Buy the history statistic in Forsett's player spotlight? (1 Viewer)

[fritch]

Interesting statistic in Forsett's player spotlight....

• NFL history says that if a running back cracks the 1,000-yard mark at Forsett's age, they have NEVER matched that production in Year N+1

Does this convince you to push him back to at least round three, or are you still pick him up as a top ten back?

 

[Freelove]

Utterly meaningless.

 

[Freelove]

FF is about talent, opportunity, health, scheme, and surrounding talent.

Forsett's talent is enough that he was able to compile a full season's worth of front-line fantasy numbers last year, and remains untouchable in the role this year.

His opportunity is etched in stone. There's no real competition for him.

He's healthy.

The scheme is the best scheme in football for a FF RB. Trestman takes good RB's and practically forces them to be fantasy gods. If you're good enough to start in his offense, he's going to treat you as if you're Marshall Faulk, come hell or high water.

Forsett has a QB with a great deep arm that practically guarantees lots of open spaces up front and underneath. And the line in front of him is bananas. Yanda is on the short list for best run blocking linemen in the NFL.

If this guy's not in your top 10 FF RB's for the time being, you're insane.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Utterly meaningless.

How is it meaningless? I get that anyone can cherry pick statistics......but when something has never happened...well, at least in my experience it is a meaningful risk to gamble on making history.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Utterly meaningless.

How is it meaningless? I get that anyone can cherry pick statistics......but when something has never happened...well, at least in my experience it is a meaningful risk to gamble on making history.

Well there is way to small a sample size for this to come into play. Were the other RB's even the starter in year N+1 or did they enter the season as back ups? Did they have a 5.3 ypc or 1500 combined yards and 8 td's or were they plodding along and just cracking the 1000 yard mark? There is a ton at play and it is way too complicated to evaluate in year N+1.

Has there ever been a rb to take a year off for discipline reasons and then in year N+1 be a top 10 rb? If the case would you downgrade Peterson? There are a ton of ways to evaluate situations, and N+1 in this case would not be very relevant at all.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Utterly meaningless.

How is it meaningless? I get that anyone can cherry pick statistics......but when something has never happened...well, at least in my experience it is a meaningful risk to gamble on making history.

Well there is way to small a sample size for this to come into play. Were the other RB's even the starter in year N+1 or did they enter the season as back ups? Did they have a 5.3 ypc or 1500 combined yards and 8 td's or were they plodding along and just cracking the 1000 yard mark? There is a ton at play and it is way too complicated to evaluate in year N+1.Has there ever been a rb to take a year off for discipline reasons and then in year N+1 be a top 10 rb? If the case would you downgrade Peterson? There are a ton of ways to evaluate situations, and N+1 in this case would not be very relevant at all.

That is at least half the point though. Sometimes when the sample size is zero......that in and of itself is an indicator.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Utterly meaningless.

How is it meaningless? I get that anyone can cherry pick statistics......but when something has never happened...well, at least in my experience it is a meaningful risk to gamble on making history.

Well there is way to small a sample size for this to come into play. Were the other RB's even the starter in year N+1 or did they enter the season as back ups? Did they have a 5.3 ypc or 1500 combined yards and 8 td's or were they plodding along and just cracking the 1000 yard mark? There is a ton at play and it is way too complicated to evaluate in year N+1.Has there ever been a rb to take a year off for discipline reasons and then in year N+1 be a top 10 rb? If the case would you downgrade Peterson? There are a ton of ways to evaluate situations, and N+1 in this case would not be very relevant at all.

That is at least half the point though. Sometimes when the sample size is zero......that in and of itself is an indicator.

Yes for sure it is by no means a given, but there are firsts every year at multiple positions and for multiple players.

Take Forsett for example last year. He had 84 yards and 1 td in week one. Had I thought that there is no way a rb who is coming off a year with 6 carries for 31 yards in 2013 is capable of then getting 235 attempts for 1266 yards and 8 td's is possible then I would have missed the boat on acquiring him.

If Forsett breaks his leg in week 2 and then puts up a year of less than 1000 yards it would support the N+1 theory but would not do it justice. Every situation is different and there are a ton of variables at play. That is the beauty of fantasy football.

 

[cstu]

Priest Holmes barely cracked a 1000 (1008) when he was 25 and it wasn't until he was 28 that he turned into a stud.

 

[cstu]

The issue seems to be the age 29 cutoff - there are other backs who had success after hitting 1000 at age 28 (James Brooks, Fred Jackson).