Bloom 100: 1-10 (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

Thanks for the patience everyone. Expect new installments next week.

Bloom 100: 1-10

I appreciate your work, but not sure why you would use PPR? PPR just doesn't make sense for RB's and this is why it less popular

PPR is actually the most popular. Pretty much all major high stakes league use some sort of PPR scoring. Maybe it is less popular in your leagues. Out of the 15 or so league I join every year all but one is PPR.

With 60 Zealots leauges out there using non-PPR, it really skews things the other way, though.I guess the best thing would be to include a second number in parentheses that is the player's rank in non-PPR leagues.

I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.

I don't want to hijack Blooms thread, but for those of you who are looking for a fairer way to score, I have yet to hear a single argument why anyone would want PPR. The only arguments for PPR are that people have played that way and they are used to it. Because giving a point to a RB for a reception isn't rewarding anything that leads to production on the field (you are already getting the yards) and then you might as well reward a RB for every hand off they get? This discussion went on prior and after many pages, it was either "that is what I like" compared to "an analysis shows that rewarding points for PPR gives an even more unfair advantage to the RB's and the advantage isn't even something that has meaning in football."Sorry Bloom; I won't comment anymore.

We could argue this all day and not agree, and it would just distract from Bloom's work here; but IMO, a RB who is also a decent receiver is more beneficial to a team than one that can just run, so we should add .5 or 1 pt per reception

Feel free to disagree, but the argument is a RB who adds a dimension as a receiver helps the team more than those who are not. Even on a screen, if a defense knows that a RB can catch a screen and run downfield, they have to account for that in the play. If the RB has hands of stone or just aren't used on screens, that's one less thing the D has to be concerned with.Feel free to disagree, but IMO, Frank Gore's 1500+ total yards, which includes 53 receptions, is more valuable than Jamal Lewis's 1500+ yards; precisely because he adds that dimension to the game. Same idea with Addai vs. Edge and Marion Barber vs. Lendale White.

 

[J R]

Thanks for the patience everyone. Expect new installments next week.

Bloom 100: 1-10

I appreciate your work, but not sure why you would use PPR? PPR just doesn't make sense for RB's and this is why it less popular

PPR is actually the most popular. Pretty much all major high stakes league use some sort of PPR scoring. Maybe it is less popular in your leagues. Out of the 15 or so league I join every year all but one is PPR.

With 60 Zealots leauges out there using non-PPR, it really skews things the other way, though.I guess the best thing would be to include a second number in parentheses that is the player's rank in non-PPR leagues.

I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.

I don't want to hijack Blooms thread, but for those of you who are looking for a fairer way to score, I have yet to hear a single argument why anyone would want PPR. The only arguments for PPR are that people have played that way and they are used to it. Because giving a point to a RB for a reception isn't rewarding anything that leads to production on the field (you are already getting the yards) and then you might as well reward a RB for every hand off they get? This discussion went on prior and after many pages, it was either "that is what I like" compared to "an analysis shows that rewarding points for PPR gives an even more unfair advantage to the RB's and the advantage isn't even something that has meaning in football."Sorry Bloom; I won't comment anymore.

I have a question about this. If PPR gives an unfair advantage to RBs, why does Bloom's non-PPR ranking move the RBs up and the WRs down? Bloom doesn't describe Rice and Jones as 3rd down backs.

 

[Rodeojones]

Thanks for the patience everyone. Expect new installments next week.

Bloom 100: 1-10

I appreciate your work, but not sure why you would use PPR? PPR just doesn't make sense for RB's and this is why it less popular

PPR is actually the most popular. Pretty much all major high stakes league use some sort of PPR scoring. Maybe it is less popular in your leagues. Out of the 15 or so league I join every year all but one is PPR.

With 60 Zealots leauges out there using non-PPR, it really skews things the other way, though.I guess the best thing would be to include a second number in parentheses that is the player's rank in non-PPR leagues.

I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.

I don't want to hijack Blooms thread, but for those of you who are looking for a fairer way to score, I have yet to hear a single argument why anyone would want PPR. The only arguments for PPR are that people have played that way and they are used to it. Because giving a point to a RB for a reception isn't rewarding anything that leads to production on the field (you are already getting the yards) and then you might as well reward a RB for every hand off they get? This discussion went on prior and after many pages, it was either "that is what I like" compared to "an analysis shows that rewarding points for PPR gives an even more unfair advantage to the RB's and the advantage isn't even something that has meaning in football."Sorry Bloom; I won't comment anymore.

I have a question about this. If PPR gives an unfair advantage to RBs, why does Bloom's non-PPR ranking move the RBs up and the WRs down? Bloom doesn't describe Rice and Jones as 3rd down backs.

Because WR's normally have more receptions then RB's thus the drop in FF point production.

 

[J R]

thanks rodeo jones. i was reading that line as meaning all RBs, but now I see I was mis-reading it.

