Cadillac's Schedule (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

    I find it funny that LHucks sees the same information and claims that it proves his point instead of Yudkin's.  Talk about putting the conclusion ahead of the proof.

True, but since I never really watched Caddy, he might improve enough. My concern is that even Emmitt Smith in his rookie season showed the potential to score fantasy points.In some cases, the system and or the RB may achieve fantasy greatness even if they aren't considered the best "talent." Again, I would take DD every year over Caddy if I knew for a fact that both guys were going to start all 16 games. I may not think DD is a better NFL RB, but I know that he will score, whereas I don't know that (yet) about Caddy.

I kind of see Caddy as Jamal Lewis right now. Lewis has finished in the top 10 in 1 of his 6 years in the league and it took the perfect season (twice as many TDs as his next best year) to do it. Lewis has the same lack of TDs/few receptions that Caddy had last year, but Lewis still seems to carry an overhyped label to him, which may have faded last year a bit.

Good posting here. That's pretty much how I consider Caddy. He'll lose some short yardage TD's and he'll get some. He will get 20-30 catches, but probably won't get the 50-60 some other backs get. And he may or may not suffer from over-use as he did last year.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

290-1178-6 with 4.1 YPC is pretty good for a rookie. It is similar to 339-1236-10 (LT) or 314-1282-12 (Faulk).

6 TD's is "similar" to 10 or 12?

 

[David Yudkin]

    I find it funny that LHucks sees the same information and claims that it proves his point instead of Yudkin's.  Talk about putting the conclusion ahead of the proof.

To be clear, LHUCKS overall knows his stuff and no one will ever agree 100% on every player. And I again emphasize that I am not saying Cadillac will completely tank, but I would not invest a first round pick on him. IMO, he's worth a mid to late second rounder and he'll never fall that far. He should show some improvement in the peripheral categories (maybe a couple extra TD and some additional receiving yards), but I can't see him getting a huge jump in workload as it was so high last year to begin with (310 touches). Yes, he did miss some time, but perhaps his intensive workload led him to be banged up and not be 100% the rest of the year.Even missing two games, he ranked 12th in RB touches last year, so it's not like he was that far behind some of the other elite backs in terms of workload. It should also be noted that Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns were also not very productive on a per touch basis. They both had a 0.49 point per touch average but are ranked 14th and 18th. That's probably the range where I would slot Williams, yet he is ranked 9th. With some improvement in the areas as mentioned above, maybe that gets Williams up from 19 to 15 or so this year.

As for the Emmitt Smith comparison, Emmitt got the ball 150 more times in his second year and had over 400 touches. Needless to say, that's a HUGE total, and I am leary of projecting any RB to get that much work as it doesn't happen all that often (37 times overall and on average 2 per year the past 5 years).

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Caddy is interesting.

There are basically two camps concerning Caddy:

Camp one takes his stats from last year as a whole and goes from there. They lump in his stats from games he was injured but still played with the rest of his stats. This yields an adequate YPC and only 6 TDs in 14 games. They argue that this is the correct way to prognosticate because Caddy seems to be injury prone, so one should take that into consideration.

Camp two believes Caddy shouldn't have played hurt. They take his 10 healthy games and predict future success from there. They don't predict stats assuming an injury. They also may believe that a talented rookie RB will be better in his 2nd year, which is a cause for optimism.

Caddy had 1141 combined yards and 6 TDs in his 10 healthy starts. This projects to 1825 yards and 9+ TDs. (in the vicinity if RB7)

I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong.... maybe both are wrong. I think his stats accumulated when he played hurt are not indicative of his talent. At the same time, determining just when Caddy got healthy is subjective.... was it week 11 when his stats improved? Was it the week before against an unyielding Washington Defense where he only got 20 yards? And it's yet to be determined if he's going to be injury prone... it seems fatalistic to say yes at this early point. But it has to be considered.

Caddy's workload both early and late in the year were pretty heavy, so it seems likely he'll get plenty of touches when healthy. I think the only way you can rank him outside of the top 15 is if you believe he will get injured.

