Deuce ranked too low this week? (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

1. For the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) time, I didn't omit Dunn until I was called out on it. I purposefully omitted Dunn in order to present your case in the best light, since Duckett performed better than Dunn. I still don't think Dunn should factor into the analysis, but rather I added him because some people wanted him in.

Actually, to present an accurate case than Dunn needed to be included in the discussion from jump city. Why you're so determined to exclude him is puzzling but we're definitely heading into a circular argument here.

2. If McAllister has 147 rushing yards and 0 TDs, is that a big week?

Yes I would say that is a big week.

If you answer yes, then why are you unhappy with FBGs projecting him with 14.7 FPs tomorrow?

You're misquoting me. I never said I was unhappy with FBG's projection. I have said I think he could have a big game tomorrow and I agreed with the initial post in this thread that he deserves to be ranked higher. The question, in my opinion, isn't so much about McAllister's projection but rather will he outperform some of the RBs ranked above him this week. I believe he will and have explained in detail with plenty of supportive statistics and evidence why I feel that way.

I just want to make sure we're clear on what's a big week and what isn't. 14.7 FPs isn't a big week whether it's through 10 carries and 147 yards or 25 carries, 27 rushing yards (sounds like William Green) and 2 TDs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You're conveniently forgetting the Bills great performance against Dom Davis.

No I haven't. That's definitely been a part of the evaluation process all along.

If you don't want to factor that in, then yes based off the past two weeks, you would expect McAllister to do well. Of course basing anything off two weeks when you have more data seems foolhardy.

You really need to see my other thread, Chase. If you read it, you'll see why I'm basing my McAllister projection off a lot more than just two games this season.

Since I'm not asserting anything original, but just replying to other people's quotes, I don't see the need to look at the other thead. All I was arguing was the poor use of stats in this thread.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's just as silly, or maybe even more silly, to base Deuce's production this week on what 1 member of a RBBC did last week against a team. Apples and oranges. Dunn+Duckett vs. Deuce is more like tangerines vs. oranges. Still not exact, but a little closer.

I agree. I'd just as soon throw out the Atlanta game. That leaves one game where the opposing RB had 18.8 FPs, and one game where the opposing RB had 5.7 FPs. I fail to see how projecting Deuce for 14.7 FPs is unreasonable.

Why throw out the Atlanta RB game entirely? Is it just because they ranked number 1 last year? Or do you have another reason for considering them an outlier?

Just curious.

He brought up throwing them out (apples to tangerines). The reason would be because they ranked number 1 last year and this year. Not dissimilar from saying because Terrell Owens had 120/2 this week against team Y, I'm going to start Derrick Mason against team Y! No one would think that's sound logic.

Exactly!!!! So we shouldn't be using two (or three) data points from previous games to justify Deuce's rankings.

Agreed. How about 16? Last year the Bills ranked in the top five for least FPs given up to opposing RBs.

I can accept that logic. It's fine as long as you factor in that the data is from last year. This year is a new year and it can be dangerous to base this year's data, especially for team def., on last year's performance.Again, my basic argument is that there are a lot of reasons to believe Deuce could have a great game this week that would justify a higher ranking.

Don't forget that the Bills D was awesome in 2003 as well. That's 32 games of great production, one great game this year, one not so hot game this year, and one terrible game against a team that doesn't resemble the Saints in the least bit.

 

[The Swarm]

Is this not the most appropriate thread for this emote? ==> well for me anyway...

for others.. maybe like this...

Actually, for me it is like Seriously, I wanted to know this. All of it. I'm now at least slightly more confident that I wasn't on crack thinking Deuce might have a bigger-than-currently-projected day. If he does outperform FBG projections, will I swear off all future FBG info? No way, but we have to talk out the possible question marks.

My main point was that it's a serious fantasy blunder to confuse team rushing yards allowed with team FPs allowed to an opposing team's RB1. And it's one I'd rather see our subscribers avoid. Check my hypothetical example about Teams X and Y earlier in the thread for further detail.

Fair enough. I don't personally feel I have made that mistake. What I've done is watch the Bills flounder on Rush D, and think "Hmm, Deuce is a stud RB," and then try to pull in what I know about injuries (Horn, Spikes, etc.). Basically, I don't think it is a mistake to see stud RB vs dead bottom last ranked run D and think he might crack the top 10. But, like everyone on this planet, I won't know until after the games are over.

 

[packersfan]

Since I'm not asserting anything original, but just replying to other people's quotes, I don't see the need to look at the other thead. All I was arguing was the poor use of stats in this thread.

And that explains why we're going around and around and around. You're not interested in seeing the reasoning behind the statements that are being presented and you're ignoring vital information in the process. In any event, I've said all I can say here. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

 

[Archie Bunker]

It's just as silly, or maybe even more silly, to base Deuce's production this week on what 1 member of a RBBC did last week against a team.  Apples and oranges.  Dunn+Duckett vs. Deuce is more like tangerines vs. oranges.  Still not exact, but a little closer.

I agree. I'd just as soon throw out the Atlanta game. That leaves one game where the opposing RB had 18.8 FPs, and one game where the opposing RB had 5.7 FPs. I fail to see how projecting Deuce for 14.7 FPs is unreasonable.

Why throw out the Atlanta RB game entirely? Is it just because they ranked number 1 last year? Or do you have another reason for considering them an outlier?

Just curious.

He brought up throwing them out (apples to tangerines). The reason would be because they ranked number 1 last year and this year. Not dissimilar from saying because Terrell Owens had 120/2 this week against team Y, I'm going to start Derrick Mason against team Y! No one would think that's sound logic.

Exactly!!!! So we shouldn't be using two (or three) data points from previous games to justify Deuce's rankings.

Agreed. How about 16? Last year the Bills ranked in the top five for least FPs given up to opposing RBs.

I can accept that logic. It's fine as long as you factor in that the data is from last year. This year is a new year and it can be dangerous to base this year's data, especially for team def., on last year's performance.Again, my basic argument is that there are a lot of reasons to believe Deuce could have a great game this week that would justify a higher ranking.

Don't forget that the Bills D was awesome in 2003 as well. That's 32 games of great production, one great game this year, one not so hot game this year, and one terrible game against a team that doesn't resemble the Saints in the least bit.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Let's put this together.1. The Bills have done well against the run in 2003-2004.

2. They have not started well this year.

3. Spikes is out.

4. NO has fallen behind a lot, limiting Deuce's touches.

5. The Bills' offense stinks, so NO may not fall behind early.

6. Big assumption here,but I'm guessing the Saints don't fumble the openinig kickoff again this week.

7. The Saints are at "home" for the first time this year.

8. Aaron Brooks is good for at least 1 red zone turnover.

9. Jim Haslett doesn't know his ### from his elbow.

Feel free to add to this to come up with some logic for a Deuce projection.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Is this not the most appropriate thread for this emote? ==> well for me anyway...

for others.. maybe like this...

Actually, for me it is like Seriously, I wanted to know this. All of it. I'm now at least slightly more confident that I wasn't on crack thinking Deuce might have a bigger-than-currently-projected day. If he does outperform FBG projections, will I swear off all future FBG info? No way, but we have to talk out the possible question marks.

My main point was that it's a serious fantasy blunder to confuse team rushing yards allowed with team FPs allowed to an opposing team's RB1. And it's one I'd rather see our subscribers avoid. Check my hypothetical example about Teams X and Y earlier in the thread for further detail.

Fair enough. I don't personally feel I have made that mistake. What I've done is watch the Bills flounder on Rush D, and think "Hmm, Deuce is a stud RB," and then try to pull in what I know about injuries (Horn, Spikes, etc.). Basically, I don't think it is a mistake to see stud RB vs dead bottom last ranked run D and think he might crack the top 10. But, like everyone on this planet, I won't know until after the games are over.