 

[SayWhat?]

Can we get this back on track to Bloom's top 10 as opposed to feelings about PPR vs non-PPR?

TIA

 

[Tick]

And as far as fantasy QBs, I have come to conclusion that it is never worth drafting any of them in first round of rookie draft unless you are in a two QB league. Their likelihood of panning out is too low and unpredictable--a third round NFL pick is almost as likely to succeed as a first rounder. Plus, it takes too long for them to develop. Better to let someone else draft them and then pick them up in a year or two after they have been dropped when they finally string together a couple of strong games.

It's so tough to rank across positions in dynasty FF - there are just so many value changes based on league setup. In redraft, it's easy to adjust for that since rankings tend to have projections assigned to them, which can be manipulated to match league specifics. In dynasty, most would agree that it's a less tangible evaluation of players in rankings, so it can't be adjusted all that well.With large rosters, there aren't QBs available most of the time. Maybe you can find Kelly Holcomb or Gus Frerotte when you need him due to injury/bye conflicts, but there's no way you're going to find even crappy young QBs like Tarvaris Jackson, Brodie Croyle, Kellen Clemens, and Trent Edwards on the waiver wire. If you don't pick them up in the rookie draft, you don't get them. At that point, it just becomes a game of chicken - nobody really wants to take the rookie QBs very high, but we also know that we're going to have to break down and pick them at some point.Honestly, I've found a lot of value in picking QBs in rookie drafts in recent years. I know there are counter-examples, but I've gotten lucky with some guys who fell too far in the rookie draft. It just seems that people devalue them a bit too much in large-roster leagues. A starting QB has value, and there are guys you know will get a shot to be starters. If you have confidence in them, you can hold on to them. If you don't, you can try to deal them when they have a strong game or a leaguemate gets desperate due to injuries. Either way, they tend to pay off.That was a lot of rambling, but the point I'm easing toward is that I think it's tough to give Bloom too much of a hassle for overall rankings. It might be best to focus on his rankings within his position, then note the tier breaks that stick out... then apply it to the value structure in your league.

 

[EBF]

And as far as fantasy QBs, I have come to conclusion that it is never worth drafting any of them in first round of rookie draft unless you are in a two QB league. Their likelihood of panning out is too low and unpredictable--a third round NFL pick is almost as likely to succeed as a first rounder. Plus, it takes too long for them to develop. Better to let someone else draft them and then pick them up in a year or two after they have been dropped when they finally string together a couple of strong games.

It's so tough to rank across positions in dynasty FF - there are just so many value changes based on league setup. In redraft, it's easy to adjust for that since rankings tend to have projections assigned to them, which can be manipulated to match league specifics. In dynasty, most would agree that it's a less tangible evaluation of players in rankings, so it can't be adjusted all that well.With large rosters, there aren't QBs available most of the time. Maybe you can find Kelly Holcomb or Gus Frerotte when you need him due to injury/bye conflicts, but there's no way you're going to find even crappy young QBs like Tarvaris Jackson, Brodie Croyle, Kellen Clemens, and Trent Edwards on the waiver wire. If you don't pick them up in the rookie draft, you don't get them. At that point, it just becomes a game of chicken - nobody really wants to take the rookie QBs very high, but we also know that we're going to have to break down and pick them at some point.

Honestly, I've found a lot of value in picking QBs in rookie drafts in recent years. I know there are counter-examples, but I've gotten lucky with some guys who fell too far in the rookie draft. It just seems that people devalue them a bit too much in large-roster leagues. A starting QB has value, and there are guys you know will get a shot to be starters. If you have confidence in them, you can hold on to them. If you don't, you can try to deal them when they have a strong game or a leaguemate gets desperate due to injuries. Either way, they tend to pay off.

Oddly enough, my new philosophy is to never draft a QB in the first two two rounds of your rookie draft. I just don't think they're a smart investment when you look at risk vs. reward. Very few of them become true impact players and the fringe guys hold relatively little value. Consider the cost to acquire Cutler or Schaub versus the cost to acquire Maroney, DeAngelo, Holmes, or Bowe. I just think it makes more sense to go WR or RB assuming there are still first day picks on the board.

 

[elcohiba]

 

[FUBAR]

Honestly, I've found a lot of value in picking QBs in rookie drafts in recent years. I know there are counter-examples, but I've gotten lucky with some guys who fell too far in the rookie draft. It just seems that people devalue them a bit too much in large-roster leagues. A starting QB has value, and there are guys you know will get a shot to be starters. If you have confidence in them, you can hold on to them. If you don't, you can try to deal them when they have a strong game or a leaguemate gets desperate due to injuries. Either way, they tend to pay off.

