Denver RB Rankings (1 Viewer)

[BassNBrew]

Basically, I think this thread is all about blaming your cat for not being a dog. The expert rankings are supposed to show where the staff would draft various players, all things (probabilities) considered. If you want to know who favors who in the Denver QB derby, that's a somewhat different topic.

Appartently Ivan isn't clear on what your rankings actually represent MT. I sure he's not the only one.

 

[Marc Levin]

There is NOTHING to analyze right now.

I don't agree with ya here at all. There is tons to analyze right now. Tons of information on all of Denver's RB's.They have played in televised games, scouting reports, Shanahans coaching tendencys, how the NFL draft went down, ect, ect, ect.

The goal is to take all that information, which there is a ton of, and come up with the best educated decision you can make and be confident in how you broke down the situation based on all the variables.

If after your analysis you see RBBC, then great. If you see them going with a main RB, great, now it's up to you to take all that info and predict who that will be.

I have displayed plenty of "analysis" of the situation as have all the FBGuy staff members who chimed in here - it is NOT up to us as staff to make complete guesses in our rankings - it is to make EDUCATED guesses.I have no strong feelings that any one specific back among the four possibilities has a better or worse chance of starting.

Right now, as far as I am concerned, here's the "Bob-worthy" analysis you seem to want:

Each of the four backs (Hearst, Anderson, Griffin and Bell) has a 25% chance of earning the start, there is also a 50% chance Shannie will run a RBBC behind the starter and not allow the starter to get to 20 carries in any game. That's the analaysis right now.

In three weeks, when reports come in from the mini-camps, and in a month, when training camo is getting ready to open, I'll change those odds and I'll probably have a bold projection of which Denver back will finish top-20.

I "believe" (based on pure speculation of what I know about Hearst's character and Shannie's course of keeping rookies from getting too swelled of a head and making them EARN their place) that Hearst will be the opening day starter getting the bulk of the carries for the first game or two and that Bell will be spelling him frequently during the game - similar to Gary/Portis or Moe Williams/Ontarrio Smith. Unlike the Moe Williams sitch, it'll play out like the Gary/Portis sitch and Bell will win the job from Hearst by game 3 or 4, but Hearst will still get a lot of carries over the course of the year.

Griffin will be Bell's backup, Anderson will be used frequently, especially near the goalline, and if Hearst gets injured, Anderson will step into his role.

 

[LHUCKS]

Last comment ... to pick on speliing of Griffin (th) is nothing but "playground" and does not make me think less of the original poster, but makes me think less of you. It almost seems like you can't make your point about the rankings so you bring spelling up. Take a good read of the FBG staff articles and posts and you will find similar errors so please ... everyone ... give this type of childishness a rest.

Nice to see. Glad my sentiment wasn't misplaced.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Basically, I think this thread is all about blaming your cat for not being a dog. The expert rankings are supposed to show where the staff would draft various players, all things (probabilities) considered. If you want to know who favors who in the Denver QB derby, that's a somewhat different topic.

Appartently Ivan isn't clear on what your rankings actually represent MT. I sure he's not the only one.

Well, in most cases, there's no difference between "where I would draft a guy" and "where I expect him to end up at the end of the year."In general, if I think Player A will do better than Player B this year, I'll draft Player A ahead of Player B.There are exceptions to this, but it's impossible to build them into a static cheatsheet. They depend on too many things that a cheatsheet can't know -- e.g., the overall makeup of the rest of your team, how the other teams in your league have been drafting so far, etc.

 

[Couch Potato]

I'm off to watch a little hockey 'n hoops.

Dude, this is the NFL offseason. It's the second most important time of year, trailing only the NFL season.Get back in here and finish your Denver Bronco analysis! What's Ashley Lelie going to do this year?

Smack talk is definitely improving, Maurile. I'm pleased. But don't forget the !@#$%&* stuff for emphasis!I really love this MB. It would have been so easy for this conversation to degenerate into simple namecalling (read: RSFF); instead it has been a pleasure.Seeya!(Gonna kick your !@#$%&* booty on Saturday MT and AR!)

 

[LHUCKS]

Well, in most cases, there's no difference between "where I would draft a guy" and "where I expect him to end up at the end of the year."In general, if I think Player A will do better than Player B this year, I'll draft Player A ahead of Player B.

Are you saying that you don't take upside guys with your backup positions in re-drafts?

 

[Marc Levin]

Hmmmm...we obviously have different opinions about the rankings.Camp 1: They're suppose to reflect where a player should be drafted.Camp 2: They're suppose to reflect the best estimate of the end of year point totals.Camp 3: They're suppose to be a combination of 1 and 2 based upon which ever one the corresponding staff member gives more weight to.What is the official FBG.com position on this?

Mine are based on Camp 2, which is how we're graded out at the end of the year.

That's generally how I do it too - the problem with the Denver back rankings is that picking the one that might generate 1200/10 is only a 25% probablity of being correct. Things will get straightened out when I see some mini camp reports.PLUS, there is the distinct possibility that two backs will fill one spot - with the loss of Sharpe and McCaffrey, more passes to the backs may happen, and we may see Hearst as the primary runner and Bell or Griffin used a lot in the pasing game or something.I think the look of Denver's offense this year is going to be a LOT different than years past without McCaffrey and Sharpe blocking downfield - you will see Denver's RB's YPC drop from the 5 and above to the 4.4 range - a lot fewer long runs.

 

[BassNBrew]

Basically, I think this thread is all about blaming your cat for not being a dog.  The expert rankings are supposed to show where the staff would draft various players, all things (probabilities) considered.  If you want to know who favors who in the Denver QB derby, that's a somewhat different topic.

