DeAngelo Williams (1 Viewer)

[GSWarriors]

which combo has a greater disparity talent wise, DeAngelo vs. Foster OR DeAngelo vs. Stewart. Safe to say now, DeANgelo vs. Foster is a bigger disparity of talent

will history repeat itself? DeAngelo 2nd year, a lot of guys thought he'd take over the job, and the result was D-Will 140 carries, incumbent Foster 240 caries, eventhough Foster only averaged 3.5 ypc, while D-Will was at 5.1

fast forward to 2009, Stewart 2nd year, and D-Will just came off a career year, and we expect Stewart's share of the pie to increase??? just becuase he was a first round pick, and to some folks have much better skills?

This might just be the case where we cant go by logic, but rather just have to go with John Fox's tendencies, which is BEING LOYAL to his starter eventhough the starter is not doing great (well, D-Will just had a career year, so now one would think he'd really stick to him at this point).

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Williams could get the same number of touches and conceivably have much fewer fantasy points. The 2 key things for me are the TDs and YPC. 20 TDs is a career year for most RBs. That is an awful lot of TDs and I don't think it's something that can be counted on happening again. I think 10 TDs is more realistic. As for the YPC, 5.5 is going to be tough to do again. 5.0 is a hell of a good year and that is more realistic to me. The TDs are the biggest thing. I just don't see that many TDs again. If he got 10, he would have 60 fewer fantasy points. If he averaged a half point less YPC (5.0 instead of 5.5), he would lose about 150 yards or so, which is 15 fantasy points. That totals 75 fantasy points lost. If you use last year's numbers and drop the TDs and YPC to what I just mentioned, he would have dropped into a tier of RBs in the RB10 area. That is about where I have him ranked right now.

haha.....look, I'm not trying to get in the middle of this argument, but this reasoning is killin' me.you just had a guy run off 20 td's, so you figure that he'll only score half that this season because that's more 'ordinary'.the next logical step in this progression is that he's only good for bottom of the first round because scoring only 10 td's means he's just an 'ordinary' back, and there are a bunch of extraordinary backs who will score way more than a paltry 10 td's next year.is there any particular reason he scores just 10 td's,or did you just make that up to peg him at 8th, or whatever?

Maybe he is saying that 2008 was out of the ordinary for Williams. In 2006, DWill scored 2 TDs in 154 touches. In 2007, he scored 5 TDs in 167 touches. Then, in 2008, Williams jumps up to 20 TDs in 296 touches. This is the reason I expect the TDs to decrease some.

Also, one other question is whether the rushing TD total for Carolina in 2008 is so high (compared to other years) that it is clouding our view.Team rushing TDs by year:2008 302007 7 2006 72005 172004 102003 92002 112001 9If the team rushing TD number drops to 2005 level (or below), and Stewart gets some, it will obviously take a big toll on Williams' numbers for fantasy.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Williams could get the same number of touches and conceivably have much fewer fantasy points. The 2 key things for me are the TDs and YPC. 20 TDs is a career year for most RBs. That is an awful lot of TDs and I don't think it's something that can be counted on happening again. I think 10 TDs is more realistic. As for the YPC, 5.5 is going to be tough to do again. 5.0 is a hell of a good year and that is more realistic to me. The TDs are the biggest thing. I just don't see that many TDs again. If he got 10, he would have 60 fewer fantasy points. If he averaged a half point less YPC (5.0 instead of 5.5), he would lose about 150 yards or so, which is 15 fantasy points. That totals 75 fantasy points lost. If you use last year's numbers and drop the TDs and YPC to what I just mentioned, he would have dropped into a tier of RBs in the RB10 area. That is about where I have him ranked right now.

haha.....look, I'm not trying to get in the middle of this argument, but this reasoning is killin' me.you just had a guy run off 20 td's, so you figure that he'll only score half that this season because that's more 'ordinary'.the next logical step in this progression is that he's only good for bottom of the first round because scoring only 10 td's means he's just an 'ordinary' back, and there are a bunch of extraordinary backs who will score way more than a paltry 10 td's next year.is there any particular reason he scores just 10 td's,or did you just make that up to peg him at 8th, or whatever?

I think 20 is the exception rather than the rule. It is very hard to get that many TDs. I think 10 is realistic and part of the reason is Stewart. All other RBs that I can think of that had high TD numbers like that did not have competition for carries like Williams does and if they did, they likely still got all goal line carries. If Stewart wasn't there, I would probably add 3-5 TDs to Williams. But I highly doubt Stewart gets removed from the goal line packages because he is a great short yardage back in his own right. It is very hard to predict a high number of TDs for a RB who is not automatically the goal line RB.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Everybody gets so wrapped up in the "career year" thing. It's very likely that was his career year, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as people seem to think. He has a lot of room to "come down" and still be an excellent performer.

I personally can't remember a time when the #1 overall guy in his prime from one year was ranked as low as Williams is going into the following year. I'm not saying there couldn't be a good reason for it, but it's very strange without an injury or a team change etc.

It's gotta be Stewart that's scaring folks, there is no other reasonable explanation.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Everybody gets so wrapped up in the "career year" thing. It's very likely that was his career year, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as people seem to think. He has a lot of room to "come down" and still be an excellent performer.I personally can't remember a time when the #1 overall guy in his prime from one year was ranked as low as Williams is going into the following year. I'm not saying there couldn't be a good reason for it, but it's very strange without an injury or a team change etc.It's gotta be Stewart that's scaring folks, there is no other reasonable explanation.

I thought this was a pretty reasonable explanation:

Also, one other question is whether the rushing TD total for Carolina in 2008 is so high (compared to other years) that it is clouding our view.Team rushing TDs by year:2008 302007 7 2006 72005 172004 102003 92002 112001 9If the team rushing TD number drops to 2005 level (or below), and Stewart gets some, it will obviously take a big toll on Williams' numbers for fantasy.

 

[Ripleys]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Everybody gets so wrapped up in the "career year" thing. It's very likely that was his career year, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as people seem to think. He has a lot of room to "come down" and still be an excellent performer.I personally can't remember a time when the #1 overall guy in his prime from one year was ranked as low as Williams is going into the following year. I'm not saying there couldn't be a good reason for it, but it's very strange without an injury or a team change etc.It's gotta be Stewart that's scaring folks, there is no other reasonable explanation.

