Explosiveness vs Consistency (1 Viewer)

[VaTerp]

This has been discussed in various other threads and I know some respected writers for this site, Waldman in particular, have done some great pieces on this topic previously but I could not find anything recent and think it's worthy of dicussing again.

I have long been, and still am to an extent, a believer in getting guys who give you consistent points week to week. But explosiveness has become increasingly important to me. Drafting from the 1 spot in my main league on Monday nite I found myself with a bit of a swing for the fences mentality.

I ended up with CJ2K, Charles, and Desean Jackson, three of the most explosive guys in the NFL. Also took Pierre Thomas, not necessarily an explosive player in NFL terms, but a somewhat volatile and potentially explosive FF player. Ideally you get guys who are consistently explosive like CJ2K was last year but those guys are hard to find.

So my questions are how important is consistency vs explosiveness, how many "inconsistent" players are too many on one roster, and general discussion on the matter.

Also, here is a link to an article linking explosive plays to NFL success. How much of this translates to FF?

http://www.nfltouchdown.com/explosive-play...to-nfl-success/

 

[SSOG]

Personally, I think explosiveness vs. consistency is the single largest, most pointless debate in the fantasy community today. It's much ado about nothing. I don't think one is better than the other in the slightest. Statistically speaking, the better your team is, the more you should value consistency, while the worse your team is, the more you should value explosiveness... but given that we don't even know how good our team will be before the season starts, it seems crazy to be making decisions based on consistency. In fact, it's doubly crazy because there's little year-to-year consistency in a player's consistency. One year, a player might be a model of consistency. The next, he might be the most inconsistent player in the league.

For all the lip service people pay to consistency at this time of the year, how many championships are won by guys like Jonathan Stewart, Jerome Harrison, Billy Volek, or Drew Bennett just going out of their minds at the right time?

In my mind, 180 points is 180 points. I don't value a player who I expect to score those 180 points in a consistent manner any more highly than a player who I expect to score those 180 points in an inconsistent manner. All I care about is how many he'll score, not the manner in which he'll score them.

 

[JbizzleMan]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

 

[latrops]

This has been discussed in various other threads and I know some respected writers for this site, Waldman in particular, have done some great pieces on this topic previously but I could not find anything recent and think it's worthy of dicussing again.

I have long been, and still am to an extent, a believer in getting guys who give you consistent points week to week. But explosiveness has become increasingly important to me. Drafting from the 1 spot in my main league on Monday nite I found myself with a bit of a swing for the fences mentality.

I ended up with CJ2K, Charles, and Desean Jackson, three of the most explosive guys in the NFL. Also took Pierre Thomas, not necessarily an explosive player in NFL terms, but a somewhat volatile and potentially explosive FF player. Ideally you get guys who are consistently explosive like CJ2K was last year but those guys are hard to find.

So my questions are how important is consistency vs explosiveness, how many "inconsistent" players are too many on one roster, and general discussion on the matter.

Also, here is a link to an article linking explosive plays to NFL success. How much of this translates to FF?

http://www.nfltouchdown.com/explosive-play...to-nfl-success/

The end result is the same. In fantasy, it is about points scored. You project Desean Jackson to go for 65 catches, 1100 yards, and 8 tds. You project Hines Ward to go for 90 catches, 1100 yards, and 6 tds. Your scoring system has them pretty close to even. In the end, it is pretty much a push. Explosive players are thought to be sexier, so they go a little higher in drafts. I wouldn't focus too much the explosive vs. steady debate and just draft players that are good to fair values for where you take them.

 

[SSOG]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

If the 4-5 guy is only occasionally getting 25-30, then the reason you should prefer the 15-a-week guy is because he's scoring more points. A better comparison would be a guy getting 15 a week to a guy who gets 25 points 50% of the time and 5 points the other 50% of the time. That's not an occasional big game, that's HALF THE TIME. And in that case, the 15-point a week guy might do a better job of getting you to the playoffs, but if the explosive guy strings together a couple of good games in the playoffs, he might win you the championship all by himself.

 

[VaTerp]

So after reading a couple of the responses Im getting the feeling that this thread is overkill on a topic that too much is made of already.

And to a large extent I agree. I definitely didnt reach for any of those guys IMO. I use to be big on consistency but do feel its overrated. And truth be told when looking at 2 guys who I project with the same numbers I would prefer the guy who is capable of going off a couple weeks.

