Antonio Pierce Faceoff (1 Viewer)

[houndirish]

Congrats Bloom. You nailed it.

David Baker, on the other hand, couldn't be more off base with his critique of LB Antonio Pierce.

Baker supposes that one reason Pierce's numbers will decline is the presence of Lavar Arrington. OK, I can stomach that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see the argument. However, he then follows it up by saying Chase Blackburn, who filled in for Pierce, is a favorite of the coaching staff and likely will see the field more, limiting Pierce's possible plays. This is one of the more insane suggestions I've heard about the Giants for this upcoming season. Blackburn is an undrafted free agent who barely made the team last year and was strictly a special teams player. He made his way onto the field last season versus Kansas City and Washington after Pierce suffered the dreaded high ankle sprain and other Giant reserves also were felled with injury. Blackburn had a nice interception in the Washington game but his skill set is far inferior to any of the current Giants LB'ers. He's not even a lock to make this years team. To suggest that Pierce should be knocked down a peg or two in the rankings because of the presence of Chase Blackburn on the roster is absurd. Does Baker actually believe this or did he just draw the unfortunate assignment of having to come up with the down side of drafting Antonio Pierce this season?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Does Baker actually believe this or did he just draw the unfortunate assignment of having to come up with the down side of drafting Antonio Pierce this season?

Face-off assignments were determined according to a recent set of rankings. Players chosen for debate had a least a ten slot difference in that set of rankings; often, the difference was much wider. While some of the face-offs are a little thin with respect to the total fantasy points we think each player may generate, we're trying to show the reasoning behind the differences in our ranking of each player.Hence our debate of players like Pierce and Mike Peterson, among others to come.

 

[houndirish]

Don't get me wrong. I love the feature. I just think the thought of Blackburn taking time away from Pierce is ludicrous.

 

[Dave Baker]

Thanks houndirish. I think you might be reading too much into my comments about Blackburn. His inclusion did not weigh heavily into my face-off and I spoke about him almost matter of factly towards the end of the face-off. I only stated that one would think he (Blackburn) would see the field a little more based on his play at the end. Not exactly a radical line of thinking IMO.

No, he doesn't have Pierce's talent and I never suggested that to be the case.

Also, Jene nailed some of the mentality, and I added right at the outset that I liked Pierce this year. In fact, I have him ranked as my 17th favorite linebacker. Pretty nice company, I would say. Bloom, on the other hand, has him ranked at 3rd currently.

So I started my faceoff by discussing that I didn't think Pierce belonged in such lofty company. Some of the reasons why I didn't think I'd move him into that top echelon included the fact that the Giants definitely went out and upgraded their linebacking core (i.e. Arrington), whereby one could reasonably think he might see a slight drop in numbers as other LBs, better than last year's crop, make more plays.

And in order to reach that top 3 territory, I believe he not only has to be as producitve as last year, but more productive.

FWIW, based on talent alone, I don't think Pierce is a top 25 guy in the NFL. But I also don't think he's chopped liver, as evidenced by my ranking. FYI, the projections currently have Pierce as the 18th best, right where I have him.

Remember, I ended my face-off with "So while I like Pierce a lot, there's enough for me to believe that his numbers don't increase and might even decrease slightly. And this puts him closer to top 20 territory than top 10."

Inevitably, when doing these face-offs, there will always be people who agree or disagree based on their personal thoughts about the situation, and there's no doubt I find myself on the wrong end of the projection when all is said and done more often than I would like. However, in this case, when you look at where I have Pierce ranked, it's hard to say that I am way off base. Nor do I think the face-off suggested that I didn't like Pierce. I just don't have him in my top 5 as Bloom does.

 

[Dave Baker]

Does Baker actually believe this or did he just draw the unfortunate assignment of having to come up with the down side of drafting Antonio Pierce this season?

I just happened to not like Pierce as much as Bloom, but there will plenty of situations, based on some assignments I've been given, whereby I will argue one side of a player that I might not necessarily believe. It's called debate.If you look at specific player pages (I did IDP players for AFC South), you see a positive and negative on every player. It's important to understand someone's downside if you really like them, and their upside if you don't. It keeps you from being blinded by certain feelings about players.

 

[cracKer]

If you look at specific player pages (I did IDP players for AFC South), you see a positive and negative on every player. It's important to understand someone's downside if you really like them, and their upside if you don't. It keeps you from being blinded by certain feelings about players.

I sure gave you a ton of help with Pierce's negatives I had a hard time coming up with anything negative to say about the guy.

 

[houndirish]

David, I guess where you lost me is when you opened your argument by calling those of us who have Pierce as a top 5 LB crazy. I find the thought of him cracking the top 5 much easier to believe than him barely making the top 20.

When you consider last season, despite missing 3 games, he finished 25th (in my league, probably similar in FBG scoring) and was separated from the 18th finisher by just 8 points, it seems like he could just show up and finish around 18. When you also consider that Pierce was ranking 6th prior to the injury it tends to support the notion of him already being a top echelon LB. I don't know that Pierce needs to elevate his game from where it was a year ago. I think if he stays healthy for 16 games he's already playing at a level that would produce top 5 numbers.

I know part of your argument is that his numbers will take a slight hit from last year, partially because of improved talent around him but even that is a gamble. It remains to be seen what kind of impact Arrington will have, however I really don't see him being a tackles vulture. Short isn't even a lock to start on the other side. I believe the current depth chart is listing Emmons as the Will. The Giants added some depth to their linebacker corps but they're still lacking a true weakside linebacker. Even with the addition of Lavar I see Pierce still collecting the bulk of the stats. As Bloom suggested, better outside talent will prevent opposing offenses from trying to attack the edges. Hence, Pierce shouldn't see any less action inside.

 

[msommer]

Actually - I have him as 15th - Since he is one of my keepers in a league I hope he improves on that. It may be a little low.

He is in a tight bunch of 9 LBs that are separated by less than one ppg.

This group includes guys at the top end of their projections so there are probably four or five he should leapfrog.

If he plays injury free for 16 games at the same level as last year he would project to lb4 or lb5 in that league