I thought this was a pretty reasonable explanation:

Also, one other question is whether the rushing TD total for Carolina in 2008 is so high (compared to other years) that it is clouding our view.Team rushing TDs by year:2008 302007 7 2006 72005 172004 102003 92002 112001 9If the team rushing TD number drops to 2005 level (or below), and Stewart gets some, it will obviously take a big toll on Williams' numbers for fantasy.

Not to me really. I don't think 2001 team rushing TD totals have a lot of predictive power for 2009. The very best correlation (which obviously isn't perfect, but it is the best), is previous year performance. Every year removed from that gets progressively more worthless in terms of what you can glean from it. Again, his (and the team's) TDs will very likely go down and his total stats will likely go down. I think we all agree on that. The question is how much they are likely to go, and how many guys are better bets than he is for fantasy performance.I just don't think the "He was really great last year, so he will probably suck this year" line of reasoning makes any sense.JMO.

 

[Jason Wood]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

That's a big IF though

 

[CBower4545]

Not to me really. I don't think 2001 team rushing TD totals have a lot of predictive power for 2009. The very best correlation (which obviously isn't perfect, but it is the best), is previous year performance. Every year removed from that gets progressively more worthless in terms of what you can glean from it. Again, his (and the team's) TDs will very likely go down and his total stats will likely go down. I think we all agree on that. The question is how much they are likely to go, and how many guys are better bets than he is for fantasy performance.I just don't think the "He was really great last year, so he will probably suck this year" line of reasoning makes any sense.JMO.

I think that is an oversimplification of the argument to downgrade DWill. I think there is more to this discussion then that. Unfortunately I doubt I can restate it any better then has already been done. I don't think anyone is suggesting to avoid him at all cost, and saying he is #8 is far from sucking in my book. Honestly, I think on a per touch basis DWill should be considered in the discussion for the best running back in the league, but you can't ignore that fantasy success is completely dependent on the aggregate. In the end if you spot your competitors extra carries and more involvement in the passing game you mitigate your advantage.

 

[gianmarco]

The interesting thing to me is that the possibility of DeAngelo getting MORE carries hasn't been mentioned and I doubt is even considered a possibility by the vast majority here.

One argument is that many people think Stewart is line for more carries. Why can't DeAngelo be in line for more carries? In 5 of the last 6 games of the year, he had 19 carries or more and 21+ in 3 of those 6 games. That works out to 304 carries for 2009. If you look at the entire 2nd half after the bye for a total of 8 games, he had a total of 153 carries. Again, that works out to 306 carries for 2009.

Stewart played in every one of those games. This is the time that you would have expected Stewart's carries to go up, but instead DeAngelo's did. So explain to me why many think it's a foregone conclusion that Stewart's carries will go up but not a single person has mentioned the same possibility for DeWill despite the trend that he was getting more and more carries as the year went by and actually was on a 300+ carry pace for the entire 2nd half of the season? And it's not as if 273 carries is a lot to build on.

People have no issue ranking Turner in the top 5 despite the fact he had 376 carries (100+ more than DeAngelo), scored 17 TDs himself, and STILL scored less than DeAngelo. If anyone's carries are likely to see a decrease I would say it's Turner from his 376 carries rather than DeAngelo's 273--Stewart or no Stewart. Especially with the addition of Gonzo in the passing game and the further development of Matt Ryan. Not to mention that 20 TDs is pretty hard to replicate, but Turner's 17 doesn't seem to be an issue. Yet I don't hear the same arguments about Turner regressing even though he's also in line to lose carries and likely regress in TDs. What's the difference? Stewart.

Assuming DeWill DOES get more carries next year, does that change any of your thoughts/projections about him? I honestly don't think even 5% of you reading this think that's a possibility. Looking at last year's trend during the 2nd half and considering he ended up essentially as both the top NFL RB as well as the top fantasy RB, it actually makes more sense for his carries to go up. Then again, many here think it's actually a team's priority to give their 2nd year 1st round players more carries rather than give it to a 4th year 1st round player who was significantly more productive.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Not to me really. I don't think 2001 team rushing TD totals have a lot of predictive power for 2009. The very best correlation (which obviously isn't perfect, but it is the best), is previous year performance. Every year removed from that gets progressively more worthless in terms of what you can glean from it. Again, his (and the team's) TDs will very likely go down and his total stats will likely go down. I think we all agree on that. The question is how much they are likely to go, and how many guys are better bets than he is for fantasy performance.I just don't think the "He was really great last year, so he will probably suck this year" line of reasoning makes any sense.JMO.

I think that is an oversimplification of the argument to downgrade DWill. I think there is more to this discussion then that. Unfortunately I doubt I can restate it any better then has already been done. I don't think anyone is suggesting to avoid him at all cost, and saying he is #8 is far from sucking in my book. Honestly, I think on a per touch basis DWill should be considered in the discussion for the best running back in the league, but you can't ignore that fantasy success is completely dependent on the aggregate. In the end if you spot your competitors extra carries and more involvement in the passing game you mitigate your advantage.

Excellent points, and my statement IS an oversimplification. There are legit reasons once could downgrade Dwill. Some of them I agree with and some of them I don't.But I DO get the feeling sometimes that SOME people are downgrading him PRIMARILY on the fact that he had a great "or career" year, and what I am trying to say is that he doesn't have to have the SAME year he just had to have a very nice year. No individual RB is ever LIKELY to have a year like that in any given year, even the biggest of big guns. It's a little more likely that someone in the "field" will do it, but to predict any specific RB to have a year like that is difficult to do. To me, it's more about who is a good bet to have a very good year, with a chance to have a GREAT year, and Dwill is certainly in that category. For me, having seven guys as better fits in that category is too many, but I do get the arguments to the contrary.

 

[fourd]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

That's a big IF though

I think a case can be made that it's a smaller IF than last year. Going into last year Williams hadn't proven anything. Now he has. And is that IF any bigger than the IFs surrounding SJax, Turner, Peterson, LT etc.?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Not to me really. I don't think 2001 team rushing TD totals have a lot of predictive power for 2009. The very best correlation (which obviously isn't perfect, but it is the best), is previous year performance. Every year removed from that gets progressively more worthless in terms of what you can glean from it. Again, his (and the team's) TDs will very likely go down and his total stats will likely go down. I think we all agree on that. The question is how much they are likely to go, and how many guys are better bets than he is for fantasy performance.I just don't think the "He was really great last year, so he will probably suck this year" line of reasoning makes any sense.JMO.

