Denver RB Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Biabreakable]

BTW Rueben Droughns and Patrick Hape are the FBsLast thing I have read stated that Mike Anderson has trimmed down some and will compete at HB this year not FB. If anyone has seen anything that contradicts this It would be interesting to know. imo Mike Anderson offers the greatest reward for the smallest risk in this scenario.And I do see this year being more like 2001 than 2002 which means more RBBCI think Shanon Sharpes comment that Denver will find a way to "manufacture" a running game might indicate that he sees RBBC coming also.None of these RBs are Clinton Portis.

 

[Boone22]

Just to confuse things a little more... Broncos | Like Beard's Potential - from www.KFFL.comSun, 30 May 2004 09:51:15 -0700The Associated Press reports the Denver Broncos like the potential of second-year RB Santonio Beard, who they signed as a free agent during the offseason. "We like what he has to offer," Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said. "We're very high on him." Beard will compete with RB Garrison Hearst, RB Tatum Bell, RB Quentin Griffin and RB Mike Anderson for a roster spot this year.

 

[JAA]

As I mentioned in another thread, projections are an attempt at finding the expected mean of a probability distribution for a player's results.

Griffin, Bell, Anderson, and Hearst each have a certain probability of gaining 1800 yards and 18 TDs if they end up becoming the featured RB for most of the season, but they also each have a certain probability of gaining 85 yards and 0 TDs if they end up being the odd man out.

Our job is to come up with the probabilities of each of those scenarios and all scenarios in between, and then give you something like the mean projection weighted by probability.

In order for me to rank Bell as a top 20 RB, I'd have to think he's got something like a 90% chance of becoming the featured RB. But I don't think the probability is that high, so he's not on my top 20 list. I don't think the probability is that high for any Denver RB as of right now, so none of them are on my top 20 list.

Asking me to take a stab at picking which Denver RB (if any) will become the featured RB and then ranking him in my top 20 is like asking me to take a stab at guessing which starting QB (Culpepper?) will be injured before week 5 and then ranking him outside my top 30.

It happens every year. Some QB gets injured and is lost for the season. But for any particular QB, the probability that he'll be injured isn't high enough to drop him 20 spots in my rankings.

And for any particular Denver RB, the probability that he'll become the featured Devner RB early in the season isn't high enough to put him on my top 20 list.

Im late to the party, and I havnt read ahead yet, but I wanted to comment on this:Yes, you are exactly right. However, the part you are missing is that there will be a featured RB in Den (featured to some extent). None of your rankings reflect that.

Everyone agrees we dont know who the starter is. That does not mean we cant project a featured Den RB. This is one of my issues with projecting players, it breaks down with respect to undefined starters.

What I do is project a 'Den RB' and apply it to the baseline where I see fit. I then look at all of the RBs in the stable to determine what it would take to land the Den RB. This falls into place when you select 2/3's of Den's projected FF points even though it cost you 2 picks. This works if you feel you can project (for example) 70% of Den's RB FF points will be scored by Bell and Hearst. You can then gauge the value in getting both of those picks in the baseline.

Same thing with all RBBC teams. You just need to know that since there is no clear cut starter, it will cost you up front.

JAA

 

[P Boy]

Well, here's what it basically comes down to - it's not that hard to understand.Despite the fact that DEN has had a RB in the top 5 in rushing yards in 6 of the past 8 years (that includes Clinton Portis as a rookie - who Shanahan also picked in the 2nd round, like Bell - who rode the pines for the first 4 games & still finished 4th in the NFL in rushing yds that year), none of the FBGs has the nuts to stick his neck out, project which RB will carry the bulk of the load (since Shanahan historically is not a RBBC guy), and pick his favorite in the DEN RB derby as obtaining top 10 numbers.If I had to project, I'd take Bell as a reasonable shot to gain 1400 yds rushing, +/- 50 by the time the year is up. Shanahan doesn't burn 2nd rounders on RBs unless he sees something that he feels is really special. Otherwise, he'll wait until the late rounds to snap up a bargain basement stud RB.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yes, you are exactly right. However, the part you are missing is that there will be a featured RB in Den (featured to some extent). None of your rankings reflect that.

My rankings do reflect that. They reflect that each of the RBs has a certain percentage chance to be the featured guy, and also the chance that it will be RBBC.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Despite the fact that DEN has had a RB in the top 5 in rushing yards in 6 of the past 8 years . . . none of the FBGs has the nuts to stick his neck out, project which RB will carry the bulk of the load . . . and pick his favorite in the DEN RB derby as obtaining top 10 numbers.