I think, once upon a time, Professor Drinen showed that projecting injuries is a rather hit or miss prospect.

I like Caddy for value anytime after RB10 or so.... any of the RBs being taken in that range have issues, but only a couple have Caddy's talent, IMO. If he falls into the mid 2nd round, he could really make somebody's fantasy year.

 

[mbuehner]

There have been 213 times when a RB has had 290 carries in a season (including Williams last year). Cadillac ranked 208th out of those 213 RB in terms of fantasy scoring with 161 fantasy points.

- I took the 100 rookies with the most carries since 1960. I decided on looking at their fantasy points per carry (total fantasy points from all aspects of the game divided by number of rushes), Caddy was number 85 out of 100.- I then took the 100 2nd year RBs with the most carries and threw out everyone that wasnt also in the first group. There are 49 backs that meet this criteria (top 100 in carries for a rookie and top 100 for 2nd year RBs).Of the 15 RBs with lower FPs per carry in their rookie year than Caddy, 6 survived to also carry top 100 in their 2nd year. Sammie Smith -0.05Errict Rhett 0.14Travis Henry 0.27John Stephens -0.01Lawrence Phillips 0.17Ricky Williams 0.34A rather mixed group to say the least. The number is the change in their Fantasy Points per carry between years 1 and 2. 4 improved, 2 got worse.Sammy Smith topped out and lost his starting gig.Erric Rhett topped out and lost his starting gig.Travis Henry lost his starting gig, got traded and lost his starting gig again (so far)John Stephens topped out and lost his starting gigLawrence Phillips went nuts, got cut midseason, picked up and cut again, currently dodging various lawsuits.Ricky Williams went nuts and is currently playing in CanadaNo winners here, although its a very small sample size. Lets look at the players above Caddy in FP/c their rookie years:33 out of 43 of the players had worse FPs/carry their 2nd year. The sophmore slump seems to be real. Taking the whole list, it looks like 81% of the running backs scored less fantasy points per their number of rushes their 2nd year in the league. This trend does not bode well for Caddy.-Note: the statistics I used is not straight up fantasy points, many of these RBs did have more prolific sophmore seasons, but they did it with either more carries or less non-rushing points. Their rushing efficiency is what i tried to measure.

 

[ookook]

I think Cadillac should be an early second round pick this season. I just cannot pick him in front of Davis, R. Johnson, or Westbrook.

With another solid season under his belt, perhaps he goes into top 10.

But my own ranking tend to favor consistency, which is hard to demonstrate after 1 season.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think Cadillac should be an early second round pick this season. I just cannot pick him in front of Davis, R. Johnson, or Westbrook.

With another solid season under his belt, perhaps he goes into top 10.

But my own ranking tend to favor consistency, which is hard to demonstrate after 1 season.

Westbrook has demonstrated consistency?

 

[stbugs]

I think Cadillac should be an early second round pick this season. I just cannot pick him in front of Davis, R. Johnson, or Westbrook.

With another solid season under his belt, perhaps he goes into top 10.

But my own ranking tend to favor consistency, which is hard to demonstrate after 1 season.

Westbrook has demonstrated consistency?

Not at all, but Westbrook in 12 games scored more than Caddy did in 14. Add to that the fact that the Eagles lost TO, then McNabb and went down in a ball of flames, and he still did better. In 2004, Westbrook missed 3 games, but still was ranked 10th.Westbrook, I like a little less than DD in that when Westbrook has been hurt, the #2 RB has not been as consistent a fantasy back as Wells was last year. I am in a PPR league, however, so I would still rather have Westbrook as he was #12 in FBG scoring with PPR even in just 12 games.

I guess I am just down on Caddy fantasy wise because like Lewis, he may have a monster season at some point but if he isn't a bigger part of the passing game or scoring twice as many TDs, then he isn't going to be a top 10 RB. I would rather take a guy who I know is top 10 PPG when they play and handcuff them.

 

[jdoggydogg]

    I find it funny that LHucks sees the same information and claims that it proves his point instead of Yudkin's.  Talk about putting the conclusion ahead of the proof.

