Denver RB Rankings (1 Viewer)

[ExtraPoint]

I agree that the 'experts' here arent showing much nad though.

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 situation

So an 'expert' should be more concerned about the reaction of other people here than being concerned with what they really think? I agreed that the Denver situation warrents caution but its not just Denver this year. These type of precautionary rankings have been going on here for years and as much as that helps me make draft day steals it doesnt make me a believer in the 'experts'. I dont want gentle. I want something that's going to make me think twice. That's the only way to win me over.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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).

Apparently I need help with fishing trips like Maurile and smackdowns.Barry Sanders - 5-8, 200Quentin Griffin - 5-7, 195Amazing how that "third-down back" was able to get 405 yards on 100 carries (including playoffs), and record 49 carries over two straight games and not get injured. For Hearst, he's average well over four yards a carry the past three years, and still has something left in the tank. A move to Denver could revitalize him.I think Griffin and Hearst are both underrated, because too told or too small don't apply to them. As for Bell, I don't know nearly enough about him yet to make a fair judgement.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

What a great way to end the Memorial Day weekend, reading a 4-page thread on the DEN RB situation.

BNB has some very good points. I find it hard to believe no FBG staffer has a solid opinion on who they think will come out ahead by the end of the year. Using the historical info on DEN RB's, to say that 2 DEN RB's will end up within 3 spots of each other in the EOY rankings is a real stretch. I mean, this is the stats site for FF, right?

2003 Portis #5 - Anderson #51

2002 Portis #4 - Anderson #43 - The rookie "RBBC" Year

2001 Anderson #34 - Davis #46

2000 Anderson #4 - Davis #58 - Davis hurt, Gary hurt, Anderson "ROY" year

1999 Gary #14 - none in top 60

1998 Davis #1 - none in top 60

1997 Davis #2 - none in top 60

1996 Davis #2 - Craver #48

1995 Davis #12 - Craver #32

1994 Russell #23 - Milburn #34

2001 Terrell Davis

+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK  OPP  |  RSH   YD   |  RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+|  1  nyg  |   21   101  |     4  |  0 ||  8  oak  |   17    70  |    16  |  0 ||  9  sdg  |   33    83  |    36  |  0 || 12  mia  |   20    97  |     0  |  0 || 13  sea  |   19   109  |     8  |  0 || 14  kan  |   21    70  |     5  |  0 || 16  oak  |   18    89  |     0  |  0 || 17  ind  |   18    82  |     0  |  0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+|  TOTAL   |  167   701  |    69  |  0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+2001 Mike Anderson

+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK  OPP  |  RSH   YD   |  RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+|  1  nyg  |    6    10  |     0  |  1 ||  2  ari  |   19    58  |     0  |  0 ||  3  bal  |   12    34  |     0  |  0 ||  4  kan  |   22   155  |     0  |  1 ||  5  sea  |   17    51  |     9  |  0 ||  6  sdg  |   11    50  |    -7  |  0 ||  7  nwe  |   14    40  |     0  |  1 ||  8  oak  |    5    44  |    12  |  0 ||  9  sdg  |    4    23  |     0  |  0 || 10  was  |   13    31  |    16  |  0 || 11  dal  |   33   118  |    13  |  1 || 12  mia  |    6    24  |     0  |  0 || 13  sea  |    2     5  |     0  |  0 || 14  kan  |    1     8  |     0  |  0 || 16  oak  |    5     7  |     3  |  0 || 17  ind  |    5    20  |     0  |  0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+|  TOTAL   |  175   678  |    46  |  4 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+

I post those to show that it was injury that caused the 2001 EOY ranking to be even remotely close. Not RBBC. There was one guy each and every week. Every week Davis started, Anderson was under 6 carries per game.So if the current RB rankings are to be considered EOY rankings, then they must simply be read as "I can't figure out which RB will come out on top, so I'll average them together." While that's great for not making any calls that might come back and bite you in the #### later, it really doesn't reflect an opinion either.

IMHO,

The situation reads as follows:

GRIFFIN

1. He is the the only returning back, but the staff obviously thought it necessary to (A) sign a very good, experienced FA starting RB and (B) draft another RB of the future.

2. FYI - He is not a turf-only back, seeing as how he amassed 1900+ rushing his SR year at Oklahoma with a boat-load of TDs.

3. His diminutive stature and paltry ypc at the end of the last year did not earn a strong vote of confidence as the heir apparent.

HEARST -

1. Has played well enough at age 30, 31 to keep the young "heir-apparent" in SF on the bench. Complete back in all aspects (ypc, workload, passpro, receiving). The single most important thing being overloooked is the passpro. This is what kept Barlow on the pine for years. Anyone saying Bell will be ready to handle the NFL blitzing schemes after playing at OK-ST is sadly mis-informed.

2. His age does not reflect his mileage, due to the 2 years missed completely due to injuries.

3. Signed a one-year deal. Well this is that year. And the purpose of bringing in a solid well-rounded vet for one year is to bide time for the development of the younger backs.

BELL -

1. Fantastic speed. Workout warrior at the combine (ala Fargas) who shot way up the draft board. Can be the game-breaker when he touches the ball.

2. Injury prone. NEVER played a full season at Oklahoma State. Had ankle injuries in 2001, 2002, and 2003 - each causing missed starts.

3. Fumbles WAY too regularly. Was benched as a SR for fumbling. Oklahoma St coach (Les Miles) felt more comfortable with a Freshman running the ball than his SR who continually dropped it. I did an analysis of this back in one of the pre-draft threads and Bell's fumbling rate was 2x that of Portis, both in FL/carry and FL/game.

4. OK St RB's caught the ball very little (did this analysis a few threads back as well). The RB's were predominantly used in play-action, meaning (A) they were not involved in the routes and (B) were not used in conventional "Pro-Style" pass protection.

Conclusions:

1. Hearst is, by far, the best RB in the backfield in every major category

- Rushing

- Receiving

- Pass Protection

2. As far as the young backs are concerned:

Rushing - Even - QG is NOT slow and has superior stats in every way to Bell competing against the same conference over the same time period. Bell does have the size/speed ratio which merits consideration.

Receiving - QG - Far more experience in both college and with one year in the system at DEN.

Pass Protection - QG - Ran a Pro-offense in college and has a year in the NFL. Bell will be furthest behind in this phase of the game.

3. Having said all that, Bell very well may be the DEN RB of the future (read 2005+), but he does not have Clinton Portis' experience (coming from the U-Mia offense) and he's not coming into the same situation. Portis was competing against Gary - who had not fully recovered from his ACL and Anderson - who is truly a FB who played well at RB when called upon.

Having "analyzed" the info at hand, even before a down has been played in training camp, I can make a call on who I think will be in the Top25 from DEN in the EOY standings. Is it the "falvor of the day?" No. But is there "enough" info out there to form such an opinion. I think so.