Appartently Ivan isn't clear on what your rankings actually represent MT. I sure he's not the only one.

Well, in most cases, there's no difference between "where I would draft a guy" and "where I expect him to end up at the end of the year."In general, if I think Player A will do better than Player B this year, I'll draft Player A ahead of Player B.There are exceptions to this, but it's impossible to build them into a static cheatsheet. They depend on too many things that a cheatsheet can't know -- e.g., the overall makeup of the rest of your team, how the other teams in your league have been drafting so far, etc.

I expect Bell to finish top 15-20 (based upon the information I have at the moment), but would look to draft him around #35. That's a pretty significant difference. I can think of several QBs that fall into the same situation. Obviously this will only apply when you see someone who you predict will over achiever, becuase you would never draft a guy higher then you expect him to finish the year.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Are you saying that you don't take upside guys with your backup positions in re-drafts?

As an overall strategy, that's exactly what I try to do -- but again with plenty of exceptions. It really depends on the structure of the league: how many teams are there, how deep are the rosters, what's the pay-out structure (for money leagues), etc? Again, these things can't really be built into a cheatsheet.

 

[Chase Stuart]

First, I agree with just about everything MT said. Look at it this way.Say you believe that Bell has a 40 percent change, Hearst a 20% chance, Griffin 20%, RBBC 10%, and Anderson 10%. Now, according to SOME people, this should make me put Bell in the top fifteen. We all agree that if Bell was the feauted back he would be top fifteen, and we say that he is most likely to be in the top fifteen. However, what about this? According to my projections, he is more likely to NOT be the feature back than to be the feature back. Now what do I do? Knowing the following:a) A feature back is likely to emerge (90%)b) Of all the backs, it's most likely to be Bell (40%--more than TWICE anyone else)c) It's more likely that Bell ISN'T the feature back than he IS the feature back.How am I supposed to rank like that? You MUST include risk factors into your projections. For those who rank Bell 18 and Faulk 19, would you trade Faulk straight up for Bell? If that was offered to you, you MUST accept that (if you know you won't be able to get anything more from the owner), or else you don't REALLY believe Bell is better. Would you?I'm not sure who I think the feature back will be. It's just a terrible shame Quentin wasn't a half inch taller and five pounds heavier, otherwise he could be the greatest RB in the history of pro football (according to some people).

 

[Chase Stuart]

I expect Bell to finish top 15-20 (based upon the information I have at the moment), but would look to draft him around #35. That's a pretty significant difference. I can think of several QBs that fall into the same situation. Obviously this will only apply when you see someone who you predict will over achiever, becuase you would never draft a guy higher then you expect him to finish the year.

Let's say it's your pick and a huge Bell owner picks after you. He ranked Bell 22nd on his rankings. 22 RBs have already gone. Do you take Bell now? Or do you not take him since it's not RB30 time yet?In my opinion, you don't have an unbelievably strong feeling in a player if you will only draft him fifteen spots after you think he's worth. What if you're playing in a league where everyone thinks similar to you? Or a Denver homer league? Shouldn't you still take Bell at RB21 or 22?Note: I don't know who I like yet. Another thing to consider is that IMO, Hearst's upside is NOT the same as either Griffin's or Bell's. Hearst MAY have a greater chance at being the featured back, but that value could be lost if he's got a lesser chance of being a top five back (but maybe a better chance of being a top 25 back).

 

[footballman_696969]

For those who rank Bell 18 and Faulk 19, would you trade Faulk straight up for Bell?

I do not rank Bell 18 and Faulk 19, but even if I did.. I would not accept that trade. You could probably get Bell AND more for Faulk.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I expect Bell to finish top 15-20 (based upon the information I have at the moment), but would look to draft him around #35. That's a pretty significant difference. I can think of several QBs that fall into the same situation. Obviously this will only apply when you see someone who you predict will over achiever, becuase you would never draft a guy higher then you expect him to finish the year.

Let's say it's your pick and a huge Bell owner picks after you. He ranked Bell 22nd on his rankings. 22 RBs have already gone. Do you take Bell now? Or do you not take him since it's not RB30 time yet?In my opinion, you don't have an unbelievably strong feeling in a player if you will only draft him fifteen spots after you think he's worth. What if you're playing in a league where everyone thinks similar to you? Or a Denver homer league? Shouldn't you still take Bell at RB21 or 22?Note: I don't know who I like yet. Another thing to consider is that IMO, Hearst's upside is NOT the same as either Griffin's or Bell's. Hearst MAY have a greater chance at being the featured back, but that value could be lost if he's got a lesser chance of being a top five back (but maybe a better chance of being a top 25 back).

Again, we seem to be confusing A) where a player should be drafted and B) where a player is projected to end up at the end of the year.I agree with Bass, using the above as my description I would have Bell around #28-30 for (A) and around 16-18 for (B). I don't mean to sound like an ###, but why is this so difficult to understand?If anyone strongly believes that any Denver RB will end up in the top 15-20, then that is exactly where they should be ... this is the type of information that will help those that are currently drafting.If information becomes available that changes your opinion in 3, 4 or 6 weeks, so be it ... make the change and move on.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For those who rank Bell 18 and Faulk 19, would you trade Faulk straight up for Bell?

I do not rank Bell 18 and Faulk 19, but even if I did.. I would not accept that trade. You could probably get Bell AND more for Faulk.

But what if you couldn't? What if that owner LOVES Bell.Or what if you're up in a no trade league, and you know both Bell and Faulk will be gone with your next pick. To me, that's always the test I use for MY rankings.

