while Chris Ivory rides the pine (fighting for carries with Ingram, Sproles, and Pierre Thomas).
    Yea, but the difference between guys like Mendenhall/Benson/McGahee/Lynch is that they're going to win a lot of those races, whereas guys like Ivory, Choice, and M Bush are probably destined to always be a bride's maid and never a bride. Unless you are the best player in the league at your position, you would not be a starter on every team in the NFL. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't be a starter for a lot of the teams. And that's basically how I feel about the likes of Benson, Mendenhall, Lynch, and McGahee. They're not among the top 5 workhorse backs in the NFL, but they're in the 10-25 range and that means they're good enough to start for a lot of teams. People often lose sight of this when one of these guys is in the process of losing his job. I've seen this pattern happen so many times that I've started to recognize it before it even plays out. McGahee was written off when he was run out of Buffalo after two consecutive seasons of 3.8 YPC. Lynch was written off when he was run out Buffalo after losing his job to Fred Jackson. Benson was written off in Chicago and Cincinnati. Similar story with Thomas Jones. And now the same is happening with Mendenhall. Most FF owners are so myopic and stuck in the present that they struggle to maintain perspective during the natural highs and lows of a career. Hence why so many dynasty rankings are really just a glorified reflection of whatever is going on at that exact moment in time. I got Thomas Jones for a song after his season with the Buccaneers because people had convinced himself that he was a bust. I could've had Lynch in the 8th round of a 14 team startup a couple years ago when he was completely out of fashion. I had the opportunity to get Benson for a 2nd round rookie pick in a 14 team dev league when he first signed with the Bengals. I'm sure McGahee would've been dirt cheap after the Bills drafted Lynch. Most recently, I got Moreno for very low prices in a couple leagues prior to McGahee's injury. This offseason I will be sending out some offers for Mendenhall. What I've learned over the years is that you don't sell guys like this when they hit a rough patch in their career. You buy them. Because a guy who was good enough to earn a first round pick and secure a prominent role with one team has a pretty good chance to pop up again elsewhere if things turn sour for him.
    I don't disagree with any of this. I disagree that there's a dramatic talent difference between some of the average starters and the best backups.
  19. The fact that Mendenhall is a healthy scratch for the second straight week reveals the truth. The only thing special about him is how he managed to be in the right place at the right time. Ditto that for Greene, or Knowshon. These guys aren't better than Ivory, or Pierre Thomas, etc. They're just a lot luckier in their landing spots.

    If Mendenhall was as bad as you're suggesting he wouldn't have been a starter on a playoff team for three years. And that's kind of the point that I'm illustrating. Teams don't just hand long term starting jobs to bad players. So anyone who manages to survive for 3-4 years as a starter in the NFL is probably very good at what he does. Guys like Mendenhall, Benson, McGahee, Greene, and Lynch are kind of like the RB versions of Flacco, Cutler, Palmer, and Alex Smith. They aren't good enough to hold down a starting job on every team, but they're good enough to start somewhere. That's why teams keep trotting them out there. Anyone who says guys like this are average has a skewed frame of reference. They might be average in comparison to all of the other starting players in the NFL, but that is pretty select company. You have to be pretty special to be a long term starter in the NFL. If you're a mediocre player, you'll be found out and benched within a year or two. That's just how the league works. The same applies to all of the other positions.
    You know the old joke about the bear chasing the two guys, and one saying to the other "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you"? Well, to start in the NFL, you don't have to be great, you just have to be better than the other guys on the roster. That's how Mendenhall was a long-term starter (only had to beat out a thoroughly uninspiring Redman and a fat/lazy/unmotivated Dwyer- and now can't even do that), while Chris Ivory rides the pine (fighting for carries with Ingram, Sproles, and Pierre Thomas).
  20. Completely honestly, what's the difference between Lynch and Chris Ivory, other than the fact that one of them gets a workhorse workload and the other doesn't?

    Nothing except talent.
    Yea, that and about 4600 career rushing yards. Lynch was a first round pick. Has been a starter in the NFL for about 5 years total. If you manage to keep a starting job at the highest level of the game for that long, you're probably pretty good at what you do. Everyone knows that opportunity = production, but there's a reason why some players always get that opportunity while others don't. Lynch gets the volume precisely because he's a very good back.

    I'd say the same thing about guys like McGahee, Benson, Mendenhall, and Greene. Most people would call them average backs, but you don't get 250-300 touches over multiple seasons if you're an average back. They might be average starters, but that's something else entirely. Guys like this might never make the Pro Bowl, but they're good enough to hold down a starting job for multiple seasons and emerge as a starter elsewhere if they get run out of town. Meanwhile, a guy like Ivory might not ever be a starter in his whole NFL career. That's the difference.

    The fact that Mendenhall is a healthy scratch for the second straight week reveals the truth. The only thing special about him is how he managed to be in the right place at the right time. Ditto that for Greene, or Knowshon. These guys aren't better than Ivory, or Pierre Thomas, etc. They're just a lot luckier in their landing spots.

    Not that I'd ever lump Lynch in with that trio. He's way better, and a legitimate NFL starter. He's just not as talented as his numbers suggest.

  21. Completely honestly, what's the difference between Lynch and Chris Ivory, other than the fact that one of them gets a workhorse workload and the other doesn't?

    Nothing except talent.
    Not much talent difference there, except possibly in "health" (Lynch has a lot of "health" skill, Ivory gets an incomplete because we haven't had a chance to see).
  22. Can I ask a stupid question. How do I get hold of this VBD data that everyone talking about. Like ADP has been over 100 virtually his whole career ???I remember reading many years ago a posts from SSOG about how Gates VBD was through the roof time and time again. Thanks in Advance.

    Pro football reference has it. Go to the player page, scroll to the bottom, and there's a chart with his career VBD ranks. On occasion you'll encounter a glitch (for some bizarre reason, ADP doesn't seem to exist this season), but it's the best in-one-place reference around.
×
  • Create New...