 

[LHUCKS]

Having "analyzed" the info at hand, even before a down has been played in training camp, I can make a call on who I think will be in the Top25 from DEN in the EOY standings. Is it the "falvor of the day?" No. But is there "enough" info out there to form such an opinion. I think so.

I'll have two scoops of the Hearst flavor...waffle cone please

 

[Chris Smith]

I should say I have been leaning towards moving Hearst up my rankings. The problem is determining how many carries he will receive per game and ultimately by the end of the season. That is the question I have been wrestling with as I do believe he has the best chance of beginning the season as the starting running back.The Broncos situation is easily one of the most difficult fantasy football questions of the year. Makes for great threads though

 

[Chris Smith]

Might as well throw this out as well. Here are my current projections on the four players...

Pos	Name	Team	Com	Att	Pct	PsYd	Y/A	Ic	PTD	Car	RuYd	Avg	RuTD	Tar	Rec	ReYd	ReTD	Fant PtsRB	Griffin, Quentin	Broncos	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	70	294	4.2	1	19	16	98	1	51.2RB	Anderson, Mike	Broncos	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	45	171	3.8	4	8	4	28	0	43.9RB	Hearst, Garrison	Broncos	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	170	765	4.5	4	40	32	250	1	131.5RB	Bell, Tatum [r]	Broncos	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	195	936	4.8	5	30	22	162	1	145.8

 

[Bojang0301]

Mike Anderson is not being given a fair shake. People forget so easily how much of a beast he was in the system.

 

[BassNBrew]

Great post Barry Jive...hopefully that will result in people at least taking a second look at the situation, myself included.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Great analysis Barry...One thing to remember is that saying all three backs are within a few spots of each other IS a stand. It says none of these backs have a very good shot at this, and I would rather draft Curtis Martin or Kevin Jones ahead of one of them. Sure BnB, if you take three backs like that you're likely to see one of them beat Martin or Jones. But consider this:I bet you that of Taylor, Barlow, Faulk (10-11-12 on the rankings), ONE of them will beat out Clinton Portis (ranked fifth). To me, saying one of the Den RBs will be in the top twenty doesn't take a ton of skill, or provide a ton of useful information. As MT is always saying, group predictions shouldn't be used to predict each individual (or something more eloquent than that). Why put someone who I think is probably not going to get 1,000 yards (40% chance he's the main man) in my top 20 just...because?Always a pleasure BnB, but consider this: I didn't submit expert rankings yet, and I STILL agree with these guys. There's no conspiracy going on, or an attempt to play it safe--it's playing it smart. I'd wager that Unlucky would say the same thing if he was here too (although he can freely come in here and tell me I'm wrong).

 

[Atomic Punk]

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.

With this logic any expert that suggested ...- Tom Brady would win two Super Bowls

- Carolina would be in the Super Bowl

- Jake Delhomme would lead them

- Rich Gannon would go from stud to dud

- Mike Vick was not worthy of a first round pick

- Santana Moss, Steve Smith and Anquan Boldin would have exceptional years

... would get ridiculed all summer long.

Ridicule all you want. Projection lists are just that ... one's attempt at predicting the future based on a limited amount of information. Some time you are right and some time you are wrong. In the case of Ramsey, I believe I am right and my that belief is based on the information available, albeit limited.

Aaron, I realize you have stated you believe that Denver will have a RBBC this year and your rankings support that. Makes sense (although as the above post points out history does not support that fact). What doesn't make sense to me are those that believe A Denver RB will be in the top 20 but that is not reflected in their rankings.

It almost seems at times many of the writers get lost in their algorithims and equations and do not realize that common sense and "gut feeling" are often times what is more appropriate.

 

[Biabreakable]

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.

Given the situation I would like to know how this would be mitigating the risk??Using the FBGs RB rankings this would then mean you would draft Tatum Bell overStephen DavisCorey DillonTiki BarberRudi JohnsonMarcell ShippCurtis MartinJulius JonesMichael BennettKevin JonesNow Tatum Bell could outperform these RBs but I honestly do not see how you have mitigated the risk you would be taking by drafting Bell over them.Imo Bell then has to outperform these RBs for you just to break even on the draft position you have used on him.I see this as setting the odds against you without even factoring in ADP which would be the only way I can see you mitigating the risk on such a decision.Now as far as drafting him 30-35 overall this means you are using a mid range to late 3rd round pick on Bell. You might be mitigating the risk if Bell is your 3rd RB taken.But if that is the case then I guess you drafted one of the players on this list in round 2 allready anyways.So what was that about wanting to have Bell ranked higher again?

 

[Chase Stuart]

It almost seems at times many of the writers get lost in their algorithims and equations and do not realize that common sense and "gut feeling" are often times what is more appropriate.

Prove it

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

Given the situation I would like to know how this would be mitigating the risk??Using the FBGs RB rankings this would then mean you would draft Tatum Bell overStephen DavisCorey DillonTiki BarberRudi JohnsonMarcell ShippCurtis MartinJulius JonesMichael BennettKevin JonesNow Tatum Bell could outperform these RBs but I honestly do not see how you have mitigated the risk you would be taking by drafting Bell over them.Imo Bell then has to outperform these RBs for you just to break even on the draft position you have used on him.I see this as setting the odds against you without even factoring in ADP which would be the only way I can see you mitigating the risk on such a decision.Now as far as drafting him 30-35 overall this means you are using a mid range to late 3rd round pick on Bell. You might be mitigating the risk if Bell is your 3rd RB taken.But if that is the case then I guess you drafted one of the players on this list in round 2 allready anyways.So what was that about wanting to have Bell ranked higher again?

Well said.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Given the situation I would like to know how this would be mitigating the risk??Using the FBGs RB rankings this would then mean you would draft Tatum Bell overStephen DavisCorey DillonTiki BarberRudi JohnsonMarcell ShippCurtis MartinJulius JonesMichael BennettKevin JonesNow Tatum Bell could outperform these RBs but I honestly do not see how you have mitigated the risk you would be taking by drafting Bell over them.Imo Bell then has to outperform these RBs for you just to break even on the draft position you have used on him.I see this as setting the odds against you without even factoring in ADP which would be the only way I can see you mitigating the risk on such a decision.Now as far as drafting him 30-35 overall this means you are using a mid range to late 3rd round pick on Bell. You might be mitigating the risk if Bell is your 3rd RB taken.But if that is the case then I guess you drafted one of the players on this list in round 2 allready anyways.So what was that about wanting to have Bell ranked higher again?