I have stuck my neck out and told you the exact percentages in my view. Your problem is that you think the percentages should be 90/5/3/2 instead of 28/27/24/11/10 or whatever, but those aren't the percentages as I see them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

Read Chase's statement above again. The rankings don't necessarily reflect a RBBC view. They may reflect an RBBC view, or they may reflect uncertainty as to who will be the featured guy. A 40% chance of getting 100% of the carries is like a 100% chance of getting 40% of the carries.Also, I don't know how in the world you can say (1) there's enough information out there for us to come to a conclusion on this, and (2) it's surprising that we've reached the same conclusion. We've reached similar conclusions because we've all analyzed the same info. Our conclusion is that the starter isn't clear-cut.

 

[LHUCKS]

Can we move on to Oakland now??

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Can we move on to Oakland now??

I was thinking that just about the entire time, you can say the same thing for the Oakland RB's. I think that's even sicker and at this time, even a tougher call if there is such a possibility.Who starts, who gets the goal line carries, who's the third down back, huh, ugly.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

And I do see this year being more like 2001 than 2002 which means more RBBC

I think Shanon Sharpes comment that Denver will find a way to "manufacture" a running game might indicate that he sees RBBC coming also.

None of these RBs are Clinton Portis.

Just to set the record straight, Unless the 2004 starting RB for DEN gets injured, sits out, comes back for 2 games, sits out again, then comes back to finish the season; 2004 will not be like 2001.

2001 was not RBBC, it was an injury-filled season for the starter, leading to the backup having larger EOY numbers.

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 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+

While I agree that none of these backs are Clinton Portis, I do think at least one of them is a solid every-down back.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In this scenario, tell me what I'm supposed to do:Chance that Denver has a top 20 RB? 70%Chance that RB is Griffin? 40%Chance that RB is Bell? 40%Chance that RB is Hearst? 20%Using simple math...Chance Griffin is top 20? = 28%Chance that Bell is top 20? = 28%Chance that Hearst is top 20? = 14%Even further....Chance that Curtis Martin is top 20? = 50%Chance that Julius Jones is top 20? = 45%Chance that TJ Duckett is top 20? = 30%And you will find that ou rankings all fall very much in line with this (Martin - 20, Jones - 21, Duckett - 29, Bell - 31)It's been a fun debate, and nice to brush up on my skills as well. It should be a fun season guys :bsr:

 

[BassNBrew]

In this scenario, tell me what I'm supposed to do:Chance that Denver has a top 20 RB? 70%Chance that RB is Griffin? 40%Chance that RB is Bell? 40%Chance that RB is Hearst? 20%Using simple math...Chance Griffin is top 20? = 28%Chance that Bell is top 20? = 28%Chance that Hearst is top 20? = 14%Even further....Chance that Curtis Martin is top 20? = 50%Chance that Julius Jones is top 20? = 45%Chance that TJ Duckett is top 20? = 30%And you will find that ou rankings all fall very much in line with this (Martin - 20, Jones - 21, Duckett - 29, Bell - 31)It's been a fun debate, and nice to brush up on my skills as well. It should be a fun season guys :bsr:

Just a long one when you're looking up at the guy who correctly sorted out the Denver RB situation with a fifth round pick. Given that you have both Bell and Griffin at 40%, you likely won't have either on your roster. Will Suggs/Green and Dunn/Duckett also be at even odds to be the feature back in the opinion of the majority of the staff?

 

[JAA]

Yes, you are exactly right. However, the part you are missing is that there will be a featured RB in Den (featured to some extent). None of your rankings reflect that.

My rankings do reflect that. They reflect that each of the RBs has a certain percentage chance to be the featured guy, and also the chance that it will be RBBC.

I dont agree and I think we are talking apples and oranges. At the end of the season, there will have been the go to guy (or at least we will use that for the example). Going into the draft with your rankings dont help me. Your rankings say that no Den RB should be taken in the top 30 RBs, though we all agree at least 1 Den RB will (or could) finish in the top 18. This is a problem IMO.JAA

 

[JAA]

In this scenario, tell me what I'm supposed to do:Chance that Denver has a top 20 RB? 70%Chance that RB is Griffin? 40%Chance that RB is Bell? 40%Chance that RB is Hearst? 20%Using simple math...Chance Griffin is top 20? = 28%Chance that Bell is top 20? = 28%Chance that Hearst is top 20? = 14%Even further....Chance that Curtis Martin is top 20? = 50%Chance that Julius Jones is top 20? = 45%Chance that TJ Duckett is top 20? = 30%And you will find that ou rankings all fall very much in line with this (Martin - 20, Jones - 21, Duckett - 29, Bell - 31)It's been a fun debate, and nice to brush up on my skills as well. It should be a fun season guys :bsr:

Mitigate your risk. You cant put them all in the top 20, and you cant drop them all out of the top 20. As a Shark, use your instincts, but dont overdraft. Dont reach too far, but make a value pick if your roster and league supports it.JAA

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Your rankings say that no Den RB should be taken in the top 30 RBs, though we all agree at least 1 Den RB will (or could) finish in the top 18. This is a problem IMO.