Oddly enough, my new philosophy is to never draft a QB in the first two two rounds of your rookie draft. I just don't think they're a smart investment when you look at risk vs. reward. Very few of them become true impact players and the fringe guys hold relatively little value. Consider the cost to acquire Cutler or Schaub versus the cost to acquire Maroney, DeAngelo, Holmes, or Bowe. I just think it makes more sense to go WR or RB assuming there are still first day picks on the board.

I don't know about your leagues, but in mine, Cutler was initially drafted much lower than those 4. He was a mid 2nd round pick, right around Hagan, Lewis, Norwood, and Jennings. Of those 4, only Jennings is worth more right now - although some do like Norwood. Campbell and Alex Smith were drafted near Heath Miller, Reggie Brown and Matt Jones. If QBs are getting drafted near the mid 1st in a 1-start setup, you're probably right - they aren't worth the investment. However, the only time I've seen them taken that high was in 2004, mostly due to a lackluster rookie pool.

 

[FUBAR]

Thanks for the patience everyone. Expect new installments next week.

Bloom 100: 1-10

I appreciate your work, but not sure why you would use PPR? PPR just doesn't make sense for RB's and this is why it less popular

PPR is actually the most popular. Pretty much all major high stakes league use some sort of PPR scoring. Maybe it is less popular in your leagues. Out of the 15 or so league I join every year all but one is PPR.

With 60 Zealots leauges out there using non-PPR, it really skews things the other way, though.I guess the best thing would be to include a second number in parentheses that is the player's rank in non-PPR leagues.

I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.

I don't want to hijack Blooms thread, but for those of you who are looking for a fairer way to score, I have yet to hear a single argument why anyone would want PPR. The only arguments for PPR are that people have played that way and they are used to it. Because giving a point to a RB for a reception isn't rewarding anything that leads to production on the field (you are already getting the yards) and then you might as well reward a RB for every hand off they get? This discussion went on prior and after many pages, it was either "that is what I like" compared to "an analysis shows that rewarding points for PPR gives an even more unfair advantage to the RB's and the advantage isn't even something that has meaning in football."Sorry Bloom; I won't comment anymore.

I have a question about this. If PPR gives an unfair advantage to RBs, why does Bloom's non-PPR ranking move the RBs up and the WRs down? Bloom doesn't describe Rice and Jones as 3rd down backs.

Because WR's normally have more receptions then RB's thus the drop in FF point production.

thus PPR does not provide an unfair advantage to RBs. It raises the value of some, but not the overall position.

 

[Tick]

Oddly enough, my new philosophy is to never draft a QB in the first two two rounds of your rookie draft. I just don't think they're a smart investment when you look at risk vs. reward. Very few of them become true impact players and the fringe guys hold relatively little value. Consider the cost to acquire Cutler or Schaub versus the cost to acquire Maroney, DeAngelo, Holmes, or Bowe. I just think it makes more sense to go WR or RB assuming there are still first day picks on the board.

Edwards might amount to something, though I strongly doubt that he will. Calling him crappy might not be that nice, but I meant in terms of last season, where he was pretty worthless in FF.There's no way I'd ever draft any rookie QB over Maroney or DeAngelo, of course. When it comes to Holmes or Bowe, I'd pick them before a QB also. However, remember that Holmes and Chad Jackson were equal in rookie drafts, and Meacham went before Bowe on average. QBs don't always hit, neither does any other position.In 05, around Alex Smith, you could have gotten Mike Williams, Eric Shelton, Mark Clayton, Frank Gore, and Maurice Clarett.In 05, around Aaron Rodgers, you could have gotten Ciatrick Fason, Vernand Morency, Heath Miller, and Reggie Brown.In 05, around Charlie Frye and Jason Campbell, you could have gotten Brandon Jacobs, Ciatrick Fason, Demarcus Ware, and Thomas Davis.In 06, around Leinart, Young, and Cutler, you could have gotten Vernon Davis, Santonio Holmes, AJ Hawk, and Chad JacksonIn 06, around Kellen Clemens, you could have gotten D'Qwell Jackson, Leon Washington, Jerome Harrison, and Leonard Pope.In 06, around Brodie Croyle, you could have gotten Derek Hagan, Joe Klopfenstein, Donte Whitner, and Maurice StovallIn 07, around JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn, you could have gotten Brandon Jackson, Michael Bush, Robert Meacham, and Dwayne BoweIn 07, around Drew Stanton, you could have gotten Tony Hunt, Steve Smith, Craig Davis, Brian Leonard, and LaRon Landry.Looks like a crap shoot at every position to me.I don't reach for early QBs - when I've had chances to pick near the end of the first, I've only chosen a QB once, and that was Vince Young, whom I cashed in on after his rookie season. I passed up Alex Smith for Frank Gore in the only other time I can think of where I had an option to take one of these guys. Still, if a guy I'm sure is going to start at some point like Aaron Rodgers, Brodie Croyle, or Drew Stanton falls too far, I'll jump on him rather than taking my chances with longshots at RB, WR, or TE.