We're currently in the 5th round of the IBF draft in the mock draft forum. 32 RBs have been selected and Bell is still left. Assuming that I think he'll finish 15th, wasn't it smart to wait until this round rather then burn a pick in the second round to draft one of the players on your list that would finish in a similiar spot. I'm mitigating my risk by selecting Bell in the 5th rather then the 2nd where he falls in my VBD rankings. Now maybe I convinced that William Green or Lee Suggs is also going to perform at the same level as the players on your list. I could likely trade a second round pick for a fourth and fifth. With those picks, I could acquire both Bell and Suggs. If they both perform to my expectations, I will likely be way ahead of the game.Chase was hinting that if I really like Bell to finish at #15, I should step up and grab him early before someone does. Obviously I would draft someone 90% likely to finish 15th then someone 50% likely to so in the second round. However, in a true shark league I might prefer to draft two of the later type players with a 25% chance of performing at a top 10 level over someone I see that has almost no upside.Lastly, ppg performance is a major consideration to me. Bell for 12 games @ 20 ppg + Scrubby for 4 games @ 10 ppg is > Mr. Steady for 16 games @ 15 ppg.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Obviously I would draft someone 90% likely to finish 15th then someone 50% likely to so in the second round.

If someone's 90% likely to finish 15th and you have him say, ranked 14th...how can someone 50% likely to finish 15th be ranked on your list as high as 15th? We may just be having semantics arguments at this point, but I still would rather have about 20 different RBs than Bell. If you're going to take him in the 5th anyway, why do you care at all to rank him? Or how we rank him?

 

[Biabreakable]

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.

Given the situation I would like to know how this would be mitigating the risk??Using the FBGs RB rankings this would then mean you would draft Tatum Bell overStephen DavisCorey DillonTiki BarberRudi JohnsonMarcell ShippCurtis MartinJulius JonesMichael BennettKevin JonesNow Tatum Bell could outperform these RBs but I honestly do not see how you have mitigated the risk you would be taking by drafting Bell over them.Imo Bell then has to outperform these RBs for you just to break even on the draft position you have used on him.I see this as setting the odds against you without even factoring in ADP which would be the only way I can see you mitigating the risk on such a decision.Now as far as drafting him 30-35 overall this means you are using a mid range to late 3rd round pick on Bell. You might be mitigating the risk if Bell is your 3rd RB taken.But if that is the case then I guess you drafted one of the players on this list in round 2 allready anyways.So what was that about wanting to have Bell ranked higher again?

We're currently in the 5th round of the IBF draft in the mock draft forum. 32 RBs have been selected and Bell is still left. Assuming that I think he'll finish 15th, wasn't it smart to wait until this round rather then burn a pick in the second round to draft one of the players on your list that would finish in a similiar spot. I'm mitigating my risk by selecting Bell in the 5th rather then the 2nd where he falls in my VBD rankings. Now maybe I convinced that William Green or Lee Suggs is also going to perform at the same level as the players on your list. I could likely trade a second round pick for a fourth and fifth. With those picks, I could acquire both Bell and Suggs. If they both perform to my expectations, I will likely be way ahead of the game.Chase was hinting that if I really like Bell to finish at #15, I should step up and grab him early before someone does. Obviously I would draft someone 90% likely to finish 15th then someone 50% likely to so in the second round. However, in a true shark league I might prefer to draft two of the later type players with a 25% chance of performing at a top 10 level over someone I see that has almost no upside.Lastly, ppg performance is a major consideration to me. Bell for 12 games @ 20 ppg + Scrubby for 4 games @ 10 ppg is > Mr. Steady for 16 games @ 15 ppg.

I totaly agree with this way of thinking BassNBrew.Either in a trade down to net more picks type scenario or just to deviate from the early RB run and get strong WRs by having a gem RB you know you can take latter.However this does not really explain why you think people should Rank a RB who clearly is in a unsettled situation higher than other RBs that you may feel have a 90% chance to perform near thier rankings.And then again why would you want them to when you can use the overall perception to get these players latter?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Comparison between Griffin and Bell:

40 times:

QG - 4.46

TB - 4.34

Bench Press

QG - 355 lbs

TB - 335 lbs

Squat Press

QG - 465

TB - 445

Vertical Jump

QG - 38.5

TB - 38.5

Bench Press - 225 lbs

QG - 21 reps

TB - 24 reps

10 yards

QG - 1.54

TB - 1.54

Arm length

QG - 30 in

TB - 31 7/8 in

Hand Length

QG - 9.25 in

TB - 8.375 in

Birthdate/place

QG - January 12, 1981 in Houston

TB - March 2, 1981 in Dallas

Height/Weight

QG - 5-7, 195

TB - 5-11, 212

Quentin Griffin analysis:

ANALYSIS

Positives: Powerfully built, compact runner with good hands and pass-catching ability … Very effective between-the-tackles back who has that suddenness to plant and drive … Has good instincts in the open and will lower his pads downfield to get that extra yardage … Quick turning the corner, taking proper angles down the sidelines … His ability to change gears in an instant leaves the unsuspecting defenders grabbing at air … Gets into his routes quickly, showing fine turn-and-run action after the catch … Aggressive blocker, despite his size.

Negatives: While he has great open-field acceleration, he tends to take his time getting in gear … Has good linear quickness, but does not show that lateral agility to redirect when the rush lanes are clogged … Needs to secure the ball better, as he tends to get a little careless upfield, swinging his arms to gain acceleration, but the result is that he leaves the ball exposed, leading to a high number of fumbles … Has problems spotting the running lanes at times, resulting in an inability to consistently break it loose … Has smaller-than-ideal hands … Needs to improve his concentration as a receiver, as he will drop a few easily catchable balls.

 

[cracKer]

The bottom line is that we're not here to shock and we're not here to make uneducated guesses.To really get you guys stirred, Joe would've came to the staffers and said: "For the Denver RB situation, why don't you decide which player has the best chance of being their workhorse this year and rank him as such". That's not what it's all about.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What doesn't make sense to me are those that believe A Denver RB will be in the top 20 but that is not reflected in their rankings.

This has been said already, but I guess it bears repeating. There was no option to put "a Denver RB" anywhere in our rankings.That's also why you won't see "a backup QB" anywhere in my top 20 QB list.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hand Length

QG - 9.25 in

TB - 8.375 in

I bolded that because I thought that sounded unbelievably small. I know that one of the knocks on Griffin were his small hands, nearly an inch bigger than Bells! Now I'm not going to say that's meaningless (some RBs have 10-inch hands like Duckett), but:Clinton Portis - 8 1/4 inch hands

Willie Green - 7 3/4 inch hands

I guess it can't be too bad eh?

For the fun of things:

Portis

40 yard dash: 4.42

Vertical jump - 39 inches

Arm length - 31 1/8 inches

Hand length - 8 1/4 inches

Birthdate - Sept 1, 1981

ANALYSIS

Positives: Powerfully built outside runner with sudden moves turning the corner … Cradles the ball securely and has the leg drive to drag defenders for extra yardage … Effective short-area receiver who is adept at picking up the blitz … Has elusive moves through the holes, displaying the vision to consistently pick the right rush lanes and the lateral agility to get into second gear, quickly turning the corner … Has the quick stutter-step and side-step moves to elude defenders in the open … Runs at a low pad level with impressive inline balance.