It's not a problem.My rankings say that no backup QB should be taken in the top 20 QBs, though we all agree that at least one backup QB will (or could) finish in the top 20.It's the same phenomenon.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

I completely agree with your analysis here - it is why I see Bell emerging. I was unimpressed with Griffin, and Shannie knows what he has in Anderson, yet still drafted a back and signed Hearst. I have confidence Hearst can beat either of them for the feature role, but Bell is the X-factor.If a Denver back emerges to be a steady consistent fantasy force, I think it'll be Bell, and for the reasons you've outlined above. I won't be as surprised ias you f he doesn't get the field enough to get 100 yard games by mid-season. Pass protection is a Hearst forte and college RB's play in the NFL passing game is something that must be learned - so Hearst may still see the field a lot, to Bell's detriment.And, the most underrated part of Denver's running game just lost two-thirds of its members. Do NOT underestimate the damage losing Sharpe and McCaffrey will have on the running game -they were excellent downfield blockers - as is Rod Smith - a large reason why Portis, TD, Anderson, and Gary were able to extend runs downfield was the blocking of Sharpe, Smith, and Eddie Mac.

 

[bostonfred2]

Given that you have both Bell and Griffin at 40%, you likely won't have either on your roster. Will Suggs/Green and Dunn/Duckett also be at even odds to be the feature back in the opinion of the majority of the staff?

I agree with your underlying point - that picking the right guy will win you championships - and this is exactly why an expected value concept has to be used in making your picks. The difference is, the staff members haven't arbitrarily selected one of these players as the most likely to win the job, and therefore aren't taking a stand early in the season. But if there's information that suggests that Bell is being given a crack at the job, and Chase changes his numbers to 67% that Bell is going to get it (or that there's a greater likelihood that ONE back in Denver will be top 20) he'd move up past Julius Jones and Duckett. You're also suggesting that upside is more valuable than assured production, and I'd agree with that, too. I'd rather have a RB2BC of Bell and Richie Anderson than a RB2 of Eddie George, because I think George's upside is VERY limited. That's why, for each player, I take their upside, downside, and most likely scenario, add percentages to each, as well as a percent chance of injury, and come up with their expected value, instead of using single value projections.

 

[LHUCKS]

I see the X-factor as Hearst's health, not Tatum Bell.Again, assuming Hearst is as good as he was last year I would find it hard to believe that he'd be pulled by Shanny for a rookie in the middle of a playoff chase.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Given that you have both Bell and Griffin at 40%, you likely won't have either on your roster. Will Suggs/Green and Dunn/Duckett also be at even odds to be the feature back in the opinion of the majority of the staff?

I agree with your underlying point - that picking the right guy will win you championships - and this is exactly why an expected value concept has to be used in making your picks. The difference is, the staff members haven't arbitrarily selected one of these players as the most likely to win the job, and therefore aren't taking a stand early in the season. But if there's information that suggests that Bell is being given a crack at the job, and Chase changes his numbers to 67% that Bell is going to get it (or that there's a greater likelihood that ONE back in Denver will be top 20) he'd move up past Julius Jones and Duckett. You're also suggesting that upside is more valuable than assured production, and I'd agree with that, too. I'd rather have a RB2BC of Bell and Richie Anderson than a RB2 of Eddie George, because I think George's upside is VERY limited. That's why, for each player, I take their upside, downside, and most likely scenario, add percentages to each, as well as a percent chance of injury, and come up with their expected value, instead of using single value projections.

igskinp:

 

[LHUCKS]

That's why, for each player, I take their upside, downside, and most likely scenario, add percentages to each, as well as a percent chance of injury, and come up with their expected value, instead of using single value projections.

Wow, you're the first to my knowledge that does this...it's almost exactly what I do. We probably handle the injury factor differently...as I gave up long ago on putting too much weight there, nevertheless it's nice to see somebody is almost as brilliant as I am

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

Considering it is just now June first, I think I can speak for the staff that this thread is feeling more like a large amount of ball busting, and less a reasonable request that we pin ourselves down in our rankings for the Denver backs. And in the light of this morning, I choose to see it that way, and I hope most of the readers here do too. I have not finished reading the rest of the thread, maybe this has already been pointed out.So far, I agree that it is one of the best threads of the year, - it has pulled out a bunch of people who will be facing off in, oh, four days or so.I sispect that Jason's Henry/McG Player Spotlight thread will pull some very interesting (and heated) opinions, too.

 

[LHUCKS]

Given that you have both Bell and Griffin at 40%, you likely won't have either on your roster.  Will Suggs/Green and Dunn/Duckett also be at even odds to be the feature back in the opinion of the majority of the staff?