 

[joffer]

I expect Bell to finish top 15-20 (based upon the information I have at the moment), but would look to draft him around #35.  That's a pretty significant difference.  I can think of several QBs that fall into the same situation.  Obviously this will only apply when you see someone who you predict will over achiever, becuase you would never draft a guy higher then you expect him to finish the year.

Let's say it's your pick and a huge Bell owner picks after you. He ranked Bell 22nd on his rankings. 22 RBs have already gone. Do you take Bell now? Or do you not take him since it's not RB30 time yet?In my opinion, you don't have an unbelievably strong feeling in a player if you will only draft him fifteen spots after you think he's worth. What if you're playing in a league where everyone thinks similar to you? Or a Denver homer league? Shouldn't you still take Bell at RB21 or 22?Note: I don't know who I like yet. Another thing to consider is that IMO, Hearst's upside is NOT the same as either Griffin's or Bell's. Hearst MAY have a greater chance at being the featured back, but that value could be lost if he's got a lesser chance of being a top five back (but maybe a better chance of being a top 25 back).

Again, we seem to be confusing A) where a player should be drafted and B) where a player is projected to end up at the end of the year.I agree with Bass, using the above as my description I would have Bell around #28-30 for (A) and around 16-18 for (B). I don't mean to sound like an ###, but why is this so difficult to understand?

It's not difficult to understand, but you seem to be implying that there are several staffers that BELIEVE one of the Denver RBs will finish that high, but are hesitant to do so. And when I say "believe", I mean have a confidence level greater than a certain number. I think the argument here is how confident do you think someone has to be before they make that ranking. For me, it would have to be at least 60%.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Honostly, I'm surpirsed at some of the Message Board Guys at thinking that the staff is supposed to have who's the starting tailback for Denver right now a year after Portis is gone, they have a 2nd year RB, a rookie RB, and a free agent veteran RB.Even when you look at The FBG rankings, it's an average of what all those experts are picking.For example, let's say Aaron R. picks Hearst as his #15 back, then Bryant picks Hearst as his#20 back, but Levin doesn't doesn't rank him in the top 40, and either does Trembley. You still come up with an average in the 30's unless the entire staff was on 1 guy, and I just see that as impossible at this point.To me, an expert doesn't throw out wild rankings, like Bell #15, Justin Fargas #18, and Julius Jones #7. Eventually if you throw out enough crap one of them will come pretty close, but who's going to take you seriously after it doesn't work a couple times.Let's say I visited this site to try it out. I see Bell ranked #15 and I take their advice and he's a flop, I'd think they know nothing. They lost their cred with me, the guys a bumb.In my opinion, please don't tell me that the guys is No.15 unless you feel and have quality information to back it up that he's going to be #15.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure a couple of them agreed that a Denver RB would most likely finish the season in the top 20.

But not one includes any Denver RB in their top 20 rankings. Assuming the lists we are speaking of are not A) where the player should be drafted, but B) where the player will end up .... the question is why?

This really appears to be "group think". Someone earlier made a reference to many business decisions. Many times in life people need to make a decision based on limited information ... and they do. In many of these cases they do not even have an opportunity to change their answer. In our scenario, the staff can "change their answers", but still don't suggest which of the RBs they feel will be top 20.

As I suggested earlier, many people are in drafts now and would appreciate knowing what the staff think on this subject. Lets put it this way, if you HAD to make a choice (someone with a gun to your head, someone forcing you to watch a Ben Affleck movie), who would you pick?

 

[joffer]

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure a couple of them agreed that a Denver RB would most likely finish the season in the top 20.

If you can find a place where one of them states WHICH Denver RB they think will finish in the top 20, and they don't have them ranked there, then I think you have a case. I looked, but I couldn't find an instance of that. I think many agree that A Denver RB has a good chance to finish there. Unfortunately, I don't think "The top Denver RB" is a ranking option.

 

[Marc Levin]

If anyone strongly believes that any Denver RB will end up in the top 15-20, then that is exactly where they should be ... this is the type of information that will help those that are currently drafting.If information becomes available that changes your opinion in 3, 4 or 6 weeks, so be it ... make the change and move on.

Simple answer here is that it is obvious that noone on the staff has a strong feeling one way or the other about any particular D-town back.No amount of cajoling from the message board crew will do as the MB is also obviously radically split on which back will be the "man" in Denver and/or whether there will even BE a "man" in D-town.We have a face-off question planned, player spotlights, and I'm sure there will be tons of threads on this subject as the summer draws on. Plus, our updated rankings in about a month or less. I apologize to those drafting this week that the staff hasn't catered to your desire for us to nail down one back or another for top-15 numbers, but we simply haven't made up our minds any more than anyone else regarding who it'll be, or if it'll be anyone rather than a RBBC.One of the nice things about drafting now is that you can gamble late on one or the other that you prefer, and turn out to be right , thus getting a top-15 back at extremely good value that people drafting in August won't enjoy. It makes those camp battles even more interesting. That was what you signed on for when you decided to draft the week of June 1 - that the FBGuys' site is just getting geared up, that you are drafting before mandatory minicamps have even opened, and that there is soime radical uncertainty regarding some key positions.

 

[BassNBrew]

Chase...here's the counter to your argument that no one has taken me up on.

I'll wager anyone of you that a Denver RB will end up 28th or better.

And yes, I'd move up to draft Bell if there weren't any other comparable values out there. I'm still trying to from an opinion on him and the resources here weren't very helpful until we started this thread.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure a couple of them agreed that a Denver RB would most likely finish the season in the top 20.