Not to mention, these guys are just damn fun to watch play. But my apologies for beating a dead horse.

 

[SSOG]

So after reading a couple of the responses Im getting the feeling that this thread is overkill on a topic that too much is made of already. And to a large extent I agree. I definitely didnt reach for any of those guys IMO. I use to be big on consistency but do feel its overrated. And truth be told when looking at 2 guys who I project with the same numbers I would prefer the guy who is capable of going off a couple weeks.Not to mention, these guys are just damn fun to watch play. But my apologies for beating a dead horse.

I don't think you're beating a dead horse. It's actually a very popular topic around here and I expect it to get a pretty big response, it just happened that I was the first to show up on the scene and I happen to be one of the rare guys who thinks it doesn't matter.

 

[JbizzleMan]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

If the 4-5 guy is only occasionally getting 25-30, then the reason you should prefer the 15-a-week guy is because he's scoring more points. A better comparison would be a guy getting 15 a week to a guy who gets 25 points 50% of the time and 5 points the other 50% of the time. That's not an occasional big game, that's HALF THE TIME. And in that case, the 15-point a week guy might do a better job of getting you to the playoffs, but if the explosive guy strings together a couple of good games in the playoffs, he might win you the championship all by himself.

What I meant was that if we're assuming both guys score the same points at the end of the season I would rather have the guy that has his divided more evenly through the season. As opposed to the other guy who gets the majority of his points with 2 or 3 huge games.

 

[coltsnut]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

If the 4-5 guy is only occasionally getting 25-30, then the reason you should prefer the 15-a-week guy is because he's scoring more points. A better comparison would be a guy getting 15 a week to a guy who gets 25 points 50% of the time and 5 points the other 50% of the time. That's not an occasional big game, that's HALF THE TIME. And in that case, the 15-point a week guy might do a better job of getting you to the playoffs, but if the explosive guy strings together a couple of good games in the playoffs, he might win you the championship all by himself.

What I meant was that if we're assuming both guys score the same points at the end of the season I would rather have the guy that has his divided more evenly through the season. As opposed to the other guy who gets the majority of his points with 2 or 3 huge games.

Right, because the guy who scores 5 pts occasionally will end up on your bench if you get frustrated...then he will go off and score 30 points for your bench.

 

[JbizzleMan]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

If the 4-5 guy is only occasionally getting 25-30, then the reason you should prefer the 15-a-week guy is because he's scoring more points. A better comparison would be a guy getting 15 a week to a guy who gets 25 points 50% of the time and 5 points the other 50% of the time. That's not an occasional big game, that's HALF THE TIME. And in that case, the 15-point a week guy might do a better job of getting you to the playoffs, but if the explosive guy strings together a couple of good games in the playoffs, he might win you the championship all by himself.

What I meant was that if we're assuming both guys score the same points at the end of the season I would rather have the guy that has his divided more evenly through the season. As opposed to the other guy who gets the majority of his points with 2 or 3 huge games.

Right, because the guy who scores 5 pts occasionally will end up on your bench if you get frustrated...then he will go off and score 30 points for your bench.

Exactly. If I'm in the playoffs I am going for the as close to the sure thing as I can even though I know he probably won't explode.The closest example I could find on my team last year was Malcom Floyd and Muhammed Mossaqoiu (I never started either of them) Floyd outscored him in my league by only 7 points. 122 to 129. Floyd never scored aboved 11 points except for a week 17 garbage game. Muhammed had 2 nice games of 23 and 29 points. Floyd usually scored around 4-8 points where as muhammed quite often only scored 2-3 points.

 

[VaTerp]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

If the 4-5 guy is only occasionally getting 25-30, then the reason you should prefer the 15-a-week guy is because he's scoring more points. A better comparison would be a guy getting 15 a week to a guy who gets 25 points 50% of the time and 5 points the other 50% of the time. That's not an occasional big game, that's HALF THE TIME. And in that case, the 15-point a week guy might do a better job of getting you to the playoffs, but if the explosive guy strings together a couple of good games in the playoffs, he might win you the championship all by himself.

What I meant was that if we're assuming both guys score the same points at the end of the season I would rather have the guy that has his divided more evenly through the season. As opposed to the other guy who gets the majority of his points with 2 or 3 huge games.