I agree with your underlying point - that picking the right guy will win you championships - and this is exactly why an expected value concept has to be used in making your picks. The difference is, the staff members haven't arbitrarily selected one of these players as the most likely to win the job, and therefore aren't taking a stand early in the season. But if there's information that suggests that Bell is being given a crack at the job, and Chase changes his numbers to 67% that Bell is going to get it (or that there's a greater likelihood that ONE back in Denver will be top 20) he'd move up past Julius Jones and Duckett. You're also suggesting that upside is more valuable than assured production, and I'd agree with that, too. I'd rather have a RB2BC of Bell and Richie Anderson than a RB2 of Eddie George, because I think George's upside is VERY limited. That's why, for each player, I take their upside, downside, and most likely scenario, add percentages to each, as well as a percent chance of injury, and come up with their expected value, instead of using single value projections.

igskinp:

That's right Chase it was...yet another illustration of why Fred is going to represent Survivor II well and kick the Staff's ###!

 

[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.

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

It's almost as if we'd discussed this before.

 

[bostonfred2]

I see the X-factor as Hearst's health, not Tatum Bell.Again, assuming Hearst is as good as he was last year I would find it hard to believe that he'd be pulled by Shanny for a rookie in the middle of a playoff chase.

When Shanahan groomed Portis, he started the incumbent for the first couple weeks until finally settling on the rookie. The team was better then than it is now, IMO. You can certainly argue that Portis is better than Bell, but I don't think the question is whether he'd hand the job to a rookie, but whether he wants the rookie to win the job. I tend to think that the chance of Bell winning that job is higher than the chance of Hearst winning it. I think Bass feels that way, too. But the fact that you're able to make a solid argument for Hearst winning the job does diminish Bell's value.

 

[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.

Considering it is just now June first, I think I can speak for the staff that this thread is feeling more like a large amount of ball busting, and less a reasonable request that we pin ourselves down in our rankings for the Denver backs. And in the light of this morning, I choose to see it that way, and I hope most of the readers here do too. I have not finished reading the rest of the thread, maybe this has already been pointed out.So far, I agree that it is one of the best threads of the year, - it has pulled out a bunch of people who will be facing off in, oh, four days or so.I sispect that Jason's Henry/McG Player Spotlight thread will pull some very interesting (and heated) opinions, too.

Here's a tip, maybe you shouldn't speak for the staff when you're implying that the staff has a thin skin and that questioning of the rankings by a poster should be just considered ball-busting by the readers. I refrain from adding anything else since I don't have my finger on the timeout button.

 

[Marc Levin]

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!

For what it's worth, I believe "small hands" is a euphemism for how well the back catches the ball rather than actual size of the hands.Similar to how "alligator arms" doesn't mean the guys' arms are actually shorter than other people's arms.

Also - Barry Jive . . . EXCELLENT post - one of the best in this entire thread.

 

[Marc Levin]

Here's a tip, maybe you shouldn't speak for the staff when you're implying that the staff has a thin skin and that questioning of the rankings by a poster should be just considered ball-busting by the readers.

I didn't imply the staff has thin skin - I implied YOU are busting balls.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For what it's worth, I believe "small hands" is a euphemism for how well the back catches the ball rather than actual size of the hands.

I don't think so. I think it means literally small hands.Reche Caldwell has very large hands, but he drops an awful lot of balls in game situations. Nobody would say he has small hands. They'd say he lacks concentration.A lot of scouts figure that large hands help a guy catch the ball well, but I'm not at all sure that's true.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I spoke of "small hands" (did I really just put that in quotes?), the player that came to my mind was Ricky Williams. IIRC, that was one of the small knocks on him entering the NFL, that his hands were somewhere around 8 inches (which is small). What I didn't know, was how small Portis and Willie Green's hands were (you can argue all day about WG, but there's no doubting that he had dominant stretches AND had small hands...and that his small hands aren't the reason he's not dominant today).

 

[BassNBrew]

Here's a tip, maybe you shouldn't speak for the staff when you're implying that the staff has a thin skin and that questioning of the rankings by a poster should be just considered ball-busting by the readers.

I didn't imply the staff has thin skin - I implied YOU are busting balls.

This would be busting balls...Does the FBG.com brass make you guys check in your nads along with your monkier and issue you a set of panties during the initiation process? Are you benchmarking CBS Sportsline since they're the leader in the industry?

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW Rueben Droughns and Patrick Hape are the FBsLast thing I have read stated that Mike Anderson has trimmed down some and will compete at HB this year not FB. If anyone has seen anything that contradicts this It would be interesting to know.