To be clear, LHUCKS overall knows his stuff and no one will ever agree 100% on every player. And I again emphasize that I am not saying Cadillac will completely tank, but I would not invest a first round pick on him. IMO, he's worth a mid to late second rounder and he'll never fall that far. He should show some improvement in the peripheral categories (maybe a couple extra TD and some additional receiving yards), but I can't see him getting a huge jump in workload as it was so high last year to begin with (310 touches). Yes, he did miss some time, but perhaps his intensive workload led him to be banged up and not be 100% the rest of the year.Even missing two games, he ranked 12th in RB touches last year, so it's not like he was that far behind some of the other elite backs in terms of workload. It should also be noted that Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns were also not very productive on a per touch basis. They both had a 0.49 point per touch average but are ranked 14th and 18th. That's probably the range where I would slot Williams, yet he is ranked 9th. With some improvement in the areas as mentioned above, maybe that gets Williams up from 19 to 15 or so this year.

As for the Emmitt Smith comparison, Emmitt got the ball 150 more times in his second year and had over 400 touches. Needless to say, that's a HUGE total, and I am leary of projecting any RB to get that much work as it doesn't happen all that often (37 times overall and on average 2 per year the past 5 years).

You've defended your Caddy points well. But at a certain point, doesn't talent figure into this equation a bit more? I can't dispute any of your posts. However, it occurs to me that Williams is a very talented RB on a team that wants to run the ball. I think that warrants first round value.

 

[stbugs]

    I find it funny that LHucks sees the same information and claims that it proves his point instead of Yudkin's.  Talk about putting the conclusion ahead of the proof.

To be clear, LHUCKS overall knows his stuff and no one will ever agree 100% on every player. And I again emphasize that I am not saying Cadillac will completely tank, but I would not invest a first round pick on him. IMO, he's worth a mid to late second rounder and he'll never fall that far. He should show some improvement in the peripheral categories (maybe a couple extra TD and some additional receiving yards), but I can't see him getting a huge jump in workload as it was so high last year to begin with (310 touches). Yes, he did miss some time, but perhaps his intensive workload led him to be banged up and not be 100% the rest of the year.Even missing two games, he ranked 12th in RB touches last year, so it's not like he was that far behind some of the other elite backs in terms of workload. It should also be noted that Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns were also not very productive on a per touch basis. They both had a 0.49 point per touch average but are ranked 14th and 18th. That's probably the range where I would slot Williams, yet he is ranked 9th. With some improvement in the areas as mentioned above, maybe that gets Williams up from 19 to 15 or so this year.

As for the Emmitt Smith comparison, Emmitt got the ball 150 more times in his second year and had over 400 touches. Needless to say, that's a HUGE total, and I am leary of projecting any RB to get that much work as it doesn't happen all that often (37 times overall and on average 2 per year the past 5 years).

I agree, LHUCKS maybe wrong quite a bit , but he is only because he participates much more than most.As to Emmitt, even in his rookie year (#7) you could tell that if given a full workload he would be top 5. In fact, he was #3 and then #1 for four years. I know I have beaten DD into the ground, but based on his 2004 results, you could tell that he would be top 10 if he played a full year and he was #5 in 2005 in 15 games.

With Caddy, even if he got an increase in carries to 350, he still would have only gotten to #12. Every year Emmitt got 300+ carries (not even 350), he was at worst top 6 and in 3 of those 7 years, he was #1. He was also top 10 (#1 and #7) in two years with less than 300 carries.

Now Emmitt of course was a special fantasy back, but even in just small samples so far, Caddy just doesn't compare favorably at all to any of the folks we would consider fantasy studs in their first full year.

 

[zamboni]

Caddy just doesn't compare favorably at all to any of the folks we would consider fantasy studs in their first full year.

Give Alstott's 6 TDs to Caddy's 6, and it's a different story. Injuries aside (which could happen to anyone), the Alstott factor is surely the key thing that is keeping Caddy's fantasy potential down.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Re: mbuehner

Not singling you out, but you have demonstrated something I would like to address.