I think that is an oversimplification of the argument to downgrade DWill. I think there is more to this discussion then that. Unfortunately I doubt I can restate it any better then has already been done. I don't think anyone is suggesting to avoid him at all cost, and saying he is #8 is far from sucking in my book. Honestly, I think on a per touch basis DWill should be considered in the discussion for the best running back in the league, but you can't ignore that fantasy success is completely dependent on the aggregate. In the end if you spot your competitors extra carries and more involvement in the passing game you mitigate your advantage.

Excellent points, and my statement IS an oversimplification. There are legit reasons once could downgrade Dwill. Some of them I agree with and some of them I don't.But I DO get the feeling sometimes that SOME people are downgrading him PRIMARILY on the fact that he had a great "or career" year, and what I am trying to say is that he doesn't have to have the SAME year he just had to have a very nice year. No individual RB is ever LIKELY to have a year like that in any given year, even the biggest of big guns. It's a little more likely that someone in the "field" will do it, but to predict any specific RB to have a year like that is difficult to do. To me, it's more about who is a good bet to have a very good year, with a chance to have a GREAT year, and Dwill is certainly in that category. For me, having seven guys as better fits in that category is too many, but I do get the arguments to the contrary.

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009      Chi			   Dal   Det			   Was   GB				Phi   KC				NYJ   SD				Mia   Den			   NE   Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

That's a big IF though

I think a case can be made that it's a smaller IF than last year. Going into last year Williams hadn't proven anything. Now he has. And is that IF any bigger than the IFs surrounding SJax, Turner, Peterson, LT etc.?

The above listed RBs don't have a RB like Stewart on their team. That's the biggest difference. If Stewart was not on Carolina, I'm sure D Will would be higher across the board.

 

[FavreCo]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

That's a big IF though

I think a case can be made that it's a smaller IF than last year. Going into last year Williams hadn't proven anything. Now he has. And is that IF any bigger than the IFs surrounding SJax, Turner, Peterson, LT etc.?

The above listed RBs don't have a RB like Stewart on their team. That's the biggest difference. If Stewart was not on Carolina, I'm sure D Will would be higher across the board.

He would go anywhere between #1 and #3. That OL is impressive. Both he and Stewart will get theirs this year again. The holes they ran through last year will be there again. As was the case last year, if one rips off a huge run but doesn't score, it's likely they head to the sidelines for a breather and the other punches it in. They will run and run a lot.

 

[gianmarco]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009      Chi			   Dal   Det			   Was   GB				Phi   KC				NYJ   SD				Mia   Den			   NE   Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009		Chi			   Dal	Det			   Was	GB				Phi	KC				NYJ	SD				Mia	Den			   NE	Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

And Williams had only 144 carries 2 years ago, only 1 year removed from last year. A lot can obviously change in a year but you'd have to agree that 2008 is likely to be far more predictive than 2007.

 

[-baller]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009      Chi			   Dal   Det			   Was   GB				Phi   KC				NYJ   SD				Mia   Den			   NE   Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

just out of curiousity, I took a look at those games and he scored about half his td's (11) against the not so magnificent 7 last year.one of them being a pass play.so, call it about half from those 7, and half from the other 9 games.I believe that gb game was the 4 one yarders.the funny thing about d-will is that his first half was as mediocre as his second half was great.

 

[-baller]

And Williams had only 144 carries 2 years ago, only 1 year removed from last year. A lot can obviously change in a year but you'd have to agree that 2008 is likely to be far more predictive than 2007.

I think what he's saying is that last year you would have had those 7 softies ranked a lot better based on the previous year, and you would've been surprised by his 11 td's vs their unexpectedly soft d ----- the same thing could happen vs these 7 '08 tough guys he's playing in '09.edit: just to go on record, I think a few of those 7 '08 tough guys will actually be BETTER against the run, but you never know......anyway, maybe he'll be held to 50 yds and 4 one yd td's against those guys.

 

[B-Deep]

Why is DeAngelo Williams ranked so low?

just wanted opoin out this threadclearly answers the questionAs wood pointed out, the ranking spread on Dwill is from 2-13look at the resposnes in this thread, and it seems there's a simialr spreadthe reason he is ranked so low is some expect the greatness of last season to continue and others expect him to regressaverage those out and you get Dwill at #8

 

[gianmarco]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009		Chi			   Dal	Det			   Was	GB				Phi	KC				NYJ	SD				Mia	Den			   NE	Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

And Williams had only 144 carries 2 years ago, only 1 year removed from last year. A lot can obviously change in a year but you'd have to agree that 2008 is likely to be far more predictive than 2007.

My point wasn't to base what's going to happen on 2007 instead of 2008. My point is that one group went from 27.2 rpg/4.14/12.5 TDs in 2007 to 25.7 rpg/3.97 ypc/11 TDs in 2008. Not a huge change, but a change over just 1 year. The other group went from 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs to 30 rpg/4.55 ypc/21.6 TDs. That is a significant change in just 1 year. In other words, a LOT can change over the course of a year. It's the reason using last year's W/L as power rankings and SOS doesn't work well because every year things change and can change drastically. The AFC East has not been competitive for years with the exception of NE until last year. Then in 1 year, things changed. Heading into last year, looking at a schedule of Chicago, Green Bay, San Diego, Oakland, and even Denver was not an easy defensive schedule. Yet, they gave up the #'s you quoted above. So, I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I think the change in DeAngelo's schedule based on those 2008 defensive rushing #'s is NOT a big reason to be scared off of what he's going to do. In fact, it's almost a chicken/egg argument. Did those teams do that badly and that's what allowed DeAngelo/Turner/P. Thomas/Bush/Stewart to do what they did? Or, did those defensive teams give up those #'s because they had to face DeAngelo/Turner/P. Thomas/Bush/Stewart as well as the likes of Forte/AP/Grant/K. Smith for those NFC North teams?

 

[LawFitz]

I'm surprised this thread has gone this far without a single mention of Jake Delhomme.