Negatives: Has had ball-security problems in the past … Shows marginal willingness to face up to defenders as a blocker … Runs a little too erect at times, but has the ability to accelerate around the corner.

 

[BassNBrew]

Obviously I would draft someone 90% likely to finish 15th then someone 50% likely to so in the second round.

If someone's 90% likely to finish 15th and you have him say, ranked 14th...how can someone 50% likely to finish 15th be ranked on your list as high as 15th? We may just be having semantics arguments at this point, but I still would rather have about 20 different RBs than Bell. If you're going to take him in the 5th anyway, why do you care at all to rank him? Or how we rank him?

To answer your first question, if we were to draw a distribution curve of the 50% RB, it would be wide and flat. The 90% no upside back would be steep and narrow. In summary, the 50% guy in this case being a Denver RB would have a better shot at both a top ten finish as well as busting.Why I care was laid out in an earlier post. The individual staff rankings should be opening my eyes to the various possibilities to take a closer look at. If one or two have Bell in the top 15 and no one has Suggs there and both avarage out to around RB30, I'm going to take a closer look at Bell. Be identifing who's high on him, I may look for a perspective they wrote in a player spotlight or faceoff. The way I look at it, you guys are the experts. You've been give assignments that should be forcing you to do more research then me. You probably have read more facts and opinions about a given player then me. So your rankings should tip me off to do some research and review your analysis/conclusions. I may or may not agree with it, but that's for me to sort out on draft day. Right now the only conclusions I can draw from the rankings is that the consensus opinion is that no of the Denver RBs will come anywhere near their historical output and that your wasting a pick by drafting them if you're looking for upside. Some of the staff have confirmed this in this thread with a sound reasoning, others have admitted to just throwing their hands up because there's not enough info.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Right now the only conclusions I can draw from the rankings is that the consensus opinion is that no of the Denver RBs will come anywhere near their historical output and that your wasting a pick by drafting them if you're looking for upside.

You are drawing unwarranted conclusions. You can't tell anything about "upside" or "risk" from our rankings. You also can't tell how big a guy is, or how fast, or how good an offensive line he has. All of that stuff is considered when we come up with a player's final numerical rank -- but it can't be separated back out again just from that rank.If you want to know how risky a player is or how much upside he has, you have to know something about the player himself; not just where he's ranked.Our Player Pages will eventually have write-ups of each player's positives and negatives, and you'll be able to get an idea of those sorts of things from them. In the meantime, don't blame the cat for not being a dog (or whatever it was that Ivan said a few pages back).

 

[BassNBrew]

What doesn't make sense to me are those that believe A Denver RB will be in the top 20 but that is not reflected in their rankings.

This has been said already, but I guess it bears repeating. There was no option to put "a Denver RB" anywhere in our rankings.That's also why you won't see "a backup QB" anywhere in my top 20 QB list.

Mr. QB and Mr. Back QB: One will be starting and if is in a good situation (surrounded by talent) will be ranked highly.Mr. Denver RB A, B, C, and D: One will be starting and although in a good situation, will not be ranked highly.

I understand that several of you really think that the load will be evenly split dispite any historical precedent. Some good cases have been made to support this argument. No one on the staff is taking the contary postion and that is fine. But if one of the backs goes off please help remind me which of the message board posters saw this coming so I can review their work a little closer next year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

"The thing we liked about Tatum more than anything was how tough he was as a blocker," Shanahan said. "The running backs we've had here in the past have all been pretty consistent in the blocking area.""He's explosive. He's a big-play threat. The guy can take it the distance whenever he touches the ball," [GM Ted] Sundquist said. "Maybe the fastest running back in the draft. He's a very tough blocker in the passing game, which is very important for us. He's willing to stand in there and face linebackers when they blitz.""We're looking forward to having him back there in the combination with Quentin Griffin and Garrison Hearst and Ahmaad Galloway. I feel like we have a pretty good mix now of some different types of style, and we should be able to continue to run the football."BassNBrew, I think you make some great points. The fact that Bell's top 15% is higher than RB19's top 15% is something that many overlook (note: This is HIS opinion. I can certainly see someone saying Bell isn't worth Clinton Portis' jock). As of right now though, I'm still not comfortable with Bell as my RB2, so he's out of my top 24. (To be fair, I'm probably more likely to draft Hearst or Griffin, so Bell really is in no position to land on any of my teams as of June 1).P.S. I think Stephen Jackson has almost as good of a chance as being a top ten RB as Tatum Bell. I don't hear anyone saying Jackson should be ranked in the top twenty. I'd say Stephen Jackson vs. Tatum Bell would make for a pretty decent debate.

 

[Biabreakable]

BassNBrew your still taking Bell in the 5th round which means this is very close to where the staff has him ranked overall.

Right now they have Bell at 51 or early 5th round.

Now yes you see upside in taking him there and you are using the overall perception to make a risk/reward decision that could really pay off or end up being a wasted pick.

What I do not understand is why you think any staff member or anyone else should have him ranked any higher than that? It is like you are being oblivious to the risk involved and only seeing the cup half full and rising.

I happen to agree with your draft strategy but I do not see how this has any bearing on the rankings and I would assume if Bell were ranked as high as you say you have him you would look elsewhere for value because the risks Bell has would not justify using such a high pick on him and you have said as much yourself.

 

[BassNBrew]

Right now the only conclusions I can draw from the rankings is that the consensus opinion is that no of the Denver RBs will come anywhere near their historical output and that your wasting a pick by drafting them if you're looking for upside.

You are drawing unwarranted conclusions. You can't tell anything about "upside" or "risk" from our rankings. You also can't tell how big a guy is, or how fast, or how good an offensive line he has. All of that stuff is considered when we come up with a player's final numerical rank -- but it can't be separated back out again just from that rank.If you want to know how risky a player is or how much upside he has, you have to know something about the player himself; not just where he's ranked.Our Player Pages will eventually have write-ups of each player's positives and negatives, and you'll be able to get an idea of those sorts of things from them. In the meantime, don't blame the cat for not being a dog (or whatever it was that Ivan said a few pages back).

Ivan was the one who thought the rankings were based on when you would draft a player.What I can draw from your rankings is that an over whelming majority of experts believe either one or two Denver RBs from the poplation of Hearst, Bell, and Griffin will finish roughly between #28 and #34 in the end of sesaon rankings and that none of the experts see enough evidence to believe any one of the population has a reasonable opportunity to crack the top 20.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Mr. QB and Mr. Back QB: One will be starting and if is in a good situation (surrounded by talent) will be ranked highly.

Mr. Denver RB A, B, C, and D: One will be starting and although in a good situation, will not be ranked highly.