The statistical analysis you and others have provided is just fine and dandy, but I see two problems.

First, the numbers used are aggregate numbers that take nothing into consideration, ie.e, playing injured. Caddy's numbers in his 10 "healthy" games (subjectively determined) give him .6126 fantasy points per rush, about ten percent better than if you include his "played hurt" games.

Second, and I feel most importantly, numbers are only part of the story. When you watch Caddy play, do you see his talent as worse than 84 of those 100 rookies? Is Caddy worse than Sammy Smith and Errict Rhett? I watch Caddy and see a talented RB.... I watched most of the other RBs on the lists used in the databases to prove Caddy's mediocrity and see avarage RBs.

Each player and situation is unique. You can't draw direct parallels from aggregate data.

Statistics can be manipulated.

Caddy had 1259 yards in 14 games (89.9/g), but 1141 in 10 healthy games (114.1/g).

Caddy had 6 TDs. But TDs are hard to predict outside of SA, LT, and LJ. Curtis martin had double digit TDs in his first 2 years, then sinlge digit TDs in 5 out of the next 7 years. In 2006, Rudi had 2 TDs in the first 8 games, then 10 TDs in the final 8 games. Caddy's TD #s aren't easy to predict.

Caddy only had 20 catches. But it he is generally thought of as having decent hands, so it's not unlikely that he improves hsi receiving numbers.

Caddy had a 4.1 ypc average (4.47 in 10 healthy games). This is good, especially for a rookie. Breaking his ypc down into quarters is overanalyzing the situation, akin to taking away Barry Sanders' long runs. Yards are yards, and a rookie getting over 4 ypc is a good thing, however you look at it.

It boils down to this for me:

Caddy is talented.

He will be a better RB in his 2nd year.

He is the workhorse on his team.

He'll probably get more catches this year due to more experience. (2-3 rec/game)

Tampa's generally young offense should improve their efficiency.

He'll likely not get many of the goalline carries. (though Alstott is no paragon of health)

Tampa has what seems like a tough schedule.

Not a fantasy god, but solid with very nice upside.

 

[Sabertooth]

Caddy just doesn't compare favorably at all to any of the folks we would consider fantasy studs in their first full year.

Give Alstott's 6 TDs to Caddy's 6, and it's a different story. Injuries aside (which could happen to anyone), the Alstott factor is surely the key thing that is keeping Caddy's fantasy potential down.

Is Alstott back? Thought so.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Take it for what it's worth, but 3 of Alstott's 6 TDs came when Caddy was playing hurt.

 

[zamboni]

Caddy just doesn't compare favorably at all to any of the folks we would consider fantasy studs in their first full year.

Give Alstott's 6 TDs to Caddy's 6, and it's a different story. Injuries aside (which could happen to anyone), the Alstott factor is surely the key thing that is keeping Caddy's fantasy potential down.

Is Alstott back? Thought so.

Yes, he is.

 

[ookook]

Westbrook has demonstrated consistency?

I think Westbrook has averaged around 14.8 fantasy points per game over the past two seasons.

I think best-case scenario gets Caddy to about 11.8.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think Westbrook has averaged around 14.8 fantasy points per game over the past two seasons.

I think best-case scenario gets Caddy to about 11.8.

ppg doesn't mean consistency IMHO.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Westbrook has demonstrated consistency?

I think Westbrook has averaged around 14.8 fantasy points per game over the past two seasons.

I think best-case scenario gets Caddy to about 11.8.

The BEST case scenario has Caddy getting 11.8???

He got 11.56 last year. Played 4 games hurt. Getting to 11.8 would mean a 1% improvement.

1%. Best case.

 

[David Yudkin]

Caddy is interesting.

There are basically two camps concerning Caddy:

Camp one takes his stats from last year as a whole and goes from there. They lump in his stats from games he was injured but still played with the rest of his stats. This yields an adequate YPC and only 6 TDs in 14 games. They argue that this is the correct way to prognosticate because Caddy seems to be injury prone, so one should take that into consideration.