Right, because the guy who scores 5 pts occasionally will end up on your bench if you get frustrated...then he will go off and score 30 points for your bench.

Exactly. If I'm in the playoffs I am going for the as close to the sure thing as I can even though I know he probably won't explode.The closest example I could find on my team last year was Malcom Floyd and Muhammed Mossaqoiu (I never started either of them) Floyd outscored him in my league by only 7 points. 122 to 129. Floyd never scored aboved 11 points except for a week 17 garbage game. Muhammed had 2 nice games of 23 and 29 points. Floyd usually scored around 4-8 points where as muhammed quite often only scored 2-3 points.

I am thinking more along the lines of higher end players. For example, I was deciding between DeSean Jackson and Boldin at the 4/5 turn (PPR). I have them projected for similar numbers but went with Jackson, largely because he is a more explosive player. he had 5 100 yard games last year as opposed to Boldin's 2. And he is a threat to score anytime he touches the football. On the flip side he had more games where he did next to nothing.But I can live with that and just hope that when one of my explosive players is having a down week the others will step up and pick up the slack. Consistency is nice but explosiveness is becoming more important in my view. Again, Im talking about higher end players who may get less touches than some of the other guys in their tier but have the potential to break off some long ones on those touches.Jackson is a good example as I know a lot of people think he is overvalued b/c of tying the record for TDs of 50 yards or more last year. But at 23 I feel he has quite a few more explosive plays in him and its worth the weeks in PPR where his low targets and catch totals will make him more inconsistent than others.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

Exactly. Barry Sanders was more fun to watch, but I'll take Emmit Smith for my ff team.

 

[SSOG]

Exactly. If I'm in the playoffs I am going for the as close to the sure thing as I can even though I know he probably won't explode.The closest example I could find on my team last year was Malcom Floyd and Muhammed Mossaqoiu (I never started either of them) Floyd outscored him in my league by only 7 points. 122 to 129. Floyd never scored aboved 11 points except for a week 17 garbage game. Muhammed had 2 nice games of 23 and 29 points. Floyd usually scored around 4-8 points where as muhammed quite often only scored 2-3 points.

How many games did you win or lose last season by 2-3 points where the difference between a Floyd and a Muhammad would have meant the difference between a loss and a win?How many games did you win or lose last season by 20 points where the difference between a Floyd and a Muhammad would have meant the difference between a loss and a win?The big games occur less frequently, but they have a greater chance of impacting the outcome of your game. At the end of the year, I think the expected value in terms of number of wins produced by Floyd over Mass would be roughly similar to the expected value in terms of number of wins produced by Mass over Floyd.And again, this is further compounded by the fact that there's no really definitive way of knowing before the fact who is going to be explosive and who is going to be consistent.

 

[Riffraff]

Depends upon the league as well. I play in a few Survivor leagues and the steady guys are golden. Scoring spikes are usually bad. Might carry you through a bad week, but more often than not they set you up for a bad week.

In a survivor league, a team could be the 2nd lowest scoring team every week and be called Champion.

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

Exactly. If I'm in the playoffs I am going for the as close to the sure thing as I can even though I know he probably won't explode.The closest example I could find on my team last year was Malcom Floyd and Muhammed Mossaqoiu (I never started either of them) Floyd outscored him in my league by only 7 points. 122 to 129. Floyd never scored aboved 11 points except for a week 17 garbage game. Muhammed had 2 nice games of 23 and 29 points. Floyd usually scored around 4-8 points where as muhammed quite often only scored 2-3 points.

How many games did you win or lose last season by 2-3 points where the difference between a Floyd and a Muhammad would have meant the difference between a loss and a win?How many games did you win or lose last season by 20 points where the difference between a Floyd and a Muhammad would have meant the difference between a loss and a win?The big games occur less frequently, but they have a greater chance of impacting the outcome of your game. At the end of the year, I think the expected value in terms of number of wins produced by Floyd over Mass would be roughly similar to the expected value in terms of number of wins produced by Mass over Floyd.And again, this is further compounded by the fact that there's no really definitive way of knowing before the fact who is going to be explosive and who is going to be consistent.