Nope - that was actually what I read, too. However, to clarify, with Sharpe now retiring, I believe Hape will be moved back to TE to compete with the 25 other TEs on the squad. Droughns and Anderson were both promised "increased roles" when they re-signed.The team has a ton of talent in the backfield right now, and I expect Hape, Droughns, Anderson, Bell, Hearst, and Griffin to ALL Make th efinal squad, with one of Sapp or Galloway to be around as well. I think one of them must be cut or sent to Europe (where Galloway has been unimpressively running).Anderson could very easily find his way back to a FB role sometims during training camp.

 

[Marc Levin]

Here's a tip, maybe you shouldn't speak for the staff when you're implying that the staff has a thin skin and that questioning of the rankings by a poster should be just considered ball-busting by the readers.

I didn't imply the staff has thin skin - I implied YOU are busting balls.

This would be busting balls...Does the FBG.com brass make you guys check in your nads along with your monkier and issue you a set of panties during the initiation process? Are you benchmarking CBS Sportsline since they're the leader in the industry?

Well, they tried, but they couldn't find panties big enough for my package.Instead, they gave me a "unitard" and told me to make sure to get Chase's and Clayton's laundry done every Tuesday.Look, BnB, IF I were to rank a Denver back in the top-20, it would probably be Bell, but without a single report on who might win the job, I really don't feel confident in any one of the four. I truly see it as 25-25-25-25 for each of those backs to be the feature - and another 40% that three of those backs will share duties either as a regular course of business in the games, or over the course of the season.All of that tells me not to pick one particular Denver back right now. I think that is essentially what the other staff guys are saying, too - right now the percentages are too small to allow any one Denver back into our top-20 rankings. IF I had to pick iobne of the Denver bacxks for my team, it'd be Bell, and I'd also look to add Hearst if possible. That is just mey personal preference for th eplayers involved, though the idea that Griffin or Anderson ends up starting for 16 games would not suprise me in the least - I just like the way Hearst and Bell run better, but I don;t know that Shannie will prefer their styles behind the Denver line.You'll see some radical changes in our staff rankings once camps actually open, but to expect any of us to feel so strongly about one of these guys as to place him right NOW in our top-20 rankings seems out of line.I'll talk about these players all day long, but I don't feel comfortable ranking any one of them in the top-20 for RBs right now - either for their projected EOY performance or for where they should be drafted.

 

[Drugrunner]

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

I ranked Bell 19th, what more do you want from me?

 

[BassNBrew]

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

I ranked Bell 19th, what more do you want from me?

Nothing, but the powers to be would like you to return your official issued FBG panties. I may just have to change my signature to...Drugrunner knows Denver RBs.

 

[Drugrunner]

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

I ranked Bell 19th, what more do you want from me?

Nothing, but the powers to be would like you to return your official issued FBG panties. I may just have to change my signature to...Drugrunner knows Denver RBs.

To expound some:I'm the last guy on the totem pole in the staff as I was added just as the ranking were called for. Perhaps my rankings are incorrect in Concept? I tried to ask questions on what the ranking were looking for from the powers that be, and what I interpreted was that they are Year end, Final rankings. With that in Mind, that's exactly how I ranked them.I see the Denver Running Backs to shake out like this:Anderson: Full Back, small number of carries per game. Able to take over the starter role if called upon, will not be called upon.Hearst: I have huge Man-love for Hearst. However, he was brought in on a 1 year contract as insurance for Griffin and Bell. Will most likely be the opening day starter, and supplanted within Weeks. Situational Player from there.Griffin: Not an Every Down runner. Won't break contact, will get 30-40% of the carries the first few weeks, might even start a few times before week 6. RBBC at best until Bell takes over.Bell: The Future of the Franchise. Start slowly with a couple of carries a week. Once he's picked up the Blocking assignments, he will become the Starter for the team sometime between Week 5-9. He will put up excellent numbers, but not top 10, as he lost the first games of the season as a non-starter.With all of that in mind, I ranked Bell 19th, and didn't rank the other 3 at all.So, with a clear cut thought of what I believe will shake out, I still only ranked the top Denver RB 19th.For what it's worth.

 

[ravnzfan]

With all of that in mind, I ranked Bell 19th, and didn't rank the other 3.So, with a clear cut thought of what I believe will shake out, I still only ranked the top Denver RB 19th.For what it's worth.

leave it to the new guy to go out on the perverbial limb this is all we were looking for, guys, was for someone...anyone...to go thru a likely senario and rank the guys accordinglyDenver has consistantly produced top10 run game...to say 3 guys would fall all over each other all year, with none stepping to the front, is chicken####

 

[BassNBrew]

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

I ranked Bell 19th, what more do you want from me?

Nothing, but the powers to be would like you to return your official issued FBG panties. I may just have to change my signature to...Drugrunner knows Denver RBs.