Camp two believes Caddy shouldn't have played hurt. They take his 10 healthy games and predict future success from there. They don't predict stats assuming an injury. They also may believe that a talented rookie RB will be better in his 2nd year, which is a cause for optimism.

Caddy had 1141 combined yards and 6 TDs in his 10 healthy starts. This projects to 1825 yards and 9+ TDs. (in the vicinity if RB7)

I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong.... maybe both are wrong. I think his stats accumulated when he played hurt are not indicative of his talent. At the same time, determining just when Caddy got healthy is subjective.... was it week 11 when his stats improved? Was it the week before against an unyielding Washington Defense where he only got 20 yards? And it's yet to be determined if he's going to be injury prone... it seems fatalistic to say yes at this early point. But it has to be considered.

Caddy's workload both early and late in the year were pretty heavy, so it seems likely he'll get plenty of touches when healthy. I think the only way you can rank him outside of the top 15 is if you believe he will get injured.

I think, once upon a time, Professor Drinen showed that projecting injuries is a rather hit or miss prospect.

I like Caddy for value anytime after RB10 or so.... any of the RBs being taken in that range have issues, but only a couple have Caddy's talent, IMO. If he falls into the mid 2nd round, he could really make somebody's fantasy year.

I agree with almost all of this, and while everyone is an injury risk, IMO, Caddy's season on a whole was almost text book for what "average" is for health purposes. On average, RB miss 2.5 or so games a year. They will have a fair amount of games where they are "healthy," "nicked up," "barely able to go," and obviously games they will sit.As for improvement, if Caddy were to get say another 100 total yards and 2 more TD, that would be 22 more fantasy points. 162 + 22 = 184. That would have ranked him as the #13 RB.

Yes, he's talented, but until he shows that he can be more productive I personally would not invest a first round pick to get him, but that's what it will take to get him. Again, not the worst pick in the world, but what that IMO will not yield a great ROI.

 

[Sabertooth]

I love how the Caddy lovers in this thread want to use the old playing hurt mantra, and how if he wasn't hurt he'd have rated higher.

But he was hurt as were many other players that ranked above him. As Yudkin alluded too, most RB's miss games and play hurt and others. This is not the sole domain of Caddy, like his supporters would have you believe.

If you want to use that arguement in favor of Caddy, it would behoove you too look at all situations that all running backs played in last season instead of generalized numbers. Good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[stbugs]

I love how the Caddy lovers in this thread want to use the old playing hurt mantra, and how if he wasn't hurt he'd have rated higher. 

But he was hurt as were many other players that ranked above him.  As Yudkin alluded too, most RB's miss games and play hurt and others.  This is not the sole domain of Caddy, like his supporters would have you believe.

If you want to use that arguement in favor of Caddy, it would behoove you too look at all situations that all running backs played in last season instead of generalized numbers.  Good for the goose is good for the gander.

Look at the guys sandwiching Williams at RB19:

15 - Willie Parker: missed 1 game and had only 15 carries total in another 2. Had 35 less carries.

16 - Dillon: missed 5 games and had 81 less carries.

17 - Davis: missed 5 games and had 60 less carries.

18 - Westbrook: missed 4 games and had a lot less touches.

19 - Williams

20 - Brown: missed 1 game and had 66 less carries.

21 - Julius Jones: missed 3 games and had 33 less carries.

All of these guys had less opportunity than Williams, but put more points on the board in those opportunities. Some of them, like Dillon, Davis and Westbrook did a lot more.

Taking a look at "healthy" games is akin to thinking Kevin Jones was going to light 2005 on fire based the great second half. You just have to be careful because sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. No one knows whether or not Caddy will be great or disappoint, but I would lean towards disappoint because RB19 with 290 carries doesn't give a whole lot of upside.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

RBs average 2.5 missed games per year. Averages have only so much meaning, though.... it's another example of applying aggregate data to an individual situation. I'm not saying it's useless info, but it's only a small slice of the whole.

The 18 RBs that finished above Caddy missed an average of 1.1 games.

