Fantasy Ranking Philosophy: Inside-Out vs. Outside-In (3 Viewers)

[switz]

People who greatly favor talent over situation get burned. People who neglect talent and accept situations also get burned. See Addai, Joseph. I don't think he's stellar, but he's in a perfect situation.

Horrible example. Addai was panne don this board, but he was a firest round draft choice of one of the best teams in the league for identifying talent in the first round. He is not a low talent- good situation player. He is a good talent-great situation player.

Addai is another example of how not just any Joe can judge talent, seeing that many on this board thought he was junk, and yet he was t one of the best rookie RBs

MJD > Addai talentwise, yet Addai warranted a first rounder?RB Indy is a Top 10 fantasy spot if solely occupied by any above-average RB. Addai's talent < Addai's situation.Addai is a perfect example of situation being more important than talent.

Once again I think you are totally wrong. Dominic Rhodes averaged 4.1 behind the same line, in the same situations. Edgerrin James averaged 4.2 behind the same line last year. So you're saying that Rhodes situation is worse than Addai's because he didn't do as well? Or the Edge's was worse a year ago, even thought the supporting cast, coaches, and offense were the same?Your argument falls flat in the face of facts.And your ability to evaluate talent comes into question as well, as Addai proved how talented he is last seasons.Edited to add, Addai is a superior talent to MJD.

 

[Banger]

Dynasty leagues = Inside-out 80-85%, Outside-in 15-20%Redraft = Inside-out 55-60%, Outside-in 40-45%Something along those lines.

This pretty much says it all IMO. Over time teams can improve their line/defense/qb/etc. but a RB isn't going to get better vision, run faster, etc.

 

[switz]

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

Incorrect.The five guys in front of Edge had much to do with this.

Did you watch Edge? He looked SLOW last year, and toward the end of the previous season in INDY he looked the same.

 

[Marc Faletti]

Jeff,

Hmm. I was expecting a very different response that the one you posted.

Oversimplify much?

THAT'S the contradiction? That I said I didn't want to oversimplify and that you think I then did? Not to teach you basic English here, but it's only a contradiction if I believe two things that can't coexist. yes, I believe you and Bloom are polar opposites when it comes to how you evaluate players. No, I don't think that's an oversimplification. That you disagree with my feeling doesn't make it a contradiction by me, it just means we disagree on whether I've oversimplified. Criminy.

Next, let's take your first three bolded statements:

1) Situations change suddenly and dramatically.

2) Situations are unpredictable.

3) Relying on situational assessments can cross you up.

Repeat yourself much?

The statements "situations change a lot" and "situations are unpredictable" are not actually repetitive. Something that changes a lot can still take forms that are easy to predict, and something that stays the same but has a lot of variables to it can still be unpredictable. And the last one, well, I was just trying to find a nice way to say that situational analysis can make you a hypocrite without realizing it.

Now let's really delve into your assessments of my viewpoints and where you are amiss.

Essentially, your post boils down to a refutation of my interpretation of your specific comments on The Audible. I'm glad you clarified your situational analyses of players like Parker -- the extra detail helps remove the concern over your potential hypocrisy. But all you did was talk more about the situation, regardless of Parker's talent, showing that you again strongly value situation over talent. In fact, this quote shows it once more:

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

Incorrect.The five guys in front of Edge had much to do with this.

I believe anyone who truly watched Edge _had_ to see that he was a shell of his old self -- and not just last year, but even the year before in Indy. His burst and quickness look gone to me. I believe that a better offensive line might've helped him achieve a level similar to Jamal Lewis' mildly disappointing season last year, but to say that Edge is fine and it was mostly his o-line's fault goes exactly to the #3 point of my article. When you evaluate situations primarily, it can cloud your judgment of a player's talent. Edge is as much the problem as his O-line. Could he get 1000 yards still on some team? Sure. But he's not an elite back and seems on a sharp decline. Your situational perspective seems to block this observation.

Yes the situation matters, but LJ is not leaving KC any time soon nor is SJax leaving STL, so the situation is key. It would be irresponsible not to look at the offensive situation for both.

Speaking of situation - the NFL is the biggest team sport around. None of the big sports are more of a team sport than football. So, why would you not look at the other parts of the team in analyzing a player?