I don't understand what you're saying here.There's a good chance that some backup QB will finish the season as a top 20 guy at his position. And yet our rankings don't reflect that. Do you understand why?

If you do, then you should understand why none of us have Tatum Bell (or Garrison Hearst or Mike Anderson or Quentin Griffin) listed as a top 20 RB. It's the same exact reason. Because, although it's likely some (Denver RB / Backup QB) will be top 20 next season, we can't say which one, and trying to make a guess without adequate info is more likely to fail than to succeed.

Notice that nobody's busting our balls for failing to "take a stand" on whether the productive backup QB will be Shaun King, Mike McMahon, Gus Frerotte, or whoever.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bass, here's a good analogy (since MT failed to bring it up yet).You have to rank twenty one "things". The first "thing" is the number 5.5. The next twenty "things" will be determined by dice rolls (i.e., 1-6).Now how would you rank them?Dice roll JDice roll BDice roll R5.5Rest of dice rollsNow that would be in line with the historical reasoning that about 3 of the twenty dice rolls will be greater than 5.5. Now if you want to argue that NO Sixes will come up (i.e., RBBC), that's ok--but that flies in the face of history.But if you want to say that at least ONE of the twenty rolls will be greater than 5.5, how can you not LIST one of the twenty above 5.5? Take a stand!See how this is faulty logic? Anyone would rank the 5.5 first, even if he KNOWS it won't finish first. It's just got a greater expected return than any other result. (How'd I do, I know dice are your thing MT)

 

[cracKer]

But if one of the backs goes off please help remind me which of the message board posters saw this coming so I can review their work a little closer next year.

This thread obviously shows that opinions regarding the Denver RB situation are nothing more than guesses at this point. If one of the runners goes off and ends up in the top 10, there will quite a few guys around here patting their own back claiming to have called it. I'm calling bull**** before it even happens. Guessing right now doesn't make anyone a messiah.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

is this what people are looking for?

Expert A ranks Tatum Bell as his #16 RB and no other Denver back in the top-30

Expert B ranks Garrison Hearst as his #18 RB and no other Denver back in the top-30

Expert C ranks Quentin Griffin as his #20 RB and no other Denver back in the top-30

Expert D ranks no Denver RB in his top 30

if so, why would that variety be any better or more informative?

if you want us all to guess right now on who the leading Broncos back will be and how many fantasy points he will score, I guess you could ask those questions of us, but I don't really think the expert rankings are the best place to provide that information.

As has already been mentioned, the accuracy of our rankings will be evaluated at the end of the season. Thus, we have a motivation to get these as accurate as possible. Minimizing risk is a big part of achieving accuracy.

Consider the NCAA tournament pools that many people participate in. The safe play in most of the early rounds is to take a lot of favorites, and you will usually end up picking most of the games right. However, if you want to aim for 100% accuracy, you will have to pick some underdogs as they always occur. The problem there is that it is much harder to pick the correct upsets, and if you pick the wrong ones, your accuracy will end up much worse than your competition.

Thus, people who aim for perfection are taking the riskier strategy and often end up being out of the pool after the first round or two. If they get lucky and pick the right upsets, they could get a big advantage on their competition that will pay off if they pick the later rounds correctly. People who take favorite-heavy safer strategy, often end up lasting longer, and doing better than most of their competition.

Hope that makes some sense, but that was the best analogy I could come up with here. Sure, one could say that a Broncos RB will finish in the top-20 or so, but since none of us are very sure who it will be, it would be extremely risky to rank a RB that highly. There are much safer bets out there to finish in the top-20 and picking the safer players makes us much more likely to stay competitive with our fellow staff members.

The goal (for myself anyway) is not to achieve 100% accuracy, although that would be cool, but rather to rank players with more accuracy than any of my fellow staff members. In a sense, we are all competing against each other with our rankings. I think you should keep that in mind when evaluating the rankings.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ivan was the one who thought the rankings were based on when you would draft a player.

For practical purposes, it's the same thing.

What I can draw from your rankings is that an over whelming majority of experts believe either one or two Denver RBs from the poplation of Hearst, Bell, and Griffin will finish roughly between #28 and #34 in the end of sesaon rankings and that none of the experts see enough evidence to believe any one of the population has a reasonable opportunity to crack the top 20.

No, that's an unwarranted conclusion as well.I think it was in this thread that I said that each of the projections represent the weighted mean of a probability distribution.

Hypothetically, if there's a 50% chance that a player will get 100 yards and a 50% chance that he'll get 1000 yards -- and nothing in between is possible -- my projection for him will still be 550 yards. That's an unrealistic example, but do you get the point? If there's another player who has a 33% chance of getting 500 yards, a 33% of getting 550 yards, and a 33% chance of getting 600 yards, I'll also project him to get 550 yards. So those two RBs will be ranked in the same spot even though one has more risk/reward and the other is safer.

It doesn't mean neither one has a reasonable chance to get 1000 yards. The first guy has a 50% chance of it, which seems reasonable.

Similarly, Bell has a reasonable (27% is the number I gave previously) chance to be the featured guy in Denver, in which case he may well be top 15. But that doesn't mean I'm going to rank him in the top 15 -- because there's a 73% chance (using my figures) that he won't be the featured guy.

If you're trying to pick out stuff like "upside" or "risk" (or "height" or "speed") from just our rankings, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

[BassNBrew]

BassNBrew your still taking Bell in the 5th round which means this is very close to where the staff has him ranked overall.

Right now they have Bell at 51 or early 5th round.

Now yes you see upside in taking him there and you are using the overall perception to make a risk/reward decision that could really pay off or end up being a wasted pick.

What I do not understand is why you think any staff member or anyone else should have him ranked any higher than that? It is like you are being oblivious to the risk involved and only seeing the cup half full and rising.

I happen to agree with your draft strategy but I do not see how this has any bearing on the rankings and I would assume if Bell were ranked as high as you say you have him you would look elsewhere for value because the risks Bell has would not justify using such a high pick on him and you have said as much yourself.

Two years ago most missed the boat on Portis. Understand becuase of the competition in front of him. Last year many vaulted SOD to the top of the heap only to see him fail to meet expectations. This year we have Julius Jones ranked anywhere from 14 to 29, Kevin Jones from 18 to 34, and zero Denver RBs inside the top 20. People definately have taken a position on the Jones for one reason or another and they very widely.Let's look at it from one other angle, the experts have a larger difference in opinion on where Portis will finish then where his replacement will finish. That's mind boggling.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hypothetically, if there's a 50% chance that a player will get 100 yards and a 50% chance that he'll get 1000 yards -- and nothing in between is possible -- my projection for him will still be 550 yards. That's an unrealistic example, but do you get the point? If there's another player who has a 33% chance of getting 500 yards, a 33% of getting 550 yards, and a 33% chance of getting 600 yards, I'll also project him to get 550 yards. So those two RBs will be ranked in the same spot even though one has more risk/reward and the other is safer.