I disagree. Most FF games in a head-to-head format, in my experience, are decided by a few points. There are more close games than there are blowouts. Therefore, the player who raises your weekly scoring above the mean by 5 points is more useful than the player who plays at the mean for five weeks and then exceeds the mean by 30 points one week. The former could help you win three or four games, whereas the latter will only help you win one.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

If the 4-5 guy is only occasionally getting 25-30, then the reason you should prefer the 15-a-week guy is because he's scoring more points. A better comparison would be a guy getting 15 a week to a guy who gets 25 points 50% of the time and 5 points the other 50% of the time. That's not an occasional big game, that's HALF THE TIME. And in that case, the 15-point a week guy might do a better job of getting you to the playoffs, but if the explosive guy strings together a couple of good games in the playoffs, he might win you the championship all by himself.

or you might not get those points because the guy is sitting on your bench after scoring 5 points 2 straight games

 

[GregR_2]

I think people make a mistake assuming that "consistency" is something that is very predictable.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I tend to focus my draft on explosively consistent guys.

 

[VaTerp]

I tend to focus my draft on explosively consistent guys.

Consistently explosive guys are much more valuable than explosively consistent guys.

 

[ft_ball_fn]

Use these WR pts (non ppr) as an example:

5

6

4

17

20

3

2

6

19

4

1

4

19

3

5

21

139 Total

Or you could have a guy who scores 8.7 pts every week. I'll take 8.7 pts a week... because the weeks the above guy is putting up 1-4 pts I'd be getting spanked.... and when he finally goes off as someone said I'd have given up on his sorry butt and he'd be on my bench as I searched for someone who would get me pts.

I liked the theory if you have a strong team you want consistency... I agree.. if I have a RB who avgs 100 and 1-2 TD's a game... and a QB who gets me 300 and 1-3 TD's a game... I'm happy with a WR who just adds 5-7 pts a week. If I have nothing on my team... I need 30-40 pts from one person to have any chance at a W... so I need the 'explosive' guys. But if that's the case-- my season is over anyway... see above--that's 5 wins out of 16 weeks.

 

[comfortably numb]

Take explosive guys early as you will land consistent later as they are not as valued.

Kinda like 5 years ago, you would have to take Chad Johnson in the 2nd RD, while Housh was sitting there in the 6th.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

And who is it that consistently averages 15 points scoring 5 and 25 in alternate weeks?

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

And who is it that consistently averages 15 points scoring 5 and 25 in alternate weeks?

TD vulchers, for example. Think Stephen Davis in his final year with the Panthers. Had something like 13 TDs and 400 yards rushing. If he didn't score you had no points that week, but some weeks he scored 3 TDs.

 

[TWP]

Use these WR pts (non ppr) as an example:564172032619414193521139 TotalOr you could have a guy who scores 8.7 pts every week. I'll take 8.7 pts a week... because the weeks the above guy is putting up 1-4 pts I'd be getting spanked.... and when he finally goes off as someone said I'd have given up on his sorry butt and he'd be on my bench as I searched for someone who would get me pts.I liked the theory if you have a strong team you want consistency... I agree.. if I have a RB who avgs 100 and 1-2 TD's a game... and a QB who gets me 300 and 1-3 TD's a game... I'm happy with a WR who just adds 5-7 pts a week. If I have nothing on my team... I need 30-40 pts from one person to have any chance at a W... so I need the 'explosive' guys. But if that's the case-- my season is over anyway... see above--that's 5 wins out of 16 weeks.

On the contrary. I bench his ### most of the year and only start him against weak secondaries when he explodes...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

And who is it that consistently averages 15 points scoring 5 and 25 in alternate weeks?

TD vulchers, for example. Think Stephen Davis in his final year with the Panthers. Had something like 13 TDs and 400 yards rushing. If he didn't score you had no points that week, but some weeks he scored 3 TDs.

Stephen Davis: Weeks 1-10, 2005 (he didn't play much after Week 10).14.125.77.220.210.62.717.717.914.1Couple bad games like every RB, but I don't see a massive boom/bust. In fact that looks very typical of most RBs averaging 14-15PPG.

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

I'll take the guy who scores me 15 points a week over the guy who scores 4-5 points with the occasional 25-30 any day...

And who is it that consistently averages 15 points scoring 5 and 25 in alternate weeks?

TD vulchers, for example. Think Stephen Davis in his final year with the Panthers. Had something like 13 TDs and 400 yards rushing. If he didn't score you had no points that week, but some weeks he scored 3 TDs.