To me at least he is a much bigger concern than Stewart. John Fox is loyal to his veteran players and as long as DWill is producing I have zero doubt that he will get about 60% of the RB touches.

But my real worry is that Delhomme is done as an NFL QB. Dude was seriously exposed during that NFC title game. Will he hold up mentally enough to provide some semblance of balance to this offense? A good (at least decent) passing game will be a huge determinant of whether or not DWill will come anywhere close to last year's numbers IMO.

 

[gianmarco]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008 2009 Chi Dal Det Was GB Phi KC NYJ SD Mia Den NE Oak BufThe 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

This brings up another point. While I've already explained why I feel this is far from "the biggest reason to downgrade his stats", even if you did believe this was the case, why doesn't this also downgrade Michael Turner. He got to face the same schedule as Williams last year and will have to face that same "difficult" schedule this year. Again, across the board, Turner remains a "sure bet" to repeat what he did last year despite

--Getting a tougher schedule compare to his easier one last year

--Having a HUGE # of carries last year (376)

--Having a huge # of TDs (17) which seems that most think will be difficult to repeat (at least for Williams)

--Having a significant addition in the passing game in the form of future-HOF TE Tony Gonzalez who finished as the #1 TE last year coupled with Matt Ryan entering his 2nd year.

People are very quick to discount what DeAngelo can do because his #'s likely won't be replicated and because Stewart is there and his schedule gets harder, but those same things face Turner with the exception of Stewart. The bottomline is that Stewart is the biggest obstacle that most see with Williams, IMO. This is despite the fact that DeAngelo has just as good of a "pedigree" in terms of being a 1st round talent, has more experience, and had a sensational year and did more with the ball last year in similar situations.

When you factor in Gonzalez and Roddy White and Matt Ryan as well as Norwood's 100 carries, then I think Turner has even further to fall than DeAngelo. I don't think the presence of Stewart should be dropping him as far as it is. And I own Stewart and love his talent.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009	 	 Chi			   Dal	 Det			   Was	 GB				Phi	 KC				NYJ	 SD				Mia	 Den			   NE	 Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

And Williams had only 144 carries 2 years ago, only 1 year removed from last year. A lot can obviously change in a year but you'd have to agree that 2008 is likely to be far more predictive than 2007.

My point wasn't to base what's going to happen on 2007 instead of 2008. My point is that one group went from 27.2 rpg/4.14/12.5 TDs in 2007 to 25.7 rpg/3.97 ypc/11 TDs in 2008. Not a huge change, but a change over just 1 year. The other group went from 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs to 30 rpg/4.55 ypc/21.6 TDs. That is a significant change in just 1 year. In other words, a LOT can change over the course of a year. It's the reason using last year's W/L as power rankings and SOS doesn't work well because every year things change and can change drastically. The AFC East has not been competitive for years with the exception of NE until last year. Then in 1 year, things changed. Heading into last year, looking at a schedule of Chicago, Green Bay, San Diego, Oakland, and even Denver was not an easy defensive schedule. Yet, they gave up the #'s you quoted above. So, I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I think the change in DeAngelo's schedule based on those 2008 defensive rushing #'s is NOT a big reason to be scared off of what he's going to do. In fact, it's almost a chicken/egg argument. Did those teams do that badly and that's what allowed DeAngelo/Turner/P. Thomas/Bush/Stewart to do what they did? Or, did those defensive teams give up those #'s because they had to face DeAngelo/Turner/P. Thomas/Bush/Stewart as well as the likes of Forte/AP/Grant/K. Smith for those NFC North teams?

I understand. I think it's odd you can make the argument that he may get more carries based upon his stats in the last 6 games last year but are willing to completely ignore the stats of the defenses he faced during the year. Why are his offensive stats more relevant than his opponents' defensive stats?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm surprised this thread has gone this far without a single mention of Jake Delhomme.

To me at least he is a much bigger concern than Stewart. John Fox is loyal to his veteran players and as long as DWill is producing I have zero doubt that he will get about 60% of the RB touches.

But my real worry is that Delhomme is done as an NFL QB. Dude was seriously exposed during that NFC title game. Will he hold up mentally enough to provide some semblance of balance to this offense? A good (at least decent) passing game will be a huge determinant of whether or not DWill will come anywhere close to last year's numbers IMO.

Carolina had the 9th most effective passing game in the NFL last season.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1133

As for the psychological effect on Delhomme, Tony Romo seemed just fine the next season following his playoff blunder.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009      Chi			   Dal   Det			   Was   GB				Phi   KC				NYJ   SD				Mia   Den			   NE   Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

Exactly. I did a Strength of Schedule analysis last year that looked at predictive power of previous season's defensive rankings. Guess what? On average, teams regress to the mean. In other words, last season's defensive ranking doesn't mean a whole lot.

 

[gianmarco]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009	 	 Chi			   Dal	 Det			   Was	 GB				Phi	 KC				NYJ	 SD				Mia	 Den			   NE	 Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

And Williams had only 144 carries 2 years ago, only 1 year removed from last year. A lot can obviously change in a year but you'd have to agree that 2008 is likely to be far more predictive than 2007.

My point wasn't to base what's going to happen on 2007 instead of 2008. My point is that one group went from 27.2 rpg/4.14/12.5 TDs in 2007 to 25.7 rpg/3.97 ypc/11 TDs in 2008. Not a huge change, but a change over just 1 year. The other group went from 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs to 30 rpg/4.55 ypc/21.6 TDs. That is a significant change in just 1 year. In other words, a LOT can change over the course of a year. It's the reason using last year's W/L as power rankings and SOS doesn't work well because every year things change and can change drastically. The AFC East has not been competitive for years with the exception of NE until last year. Then in 1 year, things changed. Heading into last year, looking at a schedule of Chicago, Green Bay, San Diego, Oakland, and even Denver was not an easy defensive schedule. Yet, they gave up the #'s you quoted above. So, I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I think the change in DeAngelo's schedule based on those 2008 defensive rushing #'s is NOT a big reason to be scared off of what he's going to do. In fact, it's almost a chicken/egg argument. Did those teams do that badly and that's what allowed DeAngelo/Turner/P. Thomas/Bush/Stewart to do what they did? Or, did those defensive teams give up those #'s because they had to face DeAngelo/Turner/P. Thomas/Bush/Stewart as well as the likes of Forte/AP/Grant/K. Smith for those NFC North teams?