Right-o. I say many times in my initial piece that you have to look at both. They are both factors, otherwise I would call it "inside" instead of "inside-out" and vice versa. But which one do you start from? And which one do you lean on when you have to choose between 2 guys? I believe LJ is more talented and in a worse situation than SJax. Make mine LJ, because I believe he's more likely to find ways to consistently perform at an elite level over the next 3 years than a guy who needs his situation to hang together to stay in the top 2. On Parker:

If you believe the offseason comments about the new emphasis on the passing game, I see this translating to fewer TDs on the ground and more going to the WRs.

Are you sure? Couldn't it just lead to more overall scoring opportunities and open up the space that SJax has because of his balanced offense?You could be right, you could be wrong, but since I know Willie Parker's darn good, I'm going to trust that he'll get his. It's critical I _understand_ the situation and even that I have an opinion on it (I happen to this it'll benefit him by opening room and forcing defense to honor the pass more), but primarily I rank him based on his abilities. And that means he's ranked pretty darn high.

Now for every instance where you could have drafted a Steve Young and held him for years, just waiting fr him to explode there can be an Aaron Rodgers. Will he ever come on and perform? The jury is still out.

I don't know how else to say this, but it hasn't clicked yet: THIS ISN'T ABOUT BACKUPS OVER STARTERS. This is about things like ranking SJax over LJ, and downgrading Parker for problems that may not even come to be, and how FF owners would've missed on Lee Evans and Gore last year if they relied too much on situations. But the funny thing is, that quote still shows how little you actually evaluate a player's talent.

I don't think Aaron Rodgers is any good. They could hand him the reigns in Indy or Denver or wherever without a single legit backup and I still wouldn't rate him very highly because I think he's too mechanical with little instinct for the position. So yeah, "the jury's out" for guys who need to see a player fail in a good situation before forming a strong opinion, but I think he sucks and I value a guy like Cassel more than Rodgers because I think Cassel's got game. Time will tell if I'm right, but at least I'm able to form working opinions with some clarity.

Regardless of your viewpoints, the one thing I take offense with is stating that I epitomize a particular style of looking at players, and will always defer to situation over talent. Look at my rankings and you'll find several players to illustrate the opposite to be true.

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

People who greatly favor talent over situation get burned. People who neglect talent and accept situations also get burned. See Addai, Joseph. I don't think he's stellar, but he's in a perfect situation.

Horrible example. Addai was panne don this board, but he was a firest round draft choice of one of the best teams in the league for identifying talent in the first round. He is not a low talent- good situation player. He is a good talent-great situation player.

Addai is another example of how not just any Joe can judge talent, seeing that many on this board thought he was junk, and yet he was t one of the best rookie RBs

MJD > Addai talentwise, yet Addai warranted a first rounder?RB Indy is a Top 10 fantasy spot if solely occupied by any above-average RB.

Addai's talent < Addai's situation.

Addai is a perfect example of situation being more important than talent.

No- Addai was a number #1 on several teams boards. Jones Drew lasted until the second round. Similarly, most FF players drafted Drew ahead of Addai. If you want to point to someone like Domanack Davis, Rudi Johnson or Mike Bell- those are good examples. However, Indy has had an unbelievable record of discerning first round talent - off the top of my head- Manning, Harrison, Edge, Clark, Wayne, Freeney- and they select Addai. They pick talented players. Addai was a high scholl phenom option QB in Houston (Sharpstown) who switched to rb at LSU and hurt his knee and took a bit to do well. LSU had a great rb rotation. Just because some here weren't impressed by his YouTube highlights didn't make him untalented.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in Dynasty Drafts with rookies Addai was often drafted ahead of MJD last year.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

 

[switz]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

Jeff, why are you so certain he's wrong and you're right? It's not like you have many people in this thread taking your POV...Maybe his initial tone seemed argumentative to you, but I thought the foundation of this discussion is a good one, and it seems many in here again, share that point of view. Talent, like cream, rises to the top.

 

[Family Matters]

People who greatly favor talent over situation get burned. People who neglect talent and accept situations also get burned. See Addai, Joseph. I don't think he's stellar, but he's in a perfect situation.

Horrible example. Addai was panne don this board, but he was a firest round draft choice of one of the best teams in the league for identifying talent in the first round. He is not a low talent- good situation player. He is a good talent-great situation player.