To expound some:I'm the last guy on the totem pole in the staff as I was added just as the ranking were called for. Perhaps my rankings are incorrect in Concept? I tried to ask questions on what the ranking were looking for from the powers that be, and what I interpreted was that they are Year end, Final rankings. With that in Mind, that's exactly how I ranked them.I see the Denver Running Backs to shake out like this:Anderson: Full Back, small number of carries per game. Able to take over the starter role if called upon, will not be called upon.Hearst: I have huge Man-love for Hearst. However, he was brought in on a 1 year contract as insurance for Griffin and Bell. Will most likely be the opening day starter, and supplanted within Weeks. Situational Player from there.Griffin: Not an Every Down runner. Won't break contact, will get 30-40% of the carries the first few weeks, might even start a few times before week 6. RBBC at best until Bell takes over.Bell: The Future of the Franchise. Start slowly with a couple of carries a week. Once he's picked up the Blocking assignments, he will become the Starter for the team sometime between Week 5-9. He will put up excellent numbers, but not top 10, as he lost the first games of the season as a non-starter.With all of that in mind, I ranked Bell 19th, and didn't rank the other 3 at all.So, with a clear cut thought of what I believe will shake out, I still only ranked the top Denver RB 19th.For what it's worth.

My hero...now are you sure you picked the right one.

 

[Drugrunner]

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

I ranked Bell 19th, what more do you want from me?

Nothing, but the powers to be would like you to return your official issued FBG panties. I may just have to change my signature to...Drugrunner knows Denver RBs.

To expound some:I'm the last guy on the totem pole in the staff as I was added just as the ranking were called for. Perhaps my rankings are incorrect in Concept? I tried to ask questions on what the ranking were looking for from the powers that be, and what I interpreted was that they are Year end, Final rankings. With that in Mind, that's exactly how I ranked them.I see the Denver Running Backs to shake out like this:Anderson: Full Back, small number of carries per game. Able to take over the starter role if called upon, will not be called upon.Hearst: I have huge Man-love for Hearst. However, he was brought in on a 1 year contract as insurance for Griffin and Bell. Will most likely be the opening day starter, and supplanted within Weeks. Situational Player from there.Griffin: Not an Every Down runner. Won't break contact, will get 30-40% of the carries the first few weeks, might even start a few times before week 6. RBBC at best until Bell takes over.Bell: The Future of the Franchise. Start slowly with a couple of carries a week. Once he's picked up the Blocking assignments, he will become the Starter for the team sometime between Week 5-9. He will put up excellent numbers, but not top 10, as he lost the first games of the season as a non-starter.With all of that in mind, I ranked Bell 19th, and didn't rank the other 3 at all.So, with a clear cut thought of what I believe will shake out, I still only ranked the top Denver RB 19th.For what it's worth.

My hero...now are you sure you picked the right one.

Ofcourse.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Denver has consistantly produced top10 run game...to say 3 guys would fall all over each other all year, with none stepping to the front, is chicken####

Good thing I'm not saying that nobody will step in front, then.I think Griffin has the best chance of stepping in front -- I put it at 28% earlier in this thread.

Overall, I think there's a 70+% chance that somebody will step in front. My rankings reflect this. They also reflect the fact that there's no way to tell right now who it will be.

 

[Biabreakable]

BTW Rueben Droughns and Patrick Hape are the FBsLast thing I have read stated that Mike Anderson has trimmed down some and will compete at HB this year not FB. If anyone has seen anything that contradicts this It would be interesting to know.

Nope - that was actually what I read, too. However, to clarify, with Sharpe now retiring, I believe Hape will be moved back to TE to compete with the 25 other TEs on the squad. Droughns and Anderson were both promised "increased roles" when they re-signed.The team has a ton of talent in the backfield right now, and I expect Hape, Droughns, Anderson, Bell, Hearst, and Griffin to ALL Make th efinal squad, with one of Sapp or Galloway to be around as well. I think one of them must be cut or sent to Europe (where Galloway has been unimpressively running).Anderson could very easily find his way back to a FB role sometims during training camp.