I understand. I think it's odd you can make the argument that he may get more carries based upon his stats in the last 6 games last year but are willing to completely ignore the stats of the defenses he faced during the year. Why are his offensive stats more relevant than his opponents' defensive stats?

2 completely different things. The team stats are based on performance and those can and do change every year. The 2nd is a trend based on the coaches usage of DeAngelo. I know you like to study trends, particularly over an 8 game stretch to close the year like that. I'm not saying DeAngelo's carries WILL go up, I simply said it's a possibility that I think VERY FEW are even considering. Looking at that 2nd half of last year, he had an INCREASED workload despite the presence of Stewart as the year went on. Yet people are predicting an increase for Stewart this year. The #'s simply don't bear that out.It's one thing to use #'s to justify an argument. It's another thing to actually make a prediction that goes AGAINST what the #'s show. Most are predicting an increase for Stewart while last year's #'s showed the opposite. When looking at the team defensive stats, I am NOT similarly predicting that the group he will face in 2009 will be easier than the group in 2008. That would be similar to those predicting an increase in carries for Stewart. The #'s don't trend that way. Thus, it would be foolish for me to say that the group in 2009 will be easier. All I said is that, looking at 2007 to 2008, those groups had some major changes in their defensive stats and thus aren't likely to be very predictive. I think he does indeed have a harder schedule but just not to the extent that you were trying to portray using last year's #'s.Big difference. Nothing "odd" about my argument at all. The 2 you just tried to compare are not only irrelevant to each other but also not an accurate characterization of my argument.

 

[puckalicious]

This brings up another point. While I've already explained why I feel this is far from "the biggest reason to downgrade his stats", even if you did believe this was the case, why doesn't this also downgrade Michael Turner. He got to face the same schedule as Williams last year and will have to face that same "difficult" schedule this year.

Again, across the board, Turner remains a "sure bet" to repeat what he did last year despite

--Getting a tougher schedule compare to his easier one last year - this is bunk.

--Having a HUGE # of carries last year (376) - Still a MUCH higher chance of him getting 300+ than DWill

--Having a huge # of TDs (17) which seems that most think will be difficult to repeat (at least for Williams) - higher TD's from more carries. Dwill had a superhuman TD/Carry ratio.

--Having a significant addition in the passing game in the form of future-HOF TE Tony Gonzalez who finished as the #1 TE last year coupled with Matt Ryan entering his 2nd year. - An improved passing game does not have to mean a decrease in rushing.

People are very quick to discount what DeAngelo can do because his #'s likely won't be replicated and because Stewart is there and his schedule gets harder, but those same things face Turner with the exception of Stewart. The bottomline is that Stewart is the biggest obstacle that most see with Williams, IMO. This is despite the fact that DeAngelo has just as good of a "pedigree" in terms of being a 1st round talent, has more experience, and had a sensational year and did more with the ball last year in similar situations.

When you factor in Gonzalez and Roddy White and Matt Ryan as well as Norwood's 100 carries, then I think Turner has even further to fall than DeAngelo. I don't think the presence of Stewart should be dropping him as far as it is. And I own Stewart and love his talent.

My counterpoints in bold.If Turner had done what he did AND Norwood had >40% of the carries, I think most of us would be downgrading Turner similarly.

 

[CBower4545]

The interesting thing to me is that the possibility of DeAngelo getting MORE carries hasn't been mentioned and I doubt is even considered a possibility by the vast majority here. One argument is that many people think Stewart is line for more carries. Why can't DeAngelo be in line for more carries? In 5 of the last 6 games of the year, he had 19 carries or more and 21+ in 3 of those 6 games. That works out to 304 carries for 2009. If you look at the entire 2nd half after the bye for a total of 8 games, he had a total of 153 carries. Again, that works out to 306 carries for 2009.

If you were John Fox and you could rest your best player without a big let down in production, wouldn't you do it? Most teams don't do it because there would be a huge let down in production. The argument isn't whether DWill is better then Stewart, it's is he so much better that Fox is forced to keep DWill on the field rather then resting him. Seriously if you have two great backs why wouldn't you want to get both on the field?

 

[Tau837]

Everybody gets so wrapped up in the "career year" thing. It's very likely that was his career year, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as people seem to think. He has a lot of room to "come down" and still be an excellent performer.I personally can't remember a time when the #1 overall guy in his prime from one year was ranked as low as Williams is going into the following year. I'm not saying there couldn't be a good reason for it, but it's very strange without an injury or a team change etc.It's gotta be Stewart that's scaring folks, there is no other reasonable explanation.

I thought this was a pretty reasonable explanation:

Also, one other question is whether the rushing TD total for Carolina in 2008 is so high (compared to other years) that it is clouding our view.Team rushing TDs by year:2008 302007 7 2006 72005 172004 102003 92002 112001 9If the team rushing TD number drops to 2005 level (or below), and Stewart gets some, it will obviously take a big toll on Williams' numbers for fantasy.

Certainly we cannot count on 30 rushing TDs again. However, I don't think there is a lot of predictive value in those past numbers. The Panthers OL is much better now than it was as recently as 2007. And the Panthers's duo of Williams & Stewart is much more talented than the groups in those previous seasons. On top of that, Steve Smith and/or Delhomme were hurt in some of those previous seasons, changing everything about their offense and how it was defended.

 

[-baller]

The interesting thing to me is that the possibility of DeAngelo getting MORE carries hasn't been mentioned and I doubt is even considered a possibility by the vast majority here. One argument is that many people think Stewart is line for more carries. Why can't DeAngelo be in line for more carries? In 5 of the last 6 games of the year, he had 19 carries or more and 21+ in 3 of those 6 games. That works out to 304 carries for 2009. If you look at the entire 2nd half after the bye for a total of 8 games, he had a total of 153 carries. Again, that works out to 306 carries for 2009.

If you were John Fox and you could rest your best player without a big let down in production, wouldn't you do it? Most teams don't do it because there would be a huge let down in production. The argument isn't whether DWill is better then Stewart, it's is he so much better that Fox is forced to keep DWill on the field rather then resting him. Seriously if you have two great backs why wouldn't you want to get both on the field?

tell it to deshaun foster.