Stephen Davis: Weeks 1-10, 2005 (he didn't play much after Week 10).14.125.77.220.210.62.717.717.914.1Couple bad games like every RB, but I don't see a massive boom/bust. In fact that looks very typical of most RBs averaging 14-15PPG.

Why are you eliminating the games after week 10? Because he didn't score? He played.

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

Try Zack Crockett in 2003. Or Brandon Stokley in 2004.

Stokley points in 2004 (ppr):

week 1: 16

week 2: 4

week 3: 31

week 4: 17

week 5: 7

week 6: bye

week 7: 18

week 8: 5

week 9: 5

week 10: 30

week 11: 1

week 12: 28

week 13: 29

week 14: 8

week 15: 4

week 16: 25

week 17: 0

Total points: 228 (average per week of 14.25)

I would prefer a receiver that scored between 10 and 19 every week.

 

[tragicallymike]

Use these WR pts (non ppr) as an example:564172032619414193521139 TotalOr you could have a guy who scores 8.7 pts every week. I'll take 8.7 pts a week... because the weeks the above guy is putting up 1-4 pts I'd be getting spanked.... and when he finally goes off as someone said I'd have given up on his sorry butt and he'd be on my bench as I searched for someone who would get me pts.I liked the theory if you have a strong team you want consistency... I agree.. if I have a RB who avgs 100 and 1-2 TD's a game... and a QB who gets me 300 and 1-3 TD's a game... I'm happy with a WR who just adds 5-7 pts a week. If I have nothing on my team... I need 30-40 pts from one person to have any chance at a W... so I need the 'explosive' guys. But if that's the case-- my season is over anyway... see above--that's 5 wins out of 16 weeks.

It's rare, but if you have a fantasy team that is consistently strong and your decisions are easy week to week, life is good. I have played FF for nearly 20 years and only experienced this once (had Terrell Davis in 1998).On the flip side, when your team is average (or worse) and you're looking at opposing rosters week to week, it's nice to have at least a few potentially explosive guys to put in and give you a chance to win against those stronger teams.

 

[TWP]

Try Zack Crockett in 2003. Or Brandon Stokley in 2004.Stokley points in 2004 (ppr):week 1: 16week 2: 4week 3: 31week 4: 17week 5: 7week 6: byeweek 7: 18week 8: 5week 9: 5week 10: 30week 11: 1week 12: 28week 13: 29week 14: 8week 15: 4week 16: 25week 17: 0Total points: 228 (average per week of 14.25)I would prefer a receiver that scored between 10 and 19 every week.

No way. Give me Stokley. Some of his bad games I'll be able to predict and sit him. And he absolutely crushed the championship week.

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

Try Zack Crockett in 2003. Or Brandon Stokley in 2004.Stokley points in 2004 (ppr):week 1: 16week 2: 4week 3: 31week 4: 17week 5: 7week 6: byeweek 7: 18week 8: 5week 9: 5week 10: 30week 11: 1week 12: 28week 13: 29week 14: 8week 15: 4week 16: 25week 17: 0Total points: 228 (average per week of 14.25)I would prefer a receiver that scored between 10 and 19 every week.

No way. Give me Stokley. Some of his bad games I'll be able to predict and sit him. And he absolutely crushed the championship week.

You wouldn't have known that he would put up 25 championship week. For all you know, he might put up 8 or 4 like he did the prior two weeks....and if you started him in week 15, there is a good chance you didn't make the championship.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm going to make a challenge for someone to do three things.

1, Define for me specifically a well thought out line you are going to use to divide starting fantasy players between consistent and inconsistent that can be used to test players at the end of the season to see if they really were consistent or inconsistent.

2. For a standard 12 team league (1/2/3/1) there are 84 starting players. Give me a group of 15 expected fantasy starters from the offensive positions who will be consistent in 2010, and a group of 15 who will be inconsistent.

3. Tell me what percentage you expect you need to hit from your two lists of players for your results to be solid evidence you predicted consistent or not to a level it would be useful for people to incorporate into your decisions.

 

[VaTerp]

I'm going to make a challenge for someone to do three things.

1, Define for me specifically a well thought out line you are going to use to divide starting fantasy players between consistent and inconsistent that can be used to test players at the end of the season to see if they really were consistent or inconsistent.

