Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
31 Tatum Bell, Den 31 * 30 * 31 26 * 34 31 34 31 30 29 19 * * 32 31.70 34 Quentin Griffin, Den 34 31 * 22 * 31 * 33 * * * * * * 29 31 * 33.95 35 Garrison Hearst, Den * * 29 * * * 31 * * * 33 31 * * * * 33 34.40
Yeah, but what's wrong with that?Obviously all of the Denver RBs come with a heavy element of uncertainty attached. So why is it unreasonable to include that uncertainty in their rankings.Say I think that Q will be the man in Denver this year, tearing it up for 1600 yards and 15+ TDs. Does it follow that I should rank Q as a top 5 RB? No way. Surely the presence of Bell and Hearst should induce me to discount those projections. Players with a high degree of uncertainty around their projections get ranked lower than those you can project more confidently.
All speculation at this point. The FBG staff may be wise, but they're not fortune tellers. I'm more interested in seeing how an "expert" discounts uncertainty than ill-informed quesswork on how Shanahan will handle his RBs.
Ivan, it is discounted when you average the opinions as a whole. The point of experts rankings aren't to try to discount everything to a mean on the front end. The bottom line is that I want opinions from the best in the business. I'd much rather see Bell, Hearst, and Griffin up at #15 on several lists and generate some discussion as to why. The average postion will still net around #30.
I know what you're saying Bass N Brew, but at this point it's just so close that who do you put at 15. I know you're saying, well that's what the experts are supposed to tell us, but the info just isn't there.I wish we had the cure for Aids, but we don't. It doesn't mean the doctors working trying to find that answer are not experts, just the info isn't there.Like I said, Shanny doesn't even know what's he is going to do yet. I think Bell struggles early on, how about you?
This thread is much more gentle than what we'd see had any one of the staffers ranked Tatum Bell in the top 10 (or showed nads, as you say).Ranking the Denver RBs right now is a no-win situationBTW, don't forget about Reuben Droughns. He looks like the darkhorse stud of the bunch.
Exactly, unless you really felt that way. But you can't just say Bell is going to be No.13, and then in 3 weeks find out he's having a horrible camp and then say Griffin 18. Meanwhile, there are drafts going on and people who look at what the staffers are thinking will start to wonder if they know what the heck they're doing.I too like to see people get off the fence, but in this particular case, I think it's justified. However, as we get closer to more redrafts, it would be nice to see some seperation, and I'm sure there will be.Opening day1. Griffith1a. Hearst3. Bell
So, what you're saying is because a Denver RB has been known to run for 1400 yards and score 15 TD's, one of these guys should be in the top 5 on every list, despite the fact that none of the "experts" or anyone else in their right mind would actually draft them there? And this helps the less experienced FFer (which I would assume is the target audience for these rankings) in what way?
The probability that George is going to start this year has decreased recently, so his ranking as decreased along with it.
Rudi has an excellent chance of starting and doing well. I said above that I'd need to be about 90% sure that Bell would be the featured guy in Denver before ranking him in my top 20. Well, I am about 90% sure that Rudi will be the featured back in Cincy.
The probability that Warner will end up starting this year is fairly high. It looks like the Giants are interested in him, and I'd be pretty surprised if he can't beat out Manning.
Precisely. We're making decisions based on all the info currently available, filtered through our own personal opinions.
Our rankings and AntSports's ADPs are both based on current opinions.I think Q.Griffin is the most likely Denver RB to end up in the top 20. But for me to actually rank him in my top 20, it's not enough that he be more likely than Hearst to end up there; he has to be more likely than Thomas Jones (my current #20) to end up there.
Well I guess that depends. If the rankings are suppose to mirror where to draft someone, I guess not. If they are supposed to be an opinion of where the players will finish in points at the end of the year, it would be very helpful. If a couple of experts had Bell in the top 20 and another couple had Griffin there, then the average for the site will still end up around 30 for both players. This would still capture the fact that much remains in doubt and that opinions vary widely. What I seeing now is basically...we have no opinion or it's too difficult for us to figure out so we're not going to try.Here's my opinion: Hearst is getting up in age and Shanahan doesn't envision him as the feature back for the entire year. Hearst should not be ranked until both Griffin and Bell prove they're not capable of handling the job. I believe I read that Anderson was being moved to FB, so he's out of the mix. I read enough opinions that I respect that see Griffin as a change of pace back. IMO that leaves Bell as the man based upon what I know now. I would expect him to get a bigger role towards the end of the year. Carries will likely be shared, like they were in Portis's rookie year, on the front end. As of now, I'd put Bell in the 15-20 range as far as expectations and look to draft him around #30 to #35 to get excellent value and mitigate the risk that I'm misreading the situation.
And not ONE of the "experts" has a strong enough opinion on the Denver RB position to stray away from what their current ADP is?It seems that everyone on staff is so afraid to post their actual rankings and instead just going with current ADP to play it safe and avoid conflict.There is no way that 20 high skilled and confident FF gurus can have such similar rankings. If I want ADP i'll go to Antsports, I come to FBG's to get a little extra insight, so please give it to me and quit bailing out using ADP.I would bet my life that at this very moment Shanahan has a pretty good idea of who he is gonna give the bulk of the carries to. So I leave it up to the FBG's to give me some insight on who it is Shanahan is planning on going with.Filter through the info, read between the lines, and give me a strong confident opinion instead of a wishy washy one. That is all I ask.Bob
I haven't looked at any ADP info this year. I've given you my actual rankings.
76% chance there is a featured back.24% chance there isn't a featured back.MT ranks Griffin at 33 and Bell at 34 - 76% chance that he's incorrect based upon his own numbers.Again, not picking on you individually MT. The 76% chance there's a feature back in your opinion is actually very helpful. I wonder if this opinion is in the majority or if most experts see a true RBBC situation. That's where I was going with this.
So you think Q Griffin is leading the way with the inside track.
Also, I understand that you and many feel it is a totally screwed up situation, but there has to be at least ONE FBG staffer who feels confident about one of those guys getting the bulk of work, and they should have that reflected in their rankings and not be afraid to do so.I think it's a bad sign that not ONE out of 20+ staffers has a confident opinion on the situation.Being able to decifer a situation like this before everything is spelled out is what seperates the men from the boys in FF.Great point and that's exactly what i'm saying.If every FBG staffer thinks it's gonna be RBBC then I understand the rankings.But for the FBG's who feel that Denver is gonna have a feature RB, I'd expect a few of them to feel fairly confident about who it will be and adjust their rankings accordingly.
So you think Hearst was brought in to mentor the rookies?For the record, I think Hearst has the best chance to start.Reasons why:1) Griffith had his chance and looked mediocre which is why Shanny brought in Bell and Hearst2) Hearst still looked like he was 25 last year when healthy, and it's not inconceivable that he can be injury free for the most part this year as well3) Even though Portis was nothing short of spectacular in the preseason of his rookie year, Shanny still didn't start him until game 5/6(somewhere around there)...thus it would be safe to assume that the best case scenario is game 5/6 for Bell and I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that Bell is no Portis.4) Hearst didn't go to Denver to sit...he hates sitting and he held off Barlow for years in part due to his competitive spirit.5) Everybody will rally around Hearst...he was the most popular guy in SF and will most likely have the same sort of team backing in Denver...just a very likable guy. My percentages if there is going to be a featured guy:50% Hearst30% Griffin15% Bell5% AndersonBell = overvaluedHearst = undervalued
It actually looks extremely plausible. Here's why: Hearst is getting up there in age. That is certain. However, he is still a good RB (not a great one, but a good one) and is a good fit for this offense - especially in passing situations. He's terrific at blitz pickups (one key reason why he was able to hold off Barlow for so long) and is an accomplished receiver. Both of those skills alone could get him on the field plenty this season. Griffin looks like a turf RB. He blew apart the Colts in the dome last season, but then on turf against the Packers the next week he looked like garbage. Toss in his dimunitive size and he looks like a good change-of-pace RB, but not a starter. Anderson isn't likely to play halfback, but from a fantasy perspective he could provide value and impact the value of the other RBs because he looks like a classic TD vulture. He vultured TDs away from Portis last season and none of these RBs appear to have Portis' talent, which could lead Anderson to stealing 5-7 more TDs this season. Bell is obviously the wild card. He almost certainly was drafted to be "the guy," but he brings with him some questions: Can he run between the tackles and can he hold onto the ball being two of the bigger ones. If he can answer those questions and pick up the system quickly (especially blitz pickups, which is often the most difficult thing for rookie RBs to grasp), he's the one guy who looks like he could be a full-time RB for the Broncos this season. But if he struggles in any way or if any of the other RBs show enough to cloud the situation, then we're going to be staring smack dab at a RBBC situation. Assuming Bell doesn't blow up in camp, my guess is Hearst's experience will enable him to be the Broncos' Week 1 "starter," and Bell gets a shot at the job no later than Week 5. But it wouldn't surprise me one bit if all of these RBs continued to have roles in the running game all season long and the Broncos played the RBBC game full tilt throughout the season.