 

[gianmarco]

This brings up another point. While I've already explained why I feel this is far from "the biggest reason to downgrade his stats", even if you did believe this was the case, why doesn't this also downgrade Michael Turner. He got to face the same schedule as Williams last year and will have to face that same "difficult" schedule this year.

Again, across the board, Turner remains a "sure bet" to repeat what he did last year despite

--Getting a tougher schedule compare to his easier one last year - this is bunk.

--Having a HUGE # of carries last year (376) - Still a MUCH higher chance of him getting 300+ than DWill

--Having a huge # of TDs (17) which seems that most think will be difficult to repeat (at least for Williams) - higher TD's from more carries. Dwill had a superhuman TD/Carry ratio.

--Having a significant addition in the passing game in the form of future-HOF TE Tony Gonzalez who finished as the #1 TE last year coupled with Matt Ryan entering his 2nd year. - An improved passing game does not have to mean a decrease in rushing.

People are very quick to discount what DeAngelo can do because his #'s likely won't be replicated and because Stewart is there and his schedule gets harder, but those same things face Turner with the exception of Stewart. The bottomline is that Stewart is the biggest obstacle that most see with Williams, IMO. This is despite the fact that DeAngelo has just as good of a "pedigree" in terms of being a 1st round talent, has more experience, and had a sensational year and did more with the ball last year in similar situations.

When you factor in Gonzalez and Roddy White and Matt Ryan as well as Norwood's 100 carries, then I think Turner has even further to fall than DeAngelo. I don't think the presence of Stewart should be dropping him as far as it is. And I own Stewart and love his talent.

My counterpoints in bold.If Turner had done what he did AND Norwood had >40% of the carries, I think most of us would be downgrading Turner similarly.

1. I know it's bunk. Yet it's being used as an argument against DeWill. Thus my point.2. I didn't say DeWill will get more carries than Turner. But I think it's a virtual lock that Turner gets fewer carries than last year. Thus, if DeWill can get more carries than last year (definitely possible), then the increased productivity on a per/touch basis could easily narrow the gap and make the disparity in carries insignficant. People are downgrading DeAngelo because they think his carries will go down. People aren't doing the same for Turner even though his carries will DEFINITELY go down.

3. I understand the difference in TD/carry ratio between the 2. Still, the argument against DeAngelo is that 20 TDs is very difficult to repeat regardless of the # of carries you get. Likewise, 17 TDs is a pretty lofty #. I'd be very willing to bet he doesn't match 17 TDs next year. I still think he's a very safe bet for double digit TDs, but this should likely decrease as well. I agree it will be to a smaller extent than Williams in this case.

4. You're right, an improved passing game doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in the rushing game. But it does when the RB was the offensive spotlight and had 376 carries and now the team is coming out and saying he will see a decreased load. That, and the piece added is a very significant weapon to be used when Turner was used in the past.

So again, I think some of these reasons to downgrade DeAngelo are kind of excuses for the real reason people want to downgrade him. Jonathan Stewart. The big question is, does Stewart really eat into his carries and scoring opportunities. There is plenty of evidence to suggest he won't. The fact that he's of similar pedigree (1st round pick), more experienced (4th yr vs. 2nd yr), less missed time due to injuries, increased production on similar carries (5.5 ypc vs. 4.5 ypc, etc.), and a 2nd half 8 game trend with DeAngelo getting more carries all point to DeAngelo likely getting MORE carries, not LESS. Thus, the concern about Stewart as a reason to downgrade him is higher than I think it should be There's no way we'll have an answer until the season starts, but the vast majority are predicting something that goes against what we've seen so far. Fox simply hasn't trusted 1st/2nd year RB's to get that much of a workload. Fox gave more carries as DeAngelo performed well. And DeAngelo just ran for 1500 yds and 20 TDs but people think he'll see the ball less. I just don't see it.

 

[fourd]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

That's a big IF though

I think a case can be made that it's a smaller IF than last year. Going into last year Williams hadn't proven anything. Now he has. And is that IF any bigger than the IFs surrounding SJax, Turner, Peterson, LT etc.?

The above listed RBs don't have a RB like Stewart on their team. That's the biggest difference. If Stewart was not on Carolina, I'm sure D Will would be higher across the board.

Right, they don't have other backs to wory about, they have other IFs. If SJax can stay healthy and if the new offense works and if the o-line is improved and if the qb can stay standing he may make his second appearance in the top 5. This from the unquestioned starter with no competition for touches. And so on with the other top picks. Williams did what he did last year with Stewart there and I don't see any reason for their use to be different this year. I don't have a problem with Williams ranked where he is as I would expect his tds to decrease, but I don't think it would surprise me if he ended up close to last year, either. Stewart has more to prove this year than Williams, IMO.

 

[gianmarco]

The interesting thing to me is that the possibility of DeAngelo getting MORE carries hasn't been mentioned and I doubt is even considered a possibility by the vast majority here. One argument is that many people think Stewart is line for more carries. Why can't DeAngelo be in line for more carries? In 5 of the last 6 games of the year, he had 19 carries or more and 21+ in 3 of those 6 games. That works out to 304 carries for 2009. If you look at the entire 2nd half after the bye for a total of 8 games, he had a total of 153 carries. Again, that works out to 306 carries for 2009.

If you were John Fox and you could rest your best player without a big let down in production, wouldn't you do it? Most teams don't do it because there would be a huge let down in production. The argument isn't whether DWill is better then Stewart, it's is he so much better that Fox is forced to keep DWill on the field rather then resting him. Seriously if you have two great backs why wouldn't you want to get both on the field?

So why did Adrian Peterson get 363 carries despite the presence of Chester Taylor? Chester honestly isn't a big let down in production. But I, like many others watching Vikings games last year, thought Childress was an idiot at times with his usage of the 2. Yes, there has to be a balance and there are times you can put the backup in, but in the end, you want your best players with the ball in their hands as much as you can. Stewart is a great RB. We saw that last year. But DeAngelo is that much better. He was phenomenal last year. He put up #'s that have only been put up by mainly HOF'ers. People had the same argument about Peterson at first. Chester was a 1200 yd rusher who did well with the ball in his hands. So sure, they could have split the carries more evenly last year and gotten similar production. But it didn't happen because Peterson deserved the ball more. I'm not trying to say the difference between AP and Chester is the same as the difference between Williams and Stewart, but there is still a difference (at least for now) between the latter. Until DeAngelo either falls off in production or Stewart joins him at that elite level, DeAngelo will remain the starter for Carolina and get the majority of the carries. I personally don't think DeAngelo falls off in production. A RB able to put up the #'s he did last year doesn't isn't a fluke. The talent is there and I think he can come close to replicating what he did. As for Stewart, I just don't see him getting the opportunity to reach that level just yet. Even if he does get that chance, as much as I like him, those are still very huge shoes to fill to be able to do what Williams did last year.