While your premise is correct about multiplying the expected outcomes by the chance of those outcomes, I think that's not your best example.1000 yards - 20 VBD points (hypothetical)50 yards - 0 VBD points550 yards - 0 VBD points500 yards - 0 VBD points600 yards - 0 VBD pointsYou would rank the guy with an average of 10 VBD points ahead of the other player. For the record, I'm one of the biggest anti-upside members of this message-board. One day I hope to figure out how to prove that upside is more likely to not exist than exist in the form most give today. Upside is tremendously, tremendously overrated. However, in MT's hypothetical example we're not talking upside, since those numbers were being given by facts.One could argue in their rankings that all RBs finishing with 0 VBD points are all the same. While I won't TOTALLY agree with that, there's certainly SOME truth there.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's look at it from one other angle, the experts have a larger difference in opinion on where Portis will finish then where his replacement will finish.

There's simply no way for you to know where we think "his replacement" will finish, because we weren't asked to rank "his replacement."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While your premise is correct about multiplying the expected outcomes by the chance of those outcomes, I think that's not your best example.1000 yards - 20 VBD points (hypothetical)50 yards - 0 VBD points550 yards - 0 VBD points500 yards - 0 VBD points600 yards - 0 VBD pointsYou would rank the guy with an average of 10 VBD points ahead of the other player.

You're right (and it's a good point), but that's a whole different subject that takes us outside the scope of what's being debated in this thread.

 

[BassNBrew]

is this what people are looking for?

Expert A ranks Tatum Bell as his #16 RB and no other Denver back in the top-30

Expert B ranks Garrison Hearst as his #18 RB and no other Denver back in the top-30

Expert C ranks Quentin Griffin as his #20 RB and no other Denver back in the top-30

Expert D ranks no Denver RB in his top 30

if so, why would that variety be any better or more informative?

if you want us all to guess right now on who the leading Broncos back will be and how many fantasy points he will score, I guess you could ask those questions of us, but I don't really think the expert rankings are the best place to provide that information.

As has already been mentioned, the accuracy of our rankings will be evaluated at the end of the season. Thus, we have a motivation to get these as accurate as possible. Minimizing risk is a big part of achieving accuracy.

Consider the NCAA tournament pools that many people participate in. The safe play in most of the early rounds is to take a lot of favorites, and you will usually end up picking most of the games right. However, if you want to aim for 100% accuracy, you will have to pick some underdogs as they always occur. The problem there is that it is much harder to pick the correct upsets, and if you pick the wrong ones, your accuracy will end up much worse than your competition.

Thus, people who aim for perfection are taking the riskier strategy and often end up being out of the pool after the first round or two. If they get lucky and pick the right upsets, they could get a big advantage on their competition that will pay off if they pick the later rounds correctly. People who take favorite-heavy safer strategy, often end up lasting longer, and doing better than most of their competition.

Hope that makes some sense, but that was the best analogy I could come up with here. Sure, one could say that a Broncos RB will finish in the top-20 or so, but since none of us are very sure who it will be, it would be extremely risky to rank a RB that highly. There are much safer bets out there to finish in the top-20 and picking the safer players makes us much more likely to stay competitive with our fellow staff members.

The goal (for myself anyway) is not to achieve 100% accuracy, although that would be cool, but rather to rank players with more accuracy than any of my fellow staff members. In a sense, we are all competing against each other with our rankings. I think you should keep that in mind when evaluating the rankings.

That's exactly what we looking for, various opinions on what will shake out. Boom...there are some guys I need to find out more about. What's this Aaron guy thinking...I better do some more research? Why does Wimer have a contary opinion?Aaron...You've turn the ranking process in a mathmatical equation to get your grade up. If it were a projection contest, wouldn't the safest route to be to project each of the top 30 at the average of the top 30 the previous year?

 

[BassNBrew]

Let's look at it from one other angle, the experts have a larger difference in opinion on where Portis will finish then where his replacement will finish.

There's simply no way for you to know where we think "his replacement" will finish, because we weren't asked to rank "his replacement."

Yes you were, you either haven't identified him or you see several replacements.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You have to rank twenty one "things". The first "thing" is the number 5.5. The next twenty "things" will be determined by dice rolls (i.e., 1-6).Now how would you rank them?Dice roll JDice roll BDice roll R5.5Rest of dice rollsNow that would be in line with the historical reasoning that about 3 of the twenty dice rolls will be greater than 5.5. Now if you want to argue that NO Sixes will come up (i.e., RBBC), that's ok--but that flies in the face of history.But if you want to say that at least ONE of the twenty rolls will be greater than 5.5, how can you not LIST one of the twenty above 5.5? Take a stand!See how this is faulty logic? Anyone would rank the 5.5 first, even if he KNOWS it won't finish first. It's just got a greater expected return than any other result. (How'd I do, I know dice are your thing MT)

igskinp:

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's look at it from one other angle, the experts have a larger difference in opinion on where Portis will finish then where his replacement will finish.

There's simply no way for you to know where we think "his replacement" will finish, because we weren't asked to rank "his replacement."

Yes you were, you either haven't identified him or you see several replacements.

We can't put "Portis's Replacement" in our rankings any more than we can put "a Denver RB" or "a backup QB" in our rankings.

 

[BassNBrew]

Ivan was the one who thought the rankings were based on when you would draft a player.

For practical purposes, it's the same thing.

What I can draw from your rankings is that an over whelming majority of experts believe either one or two Denver RBs from the poplation of Hearst, Bell, and Griffin will finish roughly between #28 and #34 in the end of sesaon rankings and that none of the experts see enough evidence to believe any one of the population has a reasonable opportunity to crack the top 20.

No, that's an unwarranted conclusion as well.I think it was in this thread that I said that each of the projections represent the weighted mean of a probability distribution.

Hypothetically, if there's a 50% chance that a player will get 100 yards and a 50% chance that he'll get 1000 yards -- and nothing in between is possible -- my projection for him will still be 550 yards. That's an unrealistic example, but do you get the point? If there's another player who has a 33% chance of getting 500 yards, a 33% of getting 550 yards, and a 33% chance of getting 600 yards, I'll also project him to get 550 yards. So those two RBs will be ranked in the same spot even though one has more risk/reward and the other is safer.

It doesn't mean neither one has a reasonable chance to get 1000 yards. The first guy has a 50% chance of it, which seems reasonable.

Similarly, Bell has a reasonable (27% is the number I gave previously) chance to be the featured guy in Denver, in which case he may well be top 15. But that doesn't mean I'm going to rank him in the top 15 -- because there's a 73% chance (using my figures) that he won't be the featured guy.

If you're trying to pick out stuff like "upside" or "risk" (or "height" or "speed") from just our rankings, you're looking in the wrong place.