Ding Ding Ding...and the only way Hearst will be yanked is if he goes down to injury(IMO.) I'll take the week 1 starter over the other guys thank you. People seem to think Hearst is as slow as Emmit...having lived in SF and watching pretty much every play, I can tell you he is definitley better than Griffin...and I mean no-contest-better.
I'm much more likely to be incorrect than that.My projection for Q.Griffin is calculated (roughly) this way: (chance that he'll be featured guy) * (points he'll get if featured guy) + (chance of RBBC) * (points he'll get in RBBC) + (chance someone else will be featured guy) + (points he'll get if someone else is featured guy).Doing it that way, he and Bell end up pretty close together since they're in similar positions right now in a lot of ways.
With guys as talented as Q.Griff and T.Bell are, I think there's a pretty good chance that one of them will get hot. It's also possible that one of them will get injured. If either of those things happen, I think Shanny will go primarily with one guy.As for who it will be, I wouldn't take 1:1 or even 2:1 odds on either one of them. The combined chances of RBBC/Anderson/Hearst are just enough to make me shy away from that bet.
why do you (and others) continue to call him Griffith?just a hint: you should probably learn the name of people you are ripping/discrediting if you want people to take you seriously.
Thanks for the hint...I'm not sure why I do that. And if you want people take you seriously you should add value to the thread and not harp on spellingwhy do you (and others) continue to call him Griffith?just a hint: you should probably learn the name of people you are ripping/discrediting if you want people to take you seriously.
I think if anyone has a confident opinion on this situation, it's a sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I bet not even Shanahan has a strong opinion right now. Camp hasn't even begun yet, and that's where the job will be won or lost.
The other key point about Hearst that always seems to get lost -- and is almost always lost when the Barlow discussions come up -- is that he can still play. When evaluating the Hearst-Barlow situation in SF, I think many people mistakenly tried to place all the blame on Barlow not doing enough without realizing Hearst was still playing well. Again, he's not a great RB, but he's still a good one. In addition, his experience could be huge for the Broncos this season. And don't overlook the contributions he can make in the passing game. In this offense, that could be a HUGE advantage in his favor - especially when you factor in the major questions that currently surround Denver's passing game. Personally, I'm not comfortable drafting any of the Denver RBs at this point, but I do think Hearst is going to be very undervalued and that makes him arguably Denver's most appealing RB (especially since Bell has all the makings of being very overvalued). If you carry a flex spot in your league, he's exactly the type of guy who could be a nice value pick this season as a RB3 or (even better) a RB4.
Exactly...I get the feeling that a lot of people either didn't see how good Hearst looked last year or they are forgetting. Either way they are clearly undervaluing Hearst.The two-time comeback player of the year...not the guy you want to be writing off.
My response to that is that ff is about playing the odds, not about being wrong or right. Everybody is wrong and right in this game...it's the person that places the best odds on these types of situations that is successfull...especially those of us drafting in Survivor leagues currently.
it's more than just spelling. it makes it sound like you have no idea who the player is or what he is capable of.Thanks for the hint...I'm not sure why I do that. And if you want people take you seriously you should add value to the thread and not harp on spellingwhy do you (and others) continue to call him Griffith?just a hint: you should probably learn the name of people you are ripping/discrediting if you want people to take you seriously.
right now, the situation is a mess and the odds should indicate that. no player is miles above the rest.consider this hypothetical scenario:60% chance that 1 RB will emerge as the feature back40% chance that it is some form of RBBC30% chance that it is Tatum Bell30% chance that it is Quentin Griffin30% chance that it is Garrison Hearst10% chance that it is Mike Andersonhow do you rank the players? sure, there is a 60% chance that someone will emerge, but the chances of picking the right player are much much smaller.