 

[gianmarco]

if Stewart wasn't on the roster, I bet DeAngelo would go no later than 1.3 in ANY draft of ANY format.

That's a big IF though

I think a case can be made that it's a smaller IF than last year. Going into last year Williams hadn't proven anything. Now he has. And is that IF any bigger than the IFs surrounding SJax, Turner, Peterson, LT etc.?

The above listed RBs don't have a RB like Stewart on their team. That's the biggest difference. If Stewart was not on Carolina, I'm sure D Will would be higher across the board.

Right, they don't have other backs to wory about, they have other IFs. If SJax can stay healthy and if the new offense works and if the o-line is improved and if the qb can stay standing he may make his second appearance in the top 5. This from the unquestioned starter with no competition for touches. And so on with the other top picks. Williams did what he did last year with Stewart there and I don't see any reason for their use to be different this year. I don't have a problem with Williams ranked where he is as I would expect his tds to decrease, but I don't think it would surprise me if he ended up close to last year, either. Stewart has more to prove this year than Williams, IMO.

 

[TS Garp]

The interesting thing to me is that the possibility of DeAngelo getting MORE carries hasn't been mentioned and I doubt is even considered a possibility by the vast majority here.

I actually put him down for 285 carries -- a very slight uptick over last year. My issue is that I don't see him maintaining his 5.5 ypc again. I think something in the neighborhood of 4.5 is more likely. I still think he'll have a great year, and don't see him doing anything less than 1,200/10, which I like, as I think his bust potential is one of the lowest among first rounders (along with ADP, Turner and MJD). However, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think there's a lot of pressure on him to make the absolute most of the carries he will get, as he doesn't have the margin for error that some others backs do. And I think that's a valid concern if you're looking at him at 1.5 or higher.

 

[CBower4545]

The interesting thing to me is that the possibility of DeAngelo getting MORE carries hasn't been mentioned and I doubt is even considered a possibility by the vast majority here.

One argument is that many people think Stewart is line for more carries. Why can't DeAngelo be in line for more carries? In 5 of the last 6 games of the year, he had 19 carries or more and 21+ in 3 of those 6 games. That works out to 304 carries for 2009. If you look at the entire 2nd half after the bye for a total of 8 games, he had a total of 153 carries. Again, that works out to 306 carries for 2009.

If you were John Fox and you could rest your best player without a big let down in production, wouldn't you do it? Most teams don't do it because there would be a huge let down in production. The argument isn't whether DWill is better then Stewart, it's is he so much better that Fox is forced to keep DWill on the field rather then resting him. Seriously if you have two great backs why wouldn't you want to get both on the field?

So why did Adrian Peterson get 363 carries despite the presence of Chester Taylor? Chester honestly isn't a big let down in production. But I, like many others watching Vikings games last year, thought Childress was an idiot at times with his usage of the 2. Yes, there has to be a balance and there are times you can put the backup in, but in the end, you want your best players with the ball in their hands as much as you can. Stewart is a great RB. We saw that last year. But DeAngelo is that much better. He was phenomenal last year. He put up #'s that have only been put up by mainly HOF'ers. People had the same argument about Peterson at first. Chester was a 1200 yd rusher who did well with the ball in his hands. So sure, they could have split the carries more evenly last year and gotten similar production. But it didn't happen because Peterson deserved the ball more. I'm not trying to say the difference between AP and Chester is the same as the difference between Williams and Stewart, but there is still a difference (at least for now) between the latter. Until DeAngelo either falls off in production or Stewart joins him at that elite level, DeAngelo will remain the starter for Carolina and get the majority of the carries. I personally don't think DeAngelo falls off in production. A RB able to put up the #'s he did last year doesn't isn't a fluke. The talent is there and I think he can come close to replicating what he did. As for Stewart, I just don't see him getting the opportunity to reach that level just yet. Even if he does get that chance, as much as I like him, those are still very huge shoes to fill to be able to do what Williams did last year.

I'm sorry but I think your comparing apples and oranges here. This comparison just does not seem to be a valid comparison without you making the argument that the the let down from AP to Chester is equal to the let down of DWill to Stewart, and I don't think your prepared to make that argument. If you can't make that argument the whole comparison falls apart. We are no longer talking about like things, we are then trying to compare to agreed different scenarios as if they were alike. The argument is that the gap between DWill and Stewart is small enough that it makes sense for Fox to more evenly distribute those carries.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think he does indeed have a harder schedule but just not to the extent that you were trying to portray using last year's #'s.

I think we actually agree, to some extent. I don't think I was portraying a huge decrease in his production. I also wasn't trying to make a proportional projection. The only thing I was showing was that there were 7 new opponents on the schedule who had better run defenses than the 7 who were leaving the schedule. I think most would think that his productivity would go down against a harder schedule. If you also think his schedule is harder, you've got to agree his productivity will likely go down as well. If so, the only way his total numbers can go up is if he gets significantly more touches.

 

[gianmarco]

I think he does indeed have a harder schedule but just not to the extent that you were trying to portray using last year's #'s.

I think we actually agree, to some extent. I don't think I was portraying a huge decrease in his production. I also wasn't trying to make a proportional projection. The only thing I was showing was that there were 7 new opponents on the schedule who had better run defenses than the 7 who were leaving the schedule. I think most would think that his productivity would go down against a harder schedule. If you also think his schedule is harder, you've got to agree his productivity will likely go down as well. If so, the only way his total numbers can go up is if he gets significantly more touches.

Well, you only called it "the biggest reason to downgrade his stats"

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think he does indeed have a harder schedule but just not to the extent that you were trying to portray using last year's #'s.