But not one includes any Denver RB in their top 20 rankings. Assuming the lists we are speaking of are not A) where the player should be drafted, but B) where the player will end up .... the question is why?

This really appears to be "group think". Someone earlier made a reference to many business decisions. Many times in life people need to make a decision based on limited information ... and they do. In many of these cases they do not even have an opportunity to change their answer. In our scenario, the staff can "change their answers", but still don't suggest which of the RBs they feel will be top 20.

As I suggested earlier, many people are in drafts now and would appreciate knowing what the staff think on this subject. Lets put it this way, if you HAD to make a choice (someone with a gun to your head, someone forcing you to watch a Ben Affleck movie), who would you pick?

As posted on this same page 5:Hypothetically,

According to my projections, Bell is more likely to NOT be the feature back than to be the feature back. Now what do I do? Knowing the following:

a) A feature back is likely to emerge (90%)

b) Of all the backs, it's most likely to be Bell (40%--more than TWICE anyone else)

c) It's more likely that Bell ISN'T the feature back than he IS the feature back.

How can I justify putting Bell in the top 20 when I say that he's more likely to NOT be in the top twenty than IN the top twenty. Does that make sense?

Bass: I would probably say there's greater than a 50% chance that a Denver Rb ends up in the top 28. I wouldn't say there's a greater chance that Bell ends up ranked higher than Curtis Martin. Your turn

 

[Marc Levin]

As I suggested earlier, many people are in drafts now and would appreciate knowing what the staff think on this subject. Lets put it this way, if you HAD to make a choice (someone with a gun to your head, someone forcing you to watch a Ben Affleck movie), who would you pick?

Dude - if you read this thread, you'd have a darned good idea where Maurile, Chase, Me and Aaron stand on the Denver RB sitch right now. That it's not in our rankings is a "too bad." That's what you signed on for when you decided to draft in June - that some positions would be unsettled.I am humbled, psyched, and flattered that you all think enough of us to want us to rank some Denver RB this early even if we all see it as an unsettled situation (which is the consensus on the staff, for sure). But the best way to get what you are looking for (semi-educated guesses is what you are after now, apparently) is what is right here. IN this thread. And the input from the rest of the MB sharks will give you much more valuable information than the expert rankings would give you.

As for the gun to the head, go ahead and pick Tatum Bell as your top-15 Denver RB - I have no basis for that except he is a rookie and was picked with a second round pick, while I feel that Shannie won't get a top-15 RB performance starting any of the other three backs. So, IF Bell works out as a feature back, he'll be top-15, if a different back works out as a feature or primary ball-carrier in a RBBC for Denver, he'll be somewhere between RB18 and RB22 by the end of the year.

(caution - most of the decisions in the paragraph above were made by looking into a magic 8-ball).

 

[Marc Levin]

Unfortunately, I don't think "The top Denver RB" is a ranking option.

Hmmm, here's the first line from my first post in this thread way back on page one:

It is simply too early to make an "expert" call on any one Denver RB, and "whichever back wins the starting job in Denver" was not a rankable option.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure a couple of them agreed that a Denver RB would most likely finish the season in the top 20.

But not one includes any Denver RB in their top 20 rankings. Assuming the lists we are speaking of are not A) where the player should be drafted, but B) where the player will end up .... the question is why?

Atomic Punk, more often than not, some backup QB (going into the season) finishes in the top 20. Last year, it was Bulger. The year before that, Pennington. It may happen again this year. I'd even expect it, and so should you.Do you agree that some backup QB is likely to finish in the top 20 this year?

If so, which backup QB are you going to rank in your top 20?

You see the fallacy here, right? Just because some backup QB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

Similarly, just because some Denver RB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

 

[Atomic Punk]

Thanks for the response Marc, I'm not in the early drafting camp but I know some that are, so to dismiss the need for rankings to make sense, regardless of the time of year, is somewhat arrogant. When I say make sense I mean that if you truly believe that a Denver RB will be in the top 20, then one should be there.The only issue I have is that I find it difficult to believe that out of 20 very opinionated, intelligent, football writers, not one can suggest which RB will make the top 20.It's kind of like getting my wife to decide ... well, practically anything.AP: Where would you like to go for vacation this year honey?Mrs: Oh I don't know.AP: You mentioned the Grand Canyon.Mrs: Well we don't know what the weather will be like?AP: How about Hawaii?Mrs: It might be storm season then.AP: South Dakota? New York? Florida?Mrs: Mosquitos. Terrorists. Thugs.AP: AARRGGHH !!!!Moral of the story, sometimes you just make a decision based on what you know at any given time ... even though you don't know all of the facts.

 

[BassNBrew]

I wouldn't say there's a greater chance that Bell ends up ranked higher than Curtis Martin. Your turn

If Bell has a 51% chance of being the Denver feature back, he's got a greater chance of finishing the season rated higher then Martin does.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure a couple of them agreed that a Denver RB would most likely finish the season in the top 20.

But not one includes any Denver RB in their top 20 rankings. Assuming the lists we are speaking of are not A) where the player should be drafted, but B) where the player will end up .... the question is why?

Atomic Punk, more often than not, some backup QB (going into the season) finishes in the top 20. Last year, it was Bulger. The year before that, Pennington. It may happen again this year. I'd even expect it, and so should you.Do you agree that some backup QB is likely to finish in the top 20 this year?

If so, which backup QB are you going to rank in your top 20?