Because I mistakenly put -th instead of -n. I'm pretty sure my analysis speaks for itself. But from now on I'll go out of my way to get the spellings of the names right for ya.it's more than just spelling. it makes it sound like you have no idea who the player is or what he is capable of.Thanks for the hint...I'm not sure why I do that. And if you want people take you seriously you should add value to the thread and not harp on spellingwhy do you (and others) continue to call him Griffith?just a hint: you should probably learn the name of people you are ripping/discrediting if you want people to take you seriously.
Considering I lived in SF last season, I'd say my comments have just as much validity with regards to Hearst's capability as anybody else's on this board.
agreed about Hearst...but if you are going to say he is "no-contest" better than GRIFFIN, it would also be nice to know that you have seen GRIFFIN play a lot as well and are very familiar with his abilities. if you have no idea what his name is, then how much do you really know about his game? Since you have yet to quantify your knowledge of Griffin or elaborate on your opinion of him in the same way you did for Hearst, your spelling of his name is all one has to go on when reading your post.not a big deal...just seems like you may be evaluating this situation based on your knowledge of Hearst, with little regard for Griffin and his abilities (and perhaps Bell as well).Because I mistakenly put -th instead of -n. I'm pretty sure my analysis speaks for itself. But from now on I'll go out of my way to get the spellings of the names right for ya.it's more than just spelling. it makes it sound like you have no idea who the player is or what he is capable of.Thanks for the hint...I'm not sure why I do that. And if you want people take you seriously you should add value to the thread and not harp on spellingwhy do you (and others) continue to call him Griffith?just a hint: you should probably learn the name of people you are ripping/discrediting if you want people to take you seriously.
That's exactly my point. Anybody can say "Griffin will be the featured guy." And maybe he'll be right. He'll be right a little less than 1 in 3 times, in my opinion. But if you want to play the odds, 1 in 3 isn't very good for a high-round pick. So saying "Griffin will be the guy" or "Hearst will be the guy" or "Bell will be the guy" are not good bets if you're interested in playing the odds.Of course, you may estimate the odds differently from me. But if you want to see my estimation, it's reflected in my rankings.
So because the situation is a mess you throw your hands up in the air?I've stated my reasons for Hearst being the odds on favorite to start week 1. Take them for what they're worth. I'm pretty sure my record in direct competition against persons on this board speaks for itself.My point is this...the first Denver RB that should be drafted at this point in time is Hearst.(assuming re-draft obviously)
no you don't throw your hands up in the air. but to avoid risk, you don't draft riskier players above safer players. Denver RBs are thus ranked according to their level of risk/reward as determined by us staff members. Others may value the potential reward and upside of a player more and rank accordingly.we've had a very similar discussion about Keyshawn Johnson.
Ok and I believe Shanahan answered those question by taking bell in the 2nd round. If there were any questions that Bell could not would fit the Bronco's mold or that he wouldn’t be able to handle a starting RB’s duties, they would of not drafted him that early.In this particular case, it is reasonable to rely solely on the Bronco’s decision to draft Bell. They have had the best track record of making rookie RBs produce. Sure they missed on the WRs or DBs they drafted… but you can’t argue with their RB picks!Griffin has no real shot of being a starter for the whole season, same with Anderson. Because if they did they wouldn’t draft a RB in the 2nd round.
BNB, below is how I ranked my RBs in the "Replying to Expert Rankings - Top 30 Running Backs" thread HERE. I agree with you that the Denver RB situation is clearer than others are seeing it, and so I went out there with a #16 ranking. A few games sharing carries, then the job is his. Would I draft him as the 16th back (and about the 20th+ player) off the board? Of course not, because I don't have to take him that early to get him. My rankings were not meant to fall in line with prevailing consensus opinion with a minor tweak or to be my opinion of where players could be drafted. They are meant to reflect my opinion of where they will end the season. I am aware others will strongly disagree with my rankings, and that's great. It's why we need to get our real opinions out there and discuss them.
that logic is flawed.they lost Portis and were not totally comfortable with the RBs they had, so they added Hearst and Bell. I'm sure they hope that one of the RBs will emerge.It's always better to have depth than not to have depth.besides, the pick they used on Bell was a gift from the Redskins anyway.
Wow.I'm speechless on that comment. Shocked and speechless.