Well that certainly is possible that Mike Anderson will be used in the FB role again however the official word is that he has been moved to half back at this time not the other way around and some others are suggesting.I do not see Hape and Shannon Sharpe as being at all similar as players nor thier roles in the offence so I do not see how Sharpes retirement leaves a vacumn that Hape now needs to fill. Hape is a H-Back and blocking specialist.I think that role will be addressed by Chamberlain and like you said the other 25 TEs they have brought in to compete. Recently they were talking about Jed Weaver having a bigger role in the passing game.Yes maybe Mike Anderson will be used at full back again this year but unless I see somthing to the contrary he is competing for the HB role. I think these other RBs need to show themselves as clearly better than Anderson like Portis did before he would be moved back to FB. And I am not seeing that being the case.As far as my opinion about this being more similar to 2001 well here you go:Garrison Hearst now fills TDs shoes. Due to possible injury or just wear and tear limiting his contribution.Mike Anderson gets significant carries.Quintin Griffin has a limited role similar to Olandis Gary.Tatum Bell gets some action but does not establish himself as the starter in 2004. He does not have the fluid agility like Clinton Portis has from what I have read.Maybe it wont end up working out like this but showing me the historical data does not convince me that this is not a possibility.Sharpes comments about seeing the Denver offence possibly being in decline troubles me as well.But go ahead and keep on insisting that a Denver RB deserves to be drafted early and likewise should then be ranked highly. That would be just fine with me if people want to take risks with thier picks early on in drafts. Your setting the odds against yourselves if you do this.Just pushes stronger picks down the board imo.

 

[JAA]

Your rankings say that no Den RB should be taken in the top 30 RBs, though we all agree at least 1 Den RB will (or could) finish in the top 18. This is a problem IMO.

It's not a problem.My rankings say that no backup QB should be taken in the top 20 QBs, though we all agree that at least one backup QB will (or could) finish in the top 20.It's the same phenomenon.

Well, they are the same phenomenon. If we use that as an example, I drafted Bulger in most of my redrafts last season. Prolly the highest backup picked. This will be the same phenomenon when I take Bell higher than RB30.JAA

 

[VICK-IS-GOD]

But go ahead and keep on insisting that a Denver RB deserves to be drafted early and likewise should then be ranked highly. That would be just fine with me if people want to take risks with thier picks early on in drafts. Your setting the odds against yourselves if you do this.Just pushes stronger picks down the board imo.

No one said they should be drafted very early, but if you call the situation right you could be getting the main Denver RB in round 5 or later.I'll take a gamble with my 5th on a high risk/high reward player, if he busts so what, it isn't like my season will be ruined if my 5th rounder doesn't pan out.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

consider this:Tatum Bell is currently ranked #31 in FBG consensus RB rankingsQuentin Griffin is currently ranked #34Garrison Hearst is currently ranked #35Last year, the #31 EOY RB (Garner) put up 118 pointsthe #34 EOY RB (K.Faulk) put up 108 pointsthe #35 EOY RB (Wheatley) put up 104 pointsadd up those 3 and you get 330 fantasy pointsIf one RB got 330 fantasy points last year, he would have finished as a top-5 RB.Thus, in essense, we are still predicting a top-5 Denver rushing attack, just are spreading the wealth. Hearst may be the man early, Griffin may get a shot, and Bell might be the man late. They could all contribute as a feature back at some point throughout the course of a 16-game season. There's just no good reason right now to predict which particular 1 RB of the 4 will emerge as a feature RB early in the season, will stay healthy, and will play well enough to keep the job throughout. There are other players on other teams who have less competition for carries and will thus have a better chance of finishing in the top-20.

 

[ExtraPoint]

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

I ranked Bell 19th, what more do you want from me?

From now on I will refer to you as Expert Drugrunner. How's that? I'm not picking on anyone here. I'm targeting the whole playing field. You'll notice Expert Drugrunner's far out prediction had hardly an effect on the average ranking. If half the staff went out on a limb like that and they all picked different players it still wouldnt have affected the average. Yet if most of them agreed on the same player it would have. Either way the FBG customers would have been more aware of the 'expert' opinions. Instead the customer has to try to pry them out.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Either way the FBG customers would have been more aware of the 'expert' opinions. Instead the customer has to try to pry them out.

For an opinion on where we think a player should be ranked, all a customer has to do is look at our rankings.For ours reasons why we think he should be ranked there (safe with limited upside versus risky with high upside; RBBC versus competition to be "the guy," etc.), you can't get that from our rankings. You have to either read our Spotlights, Face/Offs, Player Pages, or start a thread on the message board asking us.

 

[Doug Drinen]

That's why, for each player, I take their upside, downside, and most likely scenario, add percentages to each, as well as a percent chance of injury, and come up with their expected value, instead of using single value projections.

Wow, you're the first to my knowledge that does this...

I'd argue that many, many (probably most) people do this, although maybe not quite so explicitly. Further, isn't this essentially the same as what Maurile has been trying to explain all along? From MT:

My projection for Q.Griffin is calculated (roughly) this way: (chance that he'll be featured guy) * (points he'll get if featured guy) + (chance of RBBC) * (points he'll get in RBBC) + (chance someone else will be featured guy) + (points he'll get if someone else is featured guy).