Addai is another example of how not just any Joe can judge talent, seeing that many on this board thought he was junk, and yet he was t one of the best rookie RBs

MJD > Addai talentwise, yet Addai warranted a first rounder?RB Indy is a Top 10 fantasy spot if solely occupied by any above-average RB. Addai's talent < Addai's situation.Addai is a perfect example of situation being more important than talent.

This is a classic example of why and how people see things differently. Your thoughts are valid but from my perspective, Addai was the better prospect hands down in redraft and better in dynasty as well. If you apply my process it looks like this:1. Talent. Addai and MJD are both talented. I like Addai's talent and build better but MJD came with fewer health risks out of college. Both can make plays.2. Opportunity. Addai wins this debate hands down. MJD surprised lasy year in terms of what he did with his opportunities but I think I felt Addai was in a position to be the man by the week 10 last year. With MJD I felt he need Taylor to be injured in order to make an impact. Addai is working in a RB friendly offense that scores a lot of points and uses the back in passing situations.3. Motivation. I think this was a draw. Neither guy had any issues that would impact them from a motivation stand point.From a dynasty perspective I still like Addai better mainly due to his situation in Indy. But I must say MJD was impressive last year. More than I thought he would be. But it's interesting how we see things differently looking at the same things. Clearly this is why we play the games. To see who was better at figuring this out.

 

[the_sig]

Marc:

This has been an interesting thread to read. While I agree with some of your points, I also agree with some of Jeff's....and at least from my perspective, that is where I am having a disconnect with your continued criticisms of Jeff's rankings/thought process. As you mention, you have labeled him out as THE example of the self termed 'outside-in' thought process, and have similarly labeled Sig as THE example of 'inside-out' thought process.

When I review the current dynasty rankings for both, I don't see a landslide difference. Sure, they both have outliers, as we all do, but as a whole, it appears to me they do not vastly differ....at least not enough of a difference that I would label either as a poster child for any newly coined evaluation philosophy. For example, when I look at their top 15 QB's...I see the exact same 15 QB's listed in the top 15. Some are the exact same, but none really differ by more than 2 spots with the exception of Vince Young. If these ranking/evaluation methods were such "polar opposites", wouldn't we expect to see more variance?

Frankly I think I personally use both methods, as do many board members. To limit myself to only one or the other would seem foolish in my opinion. Some players just have so much talent, you know it will trump situation, while other guys clearly have talent, but you are leery based on situation.

When you look at the upcoming crop of rookies in this years draft, and base all assessments of said players based on talent, I think you might be getting vastly different fantasy players than your 'inside-out' doctrine might suggest. Frankly, I'm not going to be too excited about AD if he indeed goes to CLE as many pundits suggest. That franchise has an unbelievably poor history of producing stud RB's. If indeed he has the best talent, I'm not sure you'll be seeing it for a while if he indeed goes to CLE. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Marc Faletti]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

Bash others? I bashed you? Did I call you names? Did I make fun of your mom? I thought all I did was break down FBG content (The Audible) to stimulate meaningful discussion on how to approach dynasty FF. Is it bashing you if I break down your commentary on The Audible and disagree with it? I'm surprised you're telling me this post doesn't belong in the Shark Pool. Jeff, I was trying to present a draft philosophy debate. It's about more than SJax or Edge or VY or whomever. HOW you broke down these players was what mattered to me in presenting this article. Your commentary stands out as an example of an analytical approach I find faulty. It's less about whether we agree on SJax's situation (which we do) than HOW you look at him in comparison to a guy like LJ. This is about process over any specific conclusion.

Again, I'm sorry you're mad. But surely this post and this debate belong here.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

Jeff, why are you so certain he's wrong and you're right? It's not like you have many people in this thread taking your POV...Maybe his initial tone seemed argumentative to you, but I thought the foundation of this discussion is a good one, and it seems many in here again, share that point of view. Talent, like cream, rises to the top.

My disagreement with Faletti is in him using myself as a litmus test to state that he's right and that my basis for picking a player (situation over talent) is flaVVed. I have a problem with that.I chose DeW over Addai last year. I chose MJD over Norwood. Both based on talent, not opportunity.

The examples Faletti has used here to illustrate that I'm hypocritical are fundamentally flaVVed. I took an hour of my time to illustrate this earlier today in a lengthy post to refute his statements because I found them to me wrong and inflammatory. He hasn't responded to my arguