This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Falcons' success is hardly the only reason I've cited for why McAllister could perform very well this week. Did you even read the thread I linked to? I spelled things out very clearly there. I'm not really sure why you're harping on the Falcons so much. That's merely a part of the reasoning for liking McAllister this week.
I'm not as fancy with the quotes as you are...1) Yes, the Bills allowing TDs on the ground is factored in when you use FPs allowed to opposing RBs. NOT when you used rushing yards allowed to opposing teams. Your stat doesn't include receiving yards by RBs, so we're in agreement again. That's why I like my stat a whole lot better.
No, I didn't read the thread you linked to, since that wasn't what I was debating. Why am I harping on you basing your projections for McAllister this week in part because of what Dunn+Duckett+Vick did last week? Because it's silly.
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.
You're right, I've excluded receiving yards by a RB. Do you want me to project some for McAllister? All that's going to do is make him look even better. You do realize that, don't you?
Chase, I haven't used circular logic. I have pointed out several specific reasons why I think McAllister could have a big game this week and each of them has been supported by factual evidence. It's very straightforward.
You're using selective statistics to try and make your point and by doing so you're ignoring the central point -- i.e. the Bills' run defense has been deplorable the past two games and ranks dead last in the NFL after three games. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on doing this, but it's weakening your argument.
That's true. But fair enough, remove him from the equation and what do you have from Atlanta RBs last week? 172 yards and a TD. Williams got them for 128 and a TD the week before. So the last two weeks, the Bills' run defense has given up an average of 150 yards and a TD to RBs. Tell me again why you can't see the central point of this thread?
That makes a lot more sense than some other arguments here. I agree with just about everything except that this week the Saints have a better chance of not falling behind early. What do you think the chances are that a team fumbles the opening kickoff 3 weeks in a row?
That's too bad because it ties in directly to this thread.
For the second time, I've never mentioned Vick. And it isn't silly to evaluate a run defense by how well (or poorly) it has played against opposing RBs. Why is that so difficult for you to see? Seriously, I'm baffled by this. If the Bills' run defense allows 10 straight 100-yard performances to opposing RBs, wouldn't you think No. 11 on the list would be looking good? Can you not see the logic here?
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.
With Losman at QB you really think the Bills are going to be able to build a huge lead and take the Saints' running game away? I really can't see that at all. And that's one of the biggest reasons why I like McAllister this week. If the Saints were playing the Colts or the Bengals I'd be in full agreement but not this week. Not against Losman and the Bills. I can't see it.
If a team allowed 10 straight 100-yard performances to opposing RBs, you WOULD think No. 11 looks good. Can you not see the logic that a team allowing 100-yard performances to a RB won't be ascertained by examing a team's total rushing yards allowed? How about if you look at how opposing RB1s have done against them?
A LOT higher than you think. Look at the Saints over the past 3 years.... has ANYTHING changed? Deuce should be a top 5, maybe even top 3 back. He has the same skills as Shaun Alexander, and is actually a better and more intelligent runner than SA. Problem is, 14 -17 carries per game does not allow Deuce to get into a rhythm.I had Deuce in a dynasty league for the last 4 years, and I just got sick of him not being used in that offense...... I moved on.
As a Packers' fan I'd like to throw out the TDs to Edwards and Heiden in Week 2 and the TDs to Galloway in Week 3. That means the Packers are 2-1 and in first place in the North.Cool.
27 carries isn't essentially a full game's worth.And no, we won't find out tomorrow.Maybe this is nitpicking too far, but wouldn't you be more accurate in the inclusion of Dunn (with 15 carries) and Duckett (with 12 carries) if you considered that each of these RB's got their yards in essentially half a game's work (game equals roughly 25-30 carries, and while one carried obviously the other couldn't).
I see your point Chase, but still tend to agree with the others that the projection for Deuce seems low. Guess we'll find out tomorrow won't we?
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?
I'm not arguing the projection per se. I'm srguing the logic. Using 2 data point to interpolate or find an average is, from a stats standpoint, not acceptable. There are also a bunch of other factors that need to be taken into account. If the FBG projections were strictly based on the averages over the past weeks (and I'm not saying they are), well I can do that without shelling out $20 or spending time reviewing the projections. The basic point that the original posters are making is that this is a good matchup for Deuce. I think it was mentioned in the weekly matchup analysis on this site. Heck, even CBS lists Deuce as the top RB matchup of the week. If they can figure it out...............
Chase, if a defense continues to perform poorly in terms of run defense than the RBs they face are going to be looking better. That's a very logical conclusion that can be drawn.
The Falcons don't really have a No. 1 RB, but even if you want to put Dunn in that category that's fine with me. He rushed for nearly 100 yards while getting fewer carries than McAllister will likely receive this week. So once again, McAllister is looking good this week and quite possibly better than what his ranking indicates.You do realize you're just burying yourself here, don't you?
An RB 1 in a RBBC, is not the same as a RB 1 in an essentially one back system such as NO.
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.
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.
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.
You don't need to remove Vick, because I already did it for you. 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.
Well I think McGahee is looking REAL good this week, but that's another discussion entirely.
But even with McGahee going off as I believe he will, I don't think the Bills' offense is going to be able to put enough points on the board to force the Saints into abandoning the run the way the Giants and Vikings did the past two weeks. Anything's possible, but I just don't see it happening. I think this game will be close and I think it will be a game dominated by the two RBs.It may scare you, but yes.... I see Losman playing outstanding this week. I may be way off base, but the NO defense is not as scary as people make it out to be. I would not be surprised at all if the Saints were down 14 by the 1/2 either because of Losman, or WM running 2 in.
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.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.
See my 1st post where I question the logic. I think Spikes was #2 or #3 on my list. Thank you. Thank you very much. (In an Elvis voice).
On the contrary. I'm not using 2 data points to make a projection. FBGs take into account a bunch of other factors. But the Bills run D hasn't been the fantasy goldmine that you guys think it has been. I'm not sure what's unclear here.
What's confusing here? Team rushing yards does not equal individual RB game performances. And you conveniently forgot that Dunn had 0 TDs and 5 receiving yards. If you bump up Dunn's numbers for the fact that McAllister will likely receive more carries, you get very close to the FBG projection.Chase, if a defense continues to perform poorly in terms of run defense than the RBs they face are going to be looking better. That's a very logical conclusion that can be drawn.The Falcons don't really have a No. 1 RB, but even if you want to put Dunn in that category that's fine with me. He rushed for nearly 100 yards while getting fewer carries than McAllister will likely receive this week. So once again, McAllister is looking good this week and quite possibly better than what his ranking indicates.You do realize you're just burying yourself here, don't you?
I agree. That's why I would just as soon throw the Atlanta game out.
Yes, the loss of Spikes is a big deal.
Chase, I have used the correct stats. You're the one who seems determined to omit some.
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.
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.
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.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.
Exactly!!!! So we shouldn't be using two (or three) data points from previous games to justify Deuce's rankings. Deuce has a lot going for him this week that would indicate that he will do better than in weeks 1-3. Playing the closest thing to a home game this season. Playing against a team that is unlikely to jump out to an early lead. The loss of Spikes. A team that has been less than stellar in rush def.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.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.
I didn't conveinently forget anything, Chase. The fact is the Bills' run defense has allowed a rushing TD each of the past two weeks to an opposing RB. If form holds, who do you think will get that TD by a RB for the Saints? Antowain Smith?
I'm not sure what to think of the Bills rush D. Losing Spikes hurts. But last year the Bills run D was awesome, so I still think they're pretty good. Deuce could certainly creep nito the top ten above any of those guys, since I'm a pretty big Deuce fan.
Oh I think the Saints' defense absolutely stinks. But I still don't think Losman will do enough to force the Saints to abandon the running game.
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?Chase, I have used the correct stats. You're the one who seems determined to omit some.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.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.
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.
Agreed. How about 16? Last year the Bills ranked in the top five for least FPs given up to opposing RBs.Exactly!!!! So we shouldn't be using two (or three) data points from previous games to justify Deuce's rankings.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.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.
Chase, thank you very much for putting all the time and effort into your work here at FBG's. And thank you for answering all my questions. I personally could not take on the onslaught of debate you are holding here. Kudos!
However, I will say that I am slightly higher on Deuce this week than the projections, but I am not one who feels that he is destined for a huge week.
You're conveniently forgetting the Bills great performance against Dom Davis. 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.
Hey MoCS,Thanks for the good words. Good luck in your league tomorrow.Chase, thank you very much for putting all the time and effort into your work here at FBG's. And thank you for answering all my questions. I personally could not take on the onslaught of debate you are holding here. Kudos!
Good work regardless of the game outcome tomorrow. This is why I have greatly valued my membership here for the past 3 years (although my registered date in the forums is more recent).
Actually, for me it is likeIs this not the most appropriate thread for this emote? ==>well for me anyway...
for others.. maybe like this...
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.Actually, for me it is likeIs this not the most appropriate thread for this emote? ==>
for others.. maybe like this...
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.
Yes I would say that is a big week.
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.
No I haven't. That's definitely been a part of the evaluation process all along.
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.
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.Agreed. How about 16? Last year the Bills ranked in the top five for least FPs given up to opposing RBs.Exactly!!!! So we shouldn't be using two (or three) data points from previous games to justify Deuce's rankings.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.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.
o you think the Bills Rush D is bad? And do you think, in light of many various factors, Deuce might creep into the top ten above guys like Lamont Jordan/Dillon/Tiki?