You see the fallacy here, right? Just because some backup QB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

Similarly, just because some Denver RB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

If I had to make a pick because someone truly wanted to know my opinion, I would have to pick Kerry Collins, who is currently ranked behind Gannon. In the event Gannon gets dumped and Collins moves into the number one slot, I'll take Ramsey in Washington. Brunell is pretty brittle, the Redskin offensive line is nothing to write home about and Ramsey played decent last year, with Portis taking the heat off the passing attack, Ramsey could be golden if/when Brunell goes down.Wasn't that hard.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure a couple of them agreed that a Denver RB would most likely finish the season in the top 20.

But not one includes any Denver RB in their top 20 rankings. Assuming the lists we are speaking of are not A) where the player should be drafted, but B) where the player will end up .... the question is why?

Atomic Punk, more often than not, some backup QB (going into the season) finishes in the top 20. Last year, it was Bulger. The year before that, Pennington. It may happen again this year. I'd even expect it, and so should you.Do you agree that some backup QB is likely to finish in the top 20 this year?

If so, which backup QB are you going to rank in your top 20?

You see the fallacy here, right? Just because some backup QB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

Similarly, just because some Denver RB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

MT...some people had very strong opinions about Bugler and Pennington in their break out years. Matter of fact, I seem to recall some people on this site having Bugler ranked higher last year. Now if going into the season I expected the Ram's QB to throw for 3900 yards and I pegged Warner at 33% likelihood of being the starter and Bugler at 66%, do I then project them at 1300 and 2600 yards respectively?

 

[Marc Levin]

Thanks for the response Marc, I'm not in the early drafting camp but I know some that are, so to dismiss the need for rankings to make sense, regardless of the time of year, is somewhat arrogant. When I say make sense I mean that if you truly believe that a Denver RB will be in the top 20, then one should be there.

First of all, look up at MT's post - he nailed our position on this issue more concisely than I could.Second, none of us truly believe that one PARTICULAR Denver RB is going to be top-20, but some of us, maybe most of us, believe that SOME Denver back will. I have no objective facts for any one back over another right now - in my eyes, it's 25% for each of the four backs to be the one who gets to top-20. IF one does. Tell me again why I should injure my credibility by completely guessing which one will do so?And I answered the gun to the head question - take Bell. Am I so sure about that that I would project him, on May 31st, to get 1400 rush yards? Nope.My responsibility as a staff member is to use objective facts to come to a conclusion and be able to defend why I made a particular ranking - not to make a blind guess based on my hunches. MOST of the people on this board will get upset with me and won't trust my rankings if I said "Oh, I have Bell at RB 16 b/c I'm sure SOME Denver back will end the year that high, and I figure Bell has as good a chance as any of the other backs."

 

[Marc Levin]

so to dismiss the need for rankings to make sense, regardless of the time of year,

P.S. - NOONE dismissed the need for the rankings to make sense - it makes less sense right now TO rank a Denver RB in the top-20 than it does to do what we have done as a staff.

 

[1612]

it makes less sense right now TO rank a Denver RB in the top-20 than it does to do what we have done as a staff.

That is the problem. Your rankings should be YOUR rankings, they shouldn't be done as a team thing.The team opinion is already taken care of when they get averaged, the individual staff members shouldn't do that averaging with their own rankings.

 

[Marc Levin]

it makes less sense right now TO rank a Denver RB in the top-20 than it does to do what we have done as a staff.

That is the problem. Your rankings should be YOUR rankings, they shouldn't be done as a team thing.

The staff simply has the same opinion on this issue - we also have the same opinion on where LT and Priest will go - should one of us rank Priest out of the top-5 just to be different??There was no team building of the rankings - they are 100% independently done - we just all happen to share the same opinion right now regarding the Denver situation - that it is too unsettled to make a reliable ranking of one of the backs in the top-20.

Stop looking for conspiracies in the rankings - it doesn't exist.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I had to make a pick because someone truly wanted to know my opinion, I would have to pick Kerry Collins, who is currently ranked behind Gannon.  In the event Gannon gets dumped and Collins moves into the number one slot, I'll take Ramsey in Washington.  Brunell is pretty brittle, the Redskin offensive line is nothing to write home about and Ramsey played decent last year, with Portis taking the heat off the passing attack, Ramsey could be golden if/when Brunell goes down.Wasn't that hard. 

Are you telling me you currently have Patrick Ramsey ranked ahead of Jake Delhomme, Drew Bledsoe, Josh McCown, and the other QBs who are expected to start?

 

[bostonfred2]

Are you saying that you don't take upside guys with your backup positions in re-drafts?

As an overall strategy, that's exactly what I try to do -- but again with plenty of exceptions. It really depends on the structure of the league: how many teams are there, how deep are the rosters, what's the pay-out structure (for money leagues), etc? Again, these things can't really be built into a cheatsheet.

I've been arguing that you can build this into a spreadsheet for quite some time. For each player, give them an upside, downside, and most likely case scenario, as well as the chance of each, and the chance of injury. Then take a weighted average, and build a team with the highest expected value, while taking enough "safe" choices and enough upside to make a solid team.Boost the value of guys who should come out of the gates strong, if you're allowed to trade, as well as guys who can fill in for your bye weeks (once the draft starts) and you have the formula for a playoff team.

 

[LHUCKS]

Are you saying that you don't take upside guys with your backup positions in re-drafts?

As an overall strategy, that's exactly what I try to do -- but again with plenty of exceptions. It really depends on the structure of the league: how many teams are there, how deep are the rosters, what's the pay-out structure (for money leagues), etc? Again, these things can't really be built into a cheatsheet.