You're just forgetting two things.1) Over 32 games in 2003 and 2004, the Bills run D was AWESOME.

2) The fact that the Bills run D ranked last is irrelevant to how you would expect Deuce McAllister to do. Go see the Team X and Y example if you don't understand this.

 

[Archie Bunker]

You're just forgetting two things.

1) Over 32 games in 2003 and 2004, the Bills run D was AWESOME.

2) The fact that the Bills run D ranked last is irrelevant to how you would expect Deuce McAllister to do. Go see the Team X and Y example if you don't understand this.

Not irrelevent. It just needs to be taken in the appropriate context with the appropriate weighting.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's just as silly, or maybe even more silly, to base Deuce's production this week on what 1 member of a RBBC did last week against a team. Apples and oranges. Dunn+Duckett vs. Deuce is more like tangerines vs. oranges. Still not exact, but a little closer.

I agree. I'd just as soon throw out the Atlanta game. That leaves one game where the opposing RB had 18.8 FPs, and one game where the opposing RB had 5.7 FPs. I fail to see how projecting Deuce for 14.7 FPs is unreasonable.

Why throw out the Atlanta RB game entirely? Is it just because they ranked number 1 last year? Or do you have another reason for considering them an outlier?

Just curious.

He brought up throwing them out (apples to tangerines). The reason would be because they ranked number 1 last year and this year. Not dissimilar from saying because Terrell Owens had 120/2 this week against team Y, I'm going to start Derrick Mason against team Y! No one would think that's sound logic.

Exactly!!!! So we shouldn't be using two (or three) data points from previous games to justify Deuce's rankings.

Agreed. How about 16? Last year the Bills ranked in the top five for least FPs given up to opposing RBs.

I can accept that logic. It's fine as long as you factor in that the data is from last year. This year is a new year and it can be dangerous to base this year's data, especially for team def., on last year's performance.Again, my basic argument is that there are a lot of reasons to believe Deuce could have a great game this week that would justify a higher ranking.

Don't forget that the Bills D was awesome in 2003 as well. That's 32 games of great production, one great game this year, one not so hot game this year, and one terrible game against a team that doesn't resemble the Saints in the least bit.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Let's put this together.1. The Bills have done well against the run in 2003-2004.

2. They have not started well this year.

3. Spikes is out.

4. NO has fallen behind a lot, limiting Deuce's touches.

5. The Bills' offense stinks, so NO may not fall behind early.

6. Big assumption here,but I'm guessing the Saints don't fumble the openinig kickoff again this week.

7. The Saints are at "home" for the first time this year.

8. Aaron Brooks is good for at least 1 red zone turnover.

9. Jim Haslett doesn't know his ### from his elbow.

Feel free to add to this to come up with some logic for a Deuce projection.

Good stuff. Remember, I was never arguing that Deuce McAllister won't have a big game tomorrow. I was merely arguing that to say Deuce McAllister WILL have a big game because the Bills rank last in run D is silly. All your facts are valid.

 

[theswami]

As a non-subscriber Deuce owner just passing through, IMO this thread should be less about Deuce's actual projections but rather the projections of the guys ahead of him.I don't have the information on the other backs but I would be willing to bet that MANY of the backs above him are projected to outperform their performances year to date or expected to outperform other RBs that faced the same defenses.Both sides of the arguement in this thread use such a limited sample of data to project Deuce's numbers that attacks based on three games are pretty fruitless. One side will be correct this week but I doubt it will be because the stats don't lie. Games with different offenses and different personnnel (with and without TKO) means that in effect no one really knows what will happen.FBG are just guys who do some of the work that others do not, who said that they are experts? Subscribers who think they are wrong why not just look at the projections say they are incorrect and move on to make your own decisions. If there is a pattern of "bad" advice then make your own projections and do not subscribe again. One reason I have a hard time subscribing is that I feel that my projections and such are just as good as the next guy's. The day I subscribe will probably be the day I just let them guide all my decisions and spend less time on this hobby and more time doing something else. Frankly, that day is coming soon because this hobby just isn't as much fun now that everyone is into it and there is so much information available. VERY few FF players do their own analysis which is what made this fun; matching wits with your buddies. Now you match wits with FF Index, FBG, Rotoworld etc. not your friends.I long for the days when I was pouring over USA today with a pen, paper, and a calculator and selecting Dalton Hillard!