The top 15 of them averaged 15.5 games played and 14 of them did not play with more than minor injuries.

14 of the 18 players that finished above him played in 14-16 games without a significant hindrance. That is part of the reason they finished as high as they did. (duh) LT played in 3 games listed as Questionable. No other of those 15 played in more than 1 game as Questionable, and the vast majority played in zero games listed as questionable.

Caddy should have missed 2-4 more games, but played through his injury when he probably shouldn't have. (this is mostly a subjective analysis; you either believe it or do not)

So... if you believe Caddy should not have played in those games, then his final ppg stats are skewed downward.

If you believe he is injury prone, there will be no argument that will convince you otherwise.

I don't present this as entirely hard evidence. Injury reports are nebulous in nature, but it's as good as I can do.

I'm not a proponent of just taking a guy's best games and extrapolating them out to 16 games. But I do believe, in this case, that several games were not indicative of Caddy's future prospects. I don't believe he played just "nicked up", but that he played when he was too injured to play. Most guys do not play in that situation... and that is why I think those games should not carry equal weight when projecting future stats.

And for the record, I'm not in the "Caddy is a god" camp... he's a talented RB with good instincts, but not top drawer.

I don't do detailed projections this early, but I'd put him with a ceiling of RB5 (not gonna happen, but not insane) and a floor of RB15 (constantly nicked up, few TDs).

Off the top of my head, I put him at 1600 yards, 8 TDs. 13 ppg. Around RB9.

 

[Sweetness_34]

So would you guys take Ronnie Brown over Caddy? Ronnie will not have a goaline vulture (unless you count Culpepper as one), but Ronnie's O might suck if Harrington plays a lot of games with Culpepper out....also, Ronnie only had 4 TDs as a rookie

 

[jurb26]

TB sure did get a tough draw this year...AFC Central and NFC East.

2006 Schedule

Sep 10 Baltimore 1:00pm

Sep 17 @Atlanta 1:00pm

Sep 24 Carolina 1:00pm

Week 4 BYE

Oct 8 @New Orleans 1:00pm

Oct 15 Cincinnati 1:00pm

Oct 22 Philadelphia 1:00pm

Oct 29 @N.Y. Giants 2:00pm

Nov 5 New Orleans 2:00pm

Nov 13 @Carolina 9:30pm

Nov 19 Washington 2:00pm

Nov 23 @Dallas 5:15pm

Dec 3 @Pittsburgh 2:00pm

Dec 10 Atlanta 2:00pm

Dec 17 @Chicago 2:00pm

Dec 24 @Cleveland 2:00pm

Dec 31 Seattle 2:00pm

All times are Eastern

As much as I hate to look at schedule in FF due to the constant turnaround in them. I have to say all of those teams in red are ones I am very sure in my feeling will have strong Ds. Heck even Clev could be one of those such teams by the years end. This is concerning IMO.

 

[Capella]

TB sure did get a tough draw this year...AFC Central and NFC East.

2006 Schedule

Sep 10 Baltimore 1:00pm

Sep 17 @Atlanta 1:00pm

Sep 24 Carolina 1:00pm

Week 4 BYE 

Oct 8 @New Orleans 1:00pm

Oct 15 Cincinnati 1:00pm

Oct 22 Philadelphia 1:00pm

Oct 29 @N.Y. Giants 2:00pm

Nov 5 New Orleans 2:00pm

Nov 13 @Carolina 9:30pm

Nov 19 Washington 2:00pm

Nov 23 @Dallas 5:15pm

Dec 3 @Pittsburgh 2:00pm

Dec 10 Atlanta 2:00pm

Dec 17 @Chicago 2:00pm

Dec 24 @Cleveland 2:00pm

Dec 31 Seattle 2:00pm

All times are Eastern

As much as I hate to look at schedule in FF due to the constant turnaround in them. I have to say all of those teams in red are ones I am very sure in my feeling will have strong Ds. Heck even Clev could be one of those such teams by the years end. This is concerning IMO.

Come on..that's 10 different teams. Let's not go nuts here -- they won't all be stout. That's almost a third of the league.