Bostonfred, unless I'm misunderstanding something, your "expected value" is a "single-value projection." The single value you get is the expected value of a distribution, something MT has mentioned several times in the past few days. Other people obviously disagree (as this thread proves), but I happen to agree (strongly) with you and MT and LHUCKS that this is the best way to do projections. This is how you can end up with three Denver RBs projected between 25 and 40, and I see nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[VICK-IS-GOD]

Thus, in essense, we are still predicting a top-5 Denver rushing attack, just are spreading the wealth.

That would be fine if all the FBG staff forsees RBBC in Denver, but there are a few who said that they see one guy emerging and getting the bulk of work.So for the ones who see RBBC, I understand the rankings 100%, but for those who see one RB emerging in an offense that you just said will have top 5 rushing numbers, I want them to give an opinion on who that will be based on what we know at this point.I'm confident in saying that at this very moment Shanahan has a good idea of what he wants to happen with the RB spot. What I want is one of the people on staff who thinks one RB will emerge to venture an educated guess on what Shanahan is planning to do and reflect that in their rankingsIs Shanahan that hard to figure out? No, most of the uncertainty in the past was due 100% to injury. He had his guy and went with him, but at times injuries forced him into improvising. There aren't injuries to deal with at this point, Shanahan very likely has a guy he wants to be the man.

 

[ravnzfan]

consider this:Tatum Bell is currently ranked #31 in FBG consensus RB rankingsQuentin Griffin is currently ranked #34Garrison Hearst is currently ranked #35Last year, the #31 EOY RB (Garner) put up 118 pointsthe #34 EOY RB (K.Faulk) put up 108 pointsthe #35 EOY RB (Wheatley) put up 104 pointsadd up those 3 and you get 330 fantasy pointsIf one RB got 330 fantasy points last year, he would have finished as a top-5 RB.Thus, in essense, we are still predicting a top-5 Denver rushing attack, just are spreading the wealth. Hearst may be the man early, Griffin may get a shot, and Bell might be the man late. They could all contribute as a feature back at some point throughout the course of a 16-game season. There's just no good reason right now to predict which particular 1 RB of the 4 will emerge as a feature RB early in the season, will stay healthy, and will play well enough to keep the job throughout. There are other players on other teams who have less competition for carries and will thus have a better chance of finishing in the top-20.

In essance, you guys are saying the 3 will likely start~5 games each, and/orsplit the touches fairly evenly---THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SEASONShanny has never gone this way for an entire year...this much we do knowno one is going to get fired...do you all, except Drugrunner, REALLY believe the FINAL rankings will NOT have a DEN RB w/in the top30?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

no one is going to get fired...do you all, except Drugrunner, REALLY believe the FINAL rankings will NOT have a DEN RB w/in the top30?

once again, we were not given the option of ranking "a Denver RB" anywhere in our list. If we were, I would very likely have ranked that player in the top-25.What is so hard to understand here?

MT and Chase have explained the problem very well. Just because you think 1 Denver RB will do well, doesn't mean it is very smart to just go ahead and pick one and rank him up there.

If I think there is a 60% chance that a Denver RB will finish in the top-25, that also means there is a 40% chance that one won't. If I believe that each of the Big 3 (Bell, Griffin, Hearst) have a 33% chance to be the guy that emerges, that puts the odds for each of them at only 20% (1/3 of 60%). So, why would anyone rank a player in the top-25 if they believe that player only has a 1 out of 5 chance to do so? Based on those odds, the remaining 40% chance that NOBODY will emerge is the most likely scenario and thus that is reflected in many rankings.

Even if someone puts the odds of 1 Denver RB emerging at 90%, and gives Bell a 40% chance of being that guy, Hearst a 30% chance, Griffin a 20% chance, and Anderson a 10% chance, that still only puts Bell at 36% overall, Hearst at 27%, Griffin at 18%, and Anderson at 9%. So, the chances of Bell reaching top-25 might be projected at 36% or about 1 out of 3. I still think there are likely better options out there who have closer to a 1 in 2 chance of finishing in the top-25. Based on that, they would still be ranked higher than Bell.

 

[Doug Drinen]

no one is going to get fired...do you all, except Drugrunner, REALLY believe the FINAL rankings will NOT have a DEN RB w/in the top30?

Back on page 3 or so, somebody was talking about putting guns to heads. Let's go with that. Somebody puts a gun to my head and holds it there for the entire 2004 season, promising to shoot me if I'm wrong on any question.Him: do you think QG will be a top 20 RB?Me: NoHim: do you think TB will be a top 20 RB?Me: NoHim: do you think GH will be a top 20 RB?Me: NoHim: do you think MA will be a top 20 RB?Me: NoThose are the honest answers I would give if my life depended on my correctness. Given that, why should I rank a guy in the top 20 that I don't think is likely to end up in the top 20?Him: do you think there will be a Denver RB in the top 20?Me: YesHim: 19 backs are off the board and all the Denver RBs are still there. Who do you take?Me: Tiki Barber.