I think we actually agree, to some extent. I don't think I was portraying a huge decrease in his production. I also wasn't trying to make a proportional projection. The only thing I was showing was that there were 7 new opponents on the schedule who had better run defenses than the 7 who were leaving the schedule. I think most would think that his productivity would go down against a harder schedule. If you also think his schedule is harder, you've got to agree his productivity will likely go down as well. If so, the only way his total numbers can go up is if he gets significantly more touches.

Well, you only called it "the biggest reason to downgrade his stats"

The harder schedule is the biggest reason.

 

[CBower4545]

I think the biggest reason to downgrade his stats this year can be found in the schedules of last year versus this year. This year, he gets the NFC and AFC East. Last year, he had the NFC Central and the AFC West. Accounting for similar teams, the difference is this:

2008			  2009      Chi			   Dal   Det			   Was   GB				Phi   KC				NYJ   SD				Mia   Den			   NE   Oak			   Buf

The 7 rushing defenses for those team in 2008 averaged 30 rpg for 4.55 ypc and gave up 21.6 TDs for the year. The 7 defenses that will replace those in 2009 averaged 25.7 rpg for 3.97 ypc and gave up about 11 TDs for the year. This can easily explain a decrease in the number of rushes by Carolina along with a decrease in ypc and a decrease in rushing TDs.

Sure, and in 2007, just 1 year prior to that, the 1st group gave up 27.2 rpg/4.14 ypc/12.5 TDs vs. 28.6 rpg/4.32 ypc/14.5 TDs. That was just 2 years ago and only 1 year away from the stats you posted. Things can change A LOT in 1 year. So using the 2007 stats between those 2, I would say there's not much reason for concern at all.

Exactly. I did a Strength of Schedule analysis last year that looked at predictive power of previous season's defensive rankings. Guess what? On average, teams regress to the mean. In other words, last season's defensive ranking doesn't mean a whole lot.

I don't think you can call a player's schedule to be the biggest reason to do anything in their ranking either up or down.

 

[gianmarco]

I think he does indeed have a harder schedule but just not to the extent that you were trying to portray using last year's #'s.

I think we actually agree, to some extent. I don't think I was portraying a huge decrease in his production. I also wasn't trying to make a proportional projection. The only thing I was showing was that there were 7 new opponents on the schedule who had better run defenses than the 7 who were leaving the schedule. I think most would think that his productivity would go down against a harder schedule. If you also think his schedule is harder, you've got to agree his productivity will likely go down as well. If so, the only way his total numbers can go up is if he gets significantly more touches.

Well, you only called it "the biggest reason to downgrade his stats"

The harder schedule is the biggest reason.

I disagree. As stated above this, it should NEVER be the biggest reason to upgrade or downgrade anyone.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but:

1) A RB having an incredible easy (or hard) schedule last year is a very important piece of information. He should definitely be downgraded (or upgraded) as a result of that.

2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless; he should definitely not be upgraded (or downgraded) because of that.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless;

Are you saying that a stat like defensive yards per carry would be completely uncorrelated from 2007 to 2008?

 

[-baller]

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but:1) A RB having an incredible easy (or hard) schedule last year is a very important piece of information. He should definitely be downgraded (or upgraded) as a result of that.2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless; he should definitely not be upgraded (or downgraded) because of that.

it's a valid point, but I think #2 is really exaggerated.what we're doing is prognosticating future performance --- is there some particular reason we can only do this on the offensive side of the ball and not the defensive side, as well?all this does is give us some guy's guess, not the set in stone stats you have in case #1, but educated guessing is what fantasy football is about.

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless;

Are you saying that a stat like defensive yards per carry would be completely uncorrelated from 2007 to 2008?

No, defensive YPC would be slightly correlated from year to year. But that's just one team, and each team makes up a very small part of a RB's SOS. The predicted SOS (which is what we're trying to do here) is, IMO, useless because there would be no correlation between predicted SOS and actual SOS (measured at the end of the year).Note that what Clayton does is a bit different and slightly relevant -- but his predictive SOS is not just a regurgitation of last year's stats.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but:

1) A RB having an incredible easy (or hard) schedule last year is a very important piece of information. He should definitely be downgraded (or upgraded) as a result of that.

2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless; he should definitely not be upgraded (or downgraded) because of that.

it's a valid point, but I think #2 is really exaggerated.what we're doing is prognosticating future performance --- is there some particular reason we can only do this on the offensive side of the ball and not the defensive side, as well?

all this does is give us some guy's guess, not the set in stone stats you have in case #1, but educated guessing is what fantasy football is about.

If you're making an accurate, educated guess, sure. But regurgitating stats is going to be useless.Recall this post -- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=17 -- which shows predicted W-L records based on the prior year's results -- is meaningless.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but:

1) A RB having an incredible easy (or hard) schedule last year is a very important piece of information. He should definitely be downgraded (or upgraded) as a result of that.

2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless; he should definitely not be upgraded (or downgraded) because of that.

it's a valid point, but I think #2 is really exaggerated.what we're doing is prognosticating future performance --- is there some particular reason we can only do this on the offensive side of the ball and not the defensive side, as well?

all this does is give us some guy's guess, not the set in stone stats you have in case #1, but educated guessing is what fantasy football is about.

If you're making an accurate, educated guess, sure. But regurgitating stats is going to be useless.Recall this post -- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=17 -- which shows predicted W-L records based on the prior year's results -- is meaningless.

Thanks Chase. I'll try to dig up my study on this topic from last year, but basically I looked at prior year FF points allowed by a defense (rushing, passing, total) and looked for a correlation to the subsequent year. The correlation was extremely weak. This was true across either a 5-year or 10-year sample size (can't remember anymore how far back I went).

 

[BuckeyeArt]

2) A RB having an incredibly easy (or hard) predicted SOS this year is just about meaningless;

Are you saying that a stat like defensive yards per carry would be completely uncorrelated from 2007 to 2008?

No, defensive YPC would be slightly correlated from year to year.

Around 0.4 to 0.5 actually. If you take away a bunch of high ypc from a RB's schedule and add a bunch of low ypc to a RB's schedule (even if it's last year's ypc numbers since they are somewhat correlated to the following year), I find it hard to believe that the prediciton is meaningless.

 

[BassNBrew]

A key point to remember

Season Fumbles FUM Lost

2008 -- --

2007 1 1

2006 1 0

TOTAL 2 1

Stewart fumbled twice and lost one.