I look towards the rankings for an individual opinion summary, not a hedged position. I'm interested in the conclusions the experts draw as to the most likely scenario. I feel like I'm asking you for an opinion on a stock and you're telling me that you are really long, but hedged with a small short option to prevent a huge loss and then summing it up as a neutral position.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let's look at it from one other angle, the experts have a larger difference in opinion on where Portis will finish then where his replacement will finish.

There's simply no way for you to know where we think "his replacement" will finish, because we weren't asked to rank "his replacement."

Yes you were, you either haven't identified him or you see several replacements.

Portis' replacement does not equal Bell OR Griffin OR Hearst OR Anderson. We can't rank PORTIS' replacement. We CAN rank Bell. Or Griffin. Or even that old man Hearst.Bass, not everything is in black and white. I don't really know what to do besides asking you to review the dice example and either point out faulty logic or a faulty comparison.(Of course I don't mean it when I say I don't know what else to do...)Do you really want to argue that Tatum Bell should be drafted ahead of (or ranked higher, same thing) Curtis Martin?

 

[BassNBrew]

Let's look at it from one other angle, the experts have a larger difference in opinion on where Portis will finish then where his replacement will finish.

There's simply no way for you to know where we think "his replacement" will finish, because we weren't asked to rank "his replacement."

Yes you were, you either haven't identified him or you see several replacements.

We can't put "Portis's Replacement" in our rankings any more than we can put "a Denver RB" or "a backup QB" in our rankings.

I'm not going to argue symantics. You and I both know that the replacement will be Anderson, Bell, Griffin, Hearst, or a combination. The current rankings tell me that a combination is the consensus likely outcome. I just thought that an expert or two would have a differing opinion based upon historical precedence.

 

[BassNBrew]

Do you really want to argue that Tatum Bell should be drafted ahead of (or ranked higher, same thing) Curtis Martin?

I'll look at your dice example in a minute.What I would like to argue is that something is wrong when not 1 of 16 experts see's a Denver RB surpassing RB19. I find the odds of that staggering given the historical precendence in Denver.

 

[BassNBrew]

Bass, here's a good analogy (since MT failed to bring it up yet).You have to rank twenty one "things". The first "thing" is the number 5.5. The next twenty "things" will be determined by dice rolls (i.e., 1-6).Now how would you rank them?Dice roll JDice roll BDice roll R5.5Rest of dice rollsNow that would be in line with the historical reasoning that about 3 of the twenty dice rolls will be greater than 5.5. Now if you want to argue that NO Sixes will come up (i.e., RBBC), that's ok--but that flies in the face of history.But if you want to say that at least ONE of the twenty rolls will be greater than 5.5, how can you not LIST one of the twenty above 5.5? Take a stand!See how this is faulty logic? Anyone would rank the 5.5 first, even if he KNOWS it won't finish first. It's just got a greater expected return than any other result. (How'd I do, I know dice are your thing MT)

I understand what you're saying here and would agree with MT's back-up QB example. However, I argue that we're not dealing with chance here and if we're playing the probability game that this is the other side where it's reasonable to rank the individual outcome below 5.5.2003 Portis #5 - Anderson #512002 Portis #4 - Anderson #43 - The rookie "RBBC" Year2001 Anderson #34 - Davis #462000 Anderson #4 - Davis #58 - Davis hurt, Gary hurt, Anderson "ROY" year1999 Gary #14 - none in top 601998 Davis #1 - none in top 601997 Davis #2 - none in top 601996 Davis #2 - Craver #481995 Davis #12 - Craver #321994 Russell #23 - Milburn #34That's 8 out of 10 years where a Denver RB finished in the top 15. 8 of 9 under Shanahan with four different backs. Furthermore, Shanahan has found these RBs out side of the the first round of the draft. Lastly, he's a stubborn SOB and will be trying to prove his point that it's his system, not the RB to justify the Portis/Bailey trade.You add all that up and it would seem that 1 of 15 experts would agree.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Do you really want to argue that Tatum Bell should be drafted ahead of (or ranked higher, same thing) Curtis Martin?

I'll look at your dice example in a minute.What I would like to argue is that something is wrong when not 1 of 16 experts see's a Denver RB surpassing RB19. I find the odds of that staggering given the historical precendence in Denver.

Not odd considering not one of us ranked "A Denver RB"Is it odd that not one of us ranked Griffin in the top 19? I don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Hearst in the top 19? Still don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Tatum Bell in the top 19? Nope.I hope the dice example will help you see things in more than just black and white. There are percentages to look at, as well as INDIVIDUAL performances, not group performances.That's like saying the following: I found it odd that the staff experts expect the top seven placekickers to come from seven different divisions (a shame that the eight division is represented by PK9). There's no way that the top 7 PKs come from seven different divisions! Isn't that odd that not ONE PK from the NFC South is ranked above the top PK in any of the other seven divisions? (this example may be a little silly, but it is almost 3 AM.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

That's 8 out of 10 years where a Denver RB finished in the top 15. 8 of 9 under Shanahan with four different backs. Furthermore, Shanahan has found these RBs out side of the the first round of the draft. Lastly, he's a stubborn SOB and will be trying to prove his point that it's his system, not the RB to justify the Portis/Bailey trade.You add all that up and it would seem that 1 of 15 experts would agree.

Thinking like that will get you tied up. What would you do in this situation?For the last six years, a Missouri RB has ranked in the top two EACH year. EACH YEAR! Both Faulk and Holmes turn 31 this year. In the last thirty years (whatever the actual number is), not a single RB age 31 has EVER ranked in the top two.How would you deal with that? We could LITERALLY argue all day.Person 1) How in the world can you predict that no Mo. RB will be in the top two when it's happenned SIX STRAIGHT YEARS!Person 2) How in the world can you predict that a 31 year old RB will rank in the top two? It hasn't happenned in THIRTY YEARS!

 

[BassNBrew]

Do you really want to argue that Tatum Bell should be drafted ahead of (or ranked higher, same thing) Curtis Martin?

I'll look at your dice example in a minute.What I would like to argue is that something is wrong when not 1 of 16 experts see's a Denver RB surpassing RB19. I find the odds of that staggering given the historical precendence in Denver.

Not odd considering not one of us ranked "A Denver RB"Is it odd that not one of us ranked Griffin in the top 19? I don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Hearst in the top 19? Still don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Tatum Bell in the top 19? Nope.I hope the dice example will help you see things in more than just black and white. There are percentages to look at, as well as INDIVIDUAL performances, not group performances.That's like saying the following: I found it odd that the staff experts expect the top seven placekickers to come from seven different divisions (a shame that the eight division is represented by PK9). There's no way that the top 7 PKs come from seven different divisions! Isn't that odd that not ONE PK from the NFC South is ranked above the top PK in any of the other seven divisions? (this example may be a little silly, but it is almost 3 AM.)