2. For a standard 12 team league (1/2/3/1) there are 84 starting players. Give me a group of 15 expected fantasy starters from the offensive positions who will be consistent in 2010, and a group of 15 who will be inconsistent.

3. Tell me what percentage you expect you need to hit from your two lists of players for your results to be solid evidence you predicted consistent or not to a level it would be useful for people to incorporate into your decisions.

I'd be very interested in seeing this as well. I think I agree with SSOG in that consistency is overrated and it is very difficult to predict. Just because a player was consistent one year does not mean they will be the next.I also think what I was trying to get at is a little different than just explosiveness vs consistency and I should have worded it differently.

When looking at players like CJ2K and DeSean Jackson who put up record breaking performances in terms of explosive plays, what is the likelihood of them continuing to ring up explosive plays. I know that many will point to regression to the mean but I think when you are talking about guys with rare game breaking ability who are still 25 and under its not that simple.

My half hearted attempt at research only revealed that after Jim Brown's record of 8 TDs of 50 yards or longer in 1963 he still put up good yardage numbers in 64' but scored only 9 total TDs, the lowest of his career. Curious to what data is out there on this though I know it is a very small sample we would be looking at.

 

[CalBear]

My half hearted attempt at research only revealed that after Jim Brown's record of 8 TDs of 50 yards or longer in 1963 he still put up good yardage numbers in 64' but scored only 9 total TDs, the lowest of his career. Curious to what data is out there on this though I know it is a very small sample we would be looking at.

See my post at:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12221214

I was looking at WRs, not RBs, but in general, having an early-career season with a lot of long TDs was a good indicator for studly career performance.

I agree with GregR that consistency is difficult to predict, to the point that it's probably not worth considering in draft decisions. In this article from a couple years ago, I debunked the idea that RBs are more consistent than WRs. What is true is that players who score more points are more "consistent" than players who score fewer points, but at a given scoring tier, RBs and WRs are equally consistent from week to week.

I think it's wrong-headed to predict that (for example) Cedric Benson will be more consistent than Jamaal Charles. Dodds has them projected to both score 169 points; if they both wind up in that zone, they are likely to have similar consistency from week to week.

There is a semantic point, which is that the OP seemed to be talking about not so much week-to-week consistency, but players with upside vs. players with more predictable situations. The range of plausible results for Jamaal Charles is probably larger than the range of plausible results for Cedric Benson. But I think this effect is also overstated by the fantasy community--often, "boring" players turn out to have unexpected upside. (For example, Thomas Jones in 2008/2009, Tony Gonzalez in 2008, Clinton Portis in 2007, Joey Galloway in 2005, etc.)

 

[VaTerp]

My half hearted attempt at research only revealed that after Jim Brown's record of 8 TDs of 50 yards or longer in 1963 he still put up good yardage numbers in 64' but scored only 9 total TDs, the lowest of his career. Curious to what data is out there on this though I know it is a very small sample we would be looking at.

See my post at:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12221214

I was looking at WRs, not RBs, but in general, having an early-career season with a lot of long TDs was a good indicator for studly career performance.

I agree with GregR that consistency is difficult to predict, to the point that it's probably not worth considering in draft decisions. In this article from a couple years ago, I debunked the idea that RBs are more consistent than WRs. What is true is that players who score more points are more "consistent" than players who score fewer points, but at a given scoring tier, RBs and WRs are equally consistent from week to week.

I think it's wrong-headed to predict that (for example) Cedric Benson will be more consistent than Jamaal Charles. Dodds has them projected to both score 169 points; if they both wind up in that zone, they are likely to have similar consistency from week to week.

There is a semantic point, which is that the OP seemed to be talking about not so much week-to-week consistency, but players with upside vs. players with more predictable situations. The range of plausible results for Jamaal Charles is probably larger than the range of plausible results for Cedric Benson. But I think this effect is also overstated by the fantasy community--often, "boring" players turn out to have unexpected upside. (For example, Thomas Jones in 2008/2009, Tony Gonzalez in 2008, Clinton Portis in 2007, Joey Galloway in 2005, etc.)

Actually, great posting. The bolded part above is exactly what I was trying to get at it. You just worded it much more clearly and concisely.

And thanks for the research. I was just looking at that thread the other day and somehow missed it or maybe it was before you posted it. Regardless, this was very helpful and makes me feel even better about my trio of playmakers in my main league.