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't care if McAllister looks better or worse. I care about you using the correct stats to analyze him. And yes, McAllister would look better.

Chase, I have used the correct stats. You're the one who seems determined to omit some.

Circular logic is saying Carnell Williams was r0x0r against the Bills, supposedly a very tough run D. Then saying because the Bills allowed so many rushing yards to Carnell Williams, they're not a very tough run D.

No, the point is the Bills heading into Week 2 were believed to be a very tough run defense. Williams gashed them. Then the Falcons obliterated them. What we may be seeing is a defense that isn't as good as it was last season (yet another reason why last season's results are meaningless). And with Spikes out, it's hard to see them being better.

I haven't used any selective statistics and I don't have a point I'm trying to defend. But you're the one choosing to throw out a third of the games, and ignore the fact that in half your data set the Bills faced by far the best rushing team in the league. The Saints are nowhere near as good as the Falcons at rushing.

Chase, I haven't thrown out any stats. You were the one who omitted Dunn initially until you were called on it. You are the one who is quoted as saying he wants to exclude the Falcons' game entirely from an evaluation of the Buffalo run defense. I haven't done any of those things. And I never said the Saints' running game was as good as Atlanta's. But it may not have to be for McAllister to have a big game tomorrow.

You don't need to remove Vick, because I already did it for you.

I'm sorry Chase, but you're killing me here. You didn't omit him for me; I intentionally left him out of the discussion because he isn't a RB so his rushing production has no bearing on my projections for McAllister. There's no reason to even bring him into the discussion.

You also keep avoiding the fact that the Bills haven't given up very many receiving yards to RBs. That's important, no? You really should look a lot closer at the FP/G given up to opposing RBs.

That's because I haven't talked about receiving yards for McAllister as an example as to why he could have a big game tomorrow. He could go without a catch and I still like his chances to have a big week. And I've laid out in great detail the numerous reasons why I have that belief.

1. For the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) time, I didn't omit Dunn until I was called out on it. I purposefully omitted Dunn in order to present your case in the best light, since Duckett performed better than Dunn. I still don't think Dunn should factor into the analysis, but rather I added him because some people wanted him in.2. If McAllister has 147 rushing yards and 0 TDs, is that a big week? If you answer yes, then why are you unhappy with FBGs projecting him with 14.7 FPs tomorrow?

Sorry, 146 total yards. to Dodds.

 

[Elway Lives]

1. For the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) time, I didn't omit Dunn until I was called out on it. I purposefully omitted Dunn in order to present your case in the best light, since Duckett performed better than Dunn. I still don't think Dunn should factor into the analysis, but rather I added him because some people wanted him in.

2. If McAllister has 147 rushing yards and 0 TDs, is that a big week? If you answer yes, then why are you unhappy with FBGs projecting him with 14.7 FPs tomorrow?

130 rushing yards, 16 receiving yards and 0 TDs for the day. I will never doubt again.

 

[Urinal Mint]

Deuce got 71 of those yards on the last throw-away drive of the game. I dunno what to think.

 

[BoulderBob]

I like the last drive, but it was the same old underperfoming Deuce for 90% of the game. Hopefully he can come out next week and silence the doubters.

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

Nice call FGB's, and Chase, nice work in your defense of the projections.

 

[packersfan]

Props to Dodds for nailing the projection Now we need to see where Deuce finishes this week to see if the original point of this thread had merit or not.But once again, the Bills' run defense gets gashed. So that point was spot on.