 

[Sabertooth]

TB sure did get a tough draw this year...AFC Central and NFC East.

2006 Schedule

Sep 10 Baltimore 1:00pm

Sep 17 @Atlanta 1:00pm

Sep 24 Carolina 1:00pm

Week 4 BYE 

Oct 8 @New Orleans 1:00pm

Oct 15 Cincinnati 1:00pm

Oct 22 Philadelphia 1:00pm

Oct 29 @N.Y. Giants 2:00pm

Nov 5 New Orleans 2:00pm

Nov 13 @Carolina 9:30pm

Nov 19 Washington 2:00pm

Nov 23 @Dallas 5:15pm

Dec 3 @Pittsburgh 2:00pm

Dec 10 Atlanta 2:00pm

Dec 17 @Chicago 2:00pm

Dec 24 @Cleveland 2:00pm

Dec 31 Seattle 2:00pm

All times are Eastern

As much as I hate to look at schedule in FF due to the constant turnaround in them. I have to say all of those teams in red are ones I am very sure in my feeling will have strong Ds. Heck even Clev could be one of those such teams by the years end. This is concerning IMO.

Come on..that's 10 different teams. Let's not go nuts here -- they won't all be stout. That's almost a third of the league.

You hope they won't. But the fact remains that Chicago, Pitt, Dallas, Washington will be stout with Carolina, NYG, and Philly all possibly being worrisome. I don't think Atlanta will offer up much of a rushing defense for the reason posted earlier in the thread. I don't know about Cincy or Cleveland either.

 

[jurb26]

TB sure did get a tough draw this year...AFC Central and NFC East.

2006 Schedule

Sep 10 Baltimore 1:00pm

Sep 17 @Atlanta 1:00pm

Sep 24 Carolina 1:00pm

Week 4 BYE

Oct 8 @New Orleans 1:00pm

Oct 15 Cincinnati 1:00pm

Oct 22 Philadelphia 1:00pm

Oct 29 @N.Y. Giants 2:00pm

Nov 5 New Orleans 2:00pm

Nov 13 @Carolina 9:30pm

Nov 19 Washington 2:00pm

Nov 23 @Dallas 5:15pm

Dec 3 @Pittsburgh 2:00pm

Dec 10 Atlanta 2:00pm

Dec 17 @Chicago 2:00pm

Dec 24 @Cleveland 2:00pm

Dec 31 Seattle 2:00pm

All times are Eastern

As much as I hate to look at schedule in FF due to the constant turnaround in them. I have to say all of those teams in red are ones I am very sure in my feeling will have strong Ds. Heck even Clev could be one of those such teams by the years end. This is concerning IMO.

Come on..that's 10 different teams. Let's not go nuts here -- they won't all be stout. That's almost a third of the league.

No maybe not. All I'm saying is that if I had to rank the top 15-20 Ds going into next season I'll bet nealy all of those teams show up on my rankings. This has little to do with last year, more what I think and expect for this year. I could be wrong of course, but still....

 

[ookook]

[

The BEST case scenario has Caddy getting 11.8???

He got 11.56 last year. Played 4 games hurt. Getting to 11.8 would mean a 1% improvement.

1%. Best case.

What I meant was that the most optimistic calculation for LAST season was 11.8 (omitting game he got injured in but played part of if I recall).

I was not projecting him there.

 

[zamboni]

So would you guys take Ronnie Brown over Caddy? Ronnie will not have a goaline vulture (unless you count Culpepper as one), but Ronnie's O might suck if Harrington plays a lot of games with Culpepper out....also, Ronnie only had 4 TDs as a rookie

I'd rather have Brown in a redraft due to the Alstott factor. In dynasty/keeper, I'm pretty indifferent.

 

[pigskinliquors]

This entire thread is an excellent read, and one that hopefully many benefited from this year.

by all persons on both sides. It's discussions like this that make this board what it is.

 

[rascal]

I'm just glad I listened to Yudkin and stayed away from Caddy.

If only I had stayed away from Lamont. At least I was able to trade him early for Dunn.