Well I find it odd.I don't find it odd that you haven't ranked a back-up QB out of a population of 32 when it will take a unpredictable injury in a timely manner to put a back-up QB in the population into the final rankings.I do find it odd that you haven't ranked a Denver RB out of a population of 4 when Anderson is moving to full back, you have significant history for Hearst, some history for Griffin, and historical precedence for Bell to look at.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Do you really want to argue that Tatum Bell should be drafted ahead of (or ranked higher, same thing) Curtis Martin?

I'll look at your dice example in a minute.What I would like to argue is that something is wrong when not 1 of 16 experts see's a Denver RB surpassing RB19. I find the odds of that staggering given the historical precendence in Denver.

Not odd considering not one of us ranked "A Denver RB"Is it odd that not one of us ranked Griffin in the top 19? I don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Hearst in the top 19? Still don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Tatum Bell in the top 19? Nope.I hope the dice example will help you see things in more than just black and white. There are percentages to look at, as well as INDIVIDUAL performances, not group performances.That's like saying the following: I found it odd that the staff experts expect the top seven placekickers to come from seven different divisions (a shame that the eight division is represented by PK9). There's no way that the top 7 PKs come from seven different divisions! Isn't that odd that not ONE PK from the NFC South is ranked above the top PK in any of the other seven divisions? (this example may be a little silly, but it is almost 3 AM.)

Well I find it odd.I don't find it odd that you haven't ranked a back-up QB out of a population of 32 when it will take a unpredictable injury in a timely manner to put a back-up QB in the population into the final rankings.I do find it odd that you haven't ranked a Denver RB out of a population of 4 when Anderson is moving to full back, you have significant history for Hearst, some history for Griffin, and historical precedence for Bell to look at.

I think we're both giving ground here and making some progress. Clearly, it's much easier to figure out the population of four rather than 32. Here's the thing though--we HAVE figured it out. See I think you're trying to say that if we spend 24 hours a day each, and look at every piece of film around, etc., etc., etc., we WILL come up with who the main man for Denver will be. It is out there, we just need to find out. But what we're saying is that even after all that work (or however much work we've done), it's not 100% this guy and 0% that guy. It's only 40% that guy and 40% that guy and 10% that guy. Four out of ten times Q will be the main man, but 4 out of ten times Bell will be the main man. No amount of work/study/prep by us will change that. It won't magically become 100%.Incidentally, no one is really 100% the man because everyone shares carries (even Deuce). But what we're saying is instead of Bell getting 40% of the carries, he's likely to get what amounts to 40% of the carries (i.e., simply, he's half as likely to get 80% of the carries as 0% of the carries).

 

[BassNBrew]

That's 8 out of 10 years where a Denver RB finished in the top 15. 8 of 9 under Shanahan with four different backs. Furthermore, Shanahan has found these RBs out side of the the first round of the draft. Lastly, he's a stubborn SOB and will be trying to prove his point that it's his system, not the RB to justify the Portis/Bailey trade.You add all that up and it would seem that 1 of 15 experts would agree.

Thinking like that will get you tied up. What would you do in this situation?For the last six years, a Missouri RB has ranked in the top two EACH year. EACH YEAR! Both Faulk and Holmes turn 31 this year. In the last thirty years (whatever the actual number is), not a single RB age 31 has EVER ranked in the top two.How would you deal with that? We could LITERALLY argue all day.Person 1) How in the world can you predict that no Mo. RB will be in the top two when it's happenned SIX STRAIGHT YEARS!Person 2) How in the world can you predict that a 31 year old RB will rank in the top two? It hasn't happenned in THIRTY YEARS!

Being a MO RB isn't pertinent to the equation. I could say a RB with a Feb or Oct birthday has been in the top two in the last six years. That's how I would deal with that. The information I presented was specific to an organization with the same coach during that time period. That's definately shouldn't be discarded like some random happenstance.You and MT are trying to reduce everything in this argument to chance and hedging probabilities. Your equations won't spit out an answer for you and you refuse to analyze the limited data and draw a logical conclusion (which is that one of the Denver RBs will finish in the top 28). I realize that if you do the analysis you might drawn the wrong conclusion, well don't be afraid of that. Also, I won't hold it against you if you periodically review the situation as additional data comes in and you draw a different conclusion.Time for bed, I leave this for the morning crew to fight the good fight.

 

[BassNBrew]

Do you really want to argue that Tatum Bell should be drafted ahead of (or ranked higher, same thing) Curtis Martin?

I'll look at your dice example in a minute.What I would like to argue is that something is wrong when not 1 of 16 experts see's a Denver RB surpassing RB19. I find the odds of that staggering given the historical precendence in Denver.

Not odd considering not one of us ranked "A Denver RB"Is it odd that not one of us ranked Griffin in the top 19? I don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Hearst in the top 19? Still don't think so.Is it odd that not one of us ranked Tatum Bell in the top 19? Nope.I hope the dice example will help you see things in more than just black and white. There are percentages to look at, as well as INDIVIDUAL performances, not group performances.That's like saying the following: I found it odd that the staff experts expect the top seven placekickers to come from seven different divisions (a shame that the eight division is represented by PK9). There's no way that the top 7 PKs come from seven different divisions! Isn't that odd that not ONE PK from the NFC South is ranked above the top PK in any of the other seven divisions? (this example may be a little silly, but it is almost 3 AM.)

Well I find it odd.I don't find it odd that you haven't ranked a back-up QB out of a population of 32 when it will take a unpredictable injury in a timely manner to put a back-up QB in the population into the final rankings.I do find it odd that you haven't ranked a Denver RB out of a population of 4 when Anderson is moving to full back, you have significant history for Hearst, some history for Griffin, and historical precedence for Bell to look at.

I think we're both giving ground here and making some progress. Clearly, it's much easier to figure out the population of four rather than 32. Here's the thing though--we HAVE figured it out. See I think you're trying to say that if we spend 24 hours a day each, and look at every piece of film around, etc., etc., etc., we WILL come up with who the main man for Denver will be. It is out there, we just need to find out. But what we're saying is that even after all that work (or however much work we've done), it's not 100% this guy and 0% that guy. It's only 40% that guy and 40% that guy and 10% that guy. Four out of ten times Q will be the main man, but 4 out of ten times Bell will be the main man. No amount of work/study/prep by us will change that. It won't magically become 100%.Incidentally, no one is really 100% the man because everyone shares carries (even Deuce). But what we're saying is instead of Bell getting 40% of the carries, he's likely to get what amounts to 40% of the carries (i.e., simply, he's half as likely to get 80% of the carries as 0% of the carries).

If that's the conclusion you draw after doing the work, then I have no problem with the rankings. Again, I find it odd that 15 experts pretty much drew that same conclusion. If that's truly the case, then I need to re-think my position that one of the Denver Rbs will be in the top 28 and much less the top 20.Lastly, using probability or the dice example, it's highly unlikely that all the experts rolled the dice and got the same number.