I've been arguing that you can build this into a spreadsheet for quite some time. For each player, give them an upside, downside, and most likely case scenario, as well as the chance of each, and the chance of injury. Then take a weighted average, and build a team with the highest expected value, while taking enough "safe" choices and enough upside to make a solid team.Boost the value of guys who should come out of the gates strong, if you're allowed to trade, as well as guys who can fill in for your bye weeks (once the draft starts) and you have the formula for a playoff team.

I do something similar in my spreadsheets. It's not rocket science.

 

[BassNBrew]

My responsibility as a staff member is to use objective facts to come to a conclusion and be able to defend why I made a particular ranking - not to make a blind guess based on my hunches. MOST of the people on this board will get upset with me and won't trust my rankings if I said "Oh, I have Bell at RB 16 b/c I'm sure SOME Denver back will end the year that high, and I figure Bell has as good a chance as any of the other backs."

Here's where I disagree. Essentially you are saying...We give plain vanilla rankings to cover our #### and keep people from getting upset. 7 of 17 experts expect the top two of the Denver RBs to finish with 3 spots of each other at the end of the year. I take wagers on that too.

 

[Atomic Punk]

If I had to make a pick because someone truly wanted to know my opinion, I would have to pick Kerry Collins, who is currently ranked behind Gannon.  In the event Gannon gets dumped and Collins moves into the number one slot, I'll take Ramsey in Washington.  Brunell is pretty brittle, the Redskin offensive line is nothing to write home about and Ramsey played decent last year, with Portis taking the heat off the passing attack, Ramsey could be golden if/when Brunell goes down.Wasn't that hard. 

Are you telling me you currently have Patrick Ramsey ranked ahead of Jake Delhomme, Drew Bledsoe, Josh McCown, and the other QBs who are expected to start?

For my A) who will finish in the top 20 list ... the answer is, yes I have Ramsey rated above McCown and Delhomme (not Bledsoe, I feel a rebound year is coming).For my B) where should I draft him list ... the answer is, no not a chance!Will I be right? Who knows?What is the probability I'm right? The risk in drafting him? , etc? etc? I don't care. Based on what I know right know about the Skins, Brunell's history and Ramsey's play last year ... that's my call.I'll still wait until my leaguemates take McCown, Bledsoe and Delhomme, then I'll take Ramsey three rounds later and hopefully be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[RAIDERNATION.]

Interesting stuff. This is one of those threads that we'll have to dig up in December and see who was right. I want to put in a strong vote for Bell. Denver had so many needs this offseason on the defensive side of the ball, and also at WR. Yet they still spent the #41 overall draft pick on a position which was seemingly a luxury, with Griffin, Hearst, Anderson -- and to a lesser extent -- Sapp and Galloway already in the fold. I'd be very surprised if Bell doesn't begin to churn out 100 yard games by mid-October.

 

[bostonfred2]

My responsibility as a staff member is to use objective facts to come to a conclusion and be able to defend why I made a particular ranking - not to make a blind guess based on my hunches. MOST of the people on this board will get upset with me and won't trust my rankings if I said "Oh, I have Bell at RB 16 b/c I'm sure SOME Denver back will end the year that high, and I figure Bell has as good a chance as any of the other backs."

Here's where I disagree. Essentially you are saying...We give plain vanilla rankings to cover our #### and keep people from getting upset. 7 of 17 experts expect the top two of the Denver RBs to finish with 3 spots of each other at the end of the year. I take wagers on that too.

8 out of 17 experts expect Barlow and Edge to finish within three spots of each other, too. Are you taking action on that, or just trying to prove a point?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

So because the situation is a mess you throw your hands up in the air?

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.

You can't have it both ways, you see. Either the rankings you produce are to reflect how you see end-of-year results (which is my understanding of what these rankings are supposed to be), or they are to reflect where you'd draft them based of the risks, uncertainties, etc. One requires taking as stand, as BNB, Bob, LHUCKS and I are saying, and the other does not. The rankings, as I understood them, were not about draft strategy but about beliefs in final rankings. I'm not willing to create some monstrosity of a calculation to hedge all my bets with all sorts of percentages to end up with a lukewarm answer which guarantees I'm in the middle of the pack with no real opinion. I make a decision based on my interpretation of a situation, and go with it. I guess that's my business training. At some point you have to take a stand, and I thought that's what these rankings were for. I guess I was wrong.

Excellent post. This gets right to the point. The big debate here is whether or not the rankings are where one should draft a player or where a player will end up at the end of the year. Aaron evens says this in the quote above.I agree with bob, BnB, LHUCKS and the others and wish the staff can take a stand on what they believe. I'm not certain either, but I do believe that at least one of these guys will be in the top 15-20.

Aaron suggests that the rankings reflect a belief by the staff that there will be a RBBC? Why? What is the Denver history of RBBC? etc.?

However, subsequent posts by other staff suggest there isn't a belief by all that there will be RBBC.

Last comment ... to pick on speliing of Griffin (th) is nothing but "playground" and does not make me think less of the original poster, but makes me think less of you. It almost seems like you can't make your point about the rankings so you bring spelling up. Take a good read of the FBG staff articles and posts and you will find similar errors so please ... everyone ... give this type of childishness a rest.

having a sense of humor is a wonderful thing. I figured I could kid around with LHUCKS b/c we've had debates on players before.the rankings are a prediction of how the players will finish, but they also have to take into account the likelihood of the player finishing there. If I think there is a 5% chance that Player A can finish top-10 but a 50% chance that Player A will finish ranked around #30...chances are I'm going to rank him closer to 30 and draft him closer to 30. I can't quite understand how anyone could argue with that logic.

What exactly do people mean when they suggest we should "take a stand"? Are you suggesting we rank players in places where we do not expect them to finish? Rank them in places where we would not plan on drafting them? How exactly would that be helpful or logical?

To be clear...I expect that 4 different RBs will split the carries for the Broncos this year. Early on, perhaps Griffin and Hearst with Anderson in some short yardage situations. Eventually, Bell will adjust and earn more time, but Hearst will likely still spell him in some 3rd down situations and Anderson or Griffin will still be a threat to steal some carries depending on situational packages. Unless somebody plays head and shoulders above the rest, I expect RBBC and the value of all Broncos RBs to be simultaneously helped and hurt - none will be useless, but none will be the next great Broncos RB. I'm not all that impressed with Bell's ability, but I think his draft status gives him the best chance to emerge. I think Griffin is often underestimated on this board, but I'm not crazy enough to think he can clearly beat everybody out and become an everydown RB this year.

I think Shanahan will use whatever system works best. If Bell shows that he is ready to take over, then he could be very valuable late in the season. Even so, at the end of the season, I think the late start would still place him relatively low among rankings of starting RBs.

I did not suggest all the staff thinks there will be RBBC...I just said that's what I think. I think you'll see Griffin start some games, Hearst start some games, and Bell start some games. I don't think any back will get more than 20 carries for the first month of the season or so. There are lots of things I think about the situation, but I also expect it all to change in the preseason and training camp once we get more of an idea on how the coaching staff plans to use these guys and how quickly Bell is progressing. The Broncos running game requires patience and Bell will need to adjust. Also, he is a known fumbler and Shanahan benched Portis early on for just that reason.

see you around the playground

 

[BassNBrew]

My responsibility as a staff member is to use objective facts to come to a conclusion and be able to defend why I made a particular ranking - not to make a blind guess based on my hunches.  MOST of the people on this board will get upset with me and won't trust my rankings if I said "Oh, I have Bell at RB 16 b/c I'm sure SOME Denver back will end the year that high, and I figure Bell has as good a chance as any of the other backs."

Here's where I disagree. Essentially you are saying...We give plain vanilla rankings to cover our #### and keep people from getting upset. 7 of 17 experts expect the top two of the Denver RBs to finish with 3 spots of each other at the end of the year. I take wagers on that too.

8 out of 17 experts expect Barlow and Edge to finish within three spots of each other, too. Are you taking action on that, or just trying to prove a point?

I'd expect that Barlow/Edge finishing within 3 spots of each other is several times higher then Denver RB1/RB2 finishing within 3 spots of each other.Still waiting on the takers for a Denver RB not to finish better then #29. With all the folks predicting true RBBC, I would think they would be lining up at the BnB window.

 

[LHUCKS]

having a sense of humor is a wonderful thing. I figured I could kid around with LHUCKS b/c we've had debates on players before.

I'm over it Aaron, I just misinterpreted your post. Come get me!As for people demanding a stand from a staffmember on the situation, I think that's ridiculous. If their opinion is that each of the four have a 25% chance of being the guy then that is their stand. If their opinion is that they don't have enough data to handicap the situation, then that to is an opinion. One of the best threads this year.

 

[BassNBrew]

having a sense of humor is a wonderful thing. I figured I could kid around with LHUCKS b/c we've had debates on players before.

I'm over it Aaron, I just misinterpreted your post. Come get me!As for people demanding a stand from a staffmembers on the situation, I think that's ridiculous. If their opinion is that each of the four have a 25% chance of being the guy then that is their stand. If their opinion is that they don't have enough data to handicap the situation, than that to is an opinion. One of the best threads this year.

Agreed Lhucks...I just found it highly unlikey that this many experts saw it as roughly 25% x 4. If that's the case, so be it. It just doesn't jive with my perceptions of Shanahan and his ego.

 

[Oils_well]

Personally I think these rankings are based more upon where people would draft someone,

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.

I can get that information from mocks drafts, what I would like to know is which Denver RB in your opinion will carry the majority of the load and where they'll finish relative to the other RBs.

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.

How can anyone say anything for sure before training camp even starts, relax.

 

[LHUCKS]

having a sense of humor is a wonderful thing. I figured I could kid around with LHUCKS b/c we've had debates on players before.

I'm over it Aaron, I just misinterpreted your post. Come get me!As for people demanding a stand from a staffmembers on the situation, I think that's ridiculous. If their opinion is that each of the four have a 25% chance of being the guy then that is their stand. If their opinion is that they don't have enough data to handicap the situation, than that to is an opinion. One of the best threads this year.

Agreed Lhucks...I just found it highly unlikey that this many experts saw it as roughly 25% x 4. If that's the case, so be it. It just doesn't jive with my perceptions of Shanahan and his ego.

It doesn't jive with me either...but hey, to each his own. We all see each other on the battle field. That being said, some of us are more successful than others

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Atomic Punk, more often than not, some backup QB (going into the season) finishes in the top 20. Last year, it was Bulger. The year before that, Pennington. It may happen again this year. I'd even expect it, and so should you.

Do you agree that some backup QB is likely to finish in the top 20 this year?

If so, which backup QB are you going to rank in your top 20?

You see the fallacy here, right? Just because some backup QB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

Similarly, just because some Denver RB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

If I had to make a pick because someone truly wanted to know my opinion, I would have to pick Kerry Collins, who is currently ranked behind Gannon. In the event Gannon gets dumped and Collins moves into the number one slot, I'll take Ramsey in Washington. Brunell is pretty brittle, the Redskin offensive line is nothing to write home about and Ramsey played decent last year, with Portis taking the heat off the passing attack, Ramsey could be golden if/when Brunell goes down.Wasn't that hard.

any expert that put Patrick Ramsey in their top-20 list of QB rankings based on that type of logic would get ridiculed all summer long.I really don't understand the problem here guys.

 

[Chris Smith]

My responsibility as a staff member is to use objective facts to come to a conclusion and be able to defend why I made a particular ranking - not to make a blind guess based on my hunches.  MOST of the people on this board will get upset with me and won't trust my rankings if I said "Oh, I have Bell at RB 16 b/c I'm sure SOME Denver back will end the year that high, and I figure Bell has as good a chance as any of the other backs."

Here's where I disagree. Essentially you are saying...We give plain vanilla rankings to cover our #### and keep people from getting upset. 7 of 17 experts expect the top two of the Denver RBs to finish with 3 spots of each other at the end of the year. I take wagers on that too.

8 out of 17 experts expect Barlow and Edge to finish within three spots of each other, too. Are you taking action on that, or just trying to prove a point?

I'd expect that Barlow/Edge finishing within 3 spots of each other is several times higher then Denver RB1/RB2 finishing within 3 spots of each other.Still waiting on the takers for a Denver RB not to finish better then #29. With all the folks predicting true RBBC, I would think they would be lining up at the BnB window.

It would be a sucker's bet for us to take the action on a bet so skewed in your favor. Several running backs throughout the NFL are likely to be injured at some point this season which could drop them down the rankings signficantly thus raising up the top fantasy producer from the Broncos.A more realistic wager would be "Will a Bronco running back finish in the top fifteen this season?" as the 29th ranking is really not that far removed from what many of us have listed for our rankings to start with.With no tangible proof that Bell is indeed capable of dethroning three veteran running backs to get 20+ carries a game at this point in the offseason, it would be a disservice to our readers to project him (or anyone else) into the top fifteen of our rankings. There simply is no basis to do so when it comes to any of the four players yet.I imagine come mid-August, many of our rankings in regards to the Broncos rushing game will be significantly altered once news from camp begins to emerge. Or maybe what will emerge IS a RBBC approach. Only time will tell.

 

[BassNBrew]

Atomic Punk, more often than not, some backup QB (going into the season) finishes in the top 20. Last year, it was Bulger. The year before that, Pennington. It may happen again this year. I'd even expect it, and so should you.

Do you agree that some backup QB is likely to finish in the top 20 this year?

If so, which backup QB are you going to rank in your top 20?

You see the fallacy here, right? Just because some backup QB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

Similarly, just because some Denver RB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

If I had to make a pick because someone truly wanted to know my opinion, I would have to pick Kerry Collins, who is currently ranked behind Gannon. In the event Gannon gets dumped and Collins moves into the number one slot, I'll take Ramsey in Washington. Brunell is pretty brittle, the Redskin offensive line is nothing to write home about and Ramsey played decent last year, with Portis taking the heat off the passing attack, Ramsey could be golden if/when Brunell goes down.Wasn't that hard.

any expert that put Patrick Ramsey in their top-20 list of QB rankings based on that type of logic would get ridiculed all summer long.I really don't understand the problem here guys.

One of the problems is that your readers don't understand what the expert rankings are based upon. I think this came up last year, but FBG.com needs to be clear as to what the standard is...predicted finish or position to be drafted.

 

[LHUCKS]

Atomic Punk, more often than not, some backup QB (going into the season) finishes in the top 20. Last year, it was Bulger. The year before that, Pennington. It may happen again this year. I'd even expect it, and so should you.

Do you agree that some backup QB is likely to finish in the top 20 this year?

If so, which backup QB are you going to rank in your top 20?

You see the fallacy here, right? Just because some backup QB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

Similarly, just because some Denver RB has a good chance of finishing in the top 20 doesn't mean we should rank any of them in our top 20.

If I had to make a pick because someone truly wanted to know my opinion, I would have to pick Kerry Collins, who is currently ranked behind Gannon. In the event Gannon gets dumped and Collins moves into the number one slot, I'll take Ramsey in Washington. Brunell is pretty brittle, the Redskin offensive line is nothing to write home about and Ramsey played decent last year, with Portis taking the heat off the passing attack, Ramsey could be golden if/when Brunell goes down.Wasn't that hard.

any expert that put Patrick Ramsey in their top-20 list of QB rankings based on that type of logic would get ridiculed all summer long.I really don't understand the problem here guys.

One of the problems is that your readers don't understand what the expert rankings are based upon. I think this came up last year, but FBG.com needs to be clear as to what the standard is...predicted finish or position to be drafted.

I'll chime in for the staff...Bass, one of the problems with "position to be drafted" rankings is that they are entirely dependent on the league format. Whereas projection rankings apply to all league formats and thus provide a simpler/vanilla product that all persons can utilize regardless of league format.

That being said, I'm guessing that hundreds, maybe thousands misuse the rankings as they are now.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

One of the problems is that your readers don't understand what the expert rankings are based upon. I think this came up last year, but FBG.com needs to be clear as to what the standard is...predicted finish or position to be drafted.

we will be graded out based on how the players are ranked at the end of the year, so I assume that should be the most important factor. But, it is still hard to include estimates of risk/upside within a static ranking list.As I've said before, 90% of the time, I will draft the player who I project to finish the season higher. However, with the remaining 10%, I might take a lower-ranked player who I think has the potential to greatly outperform my projection.Bottom line though, is that "who would I draft?" and "who will score more points this year?" are really not very different questions. Those two lists of rankings would likely look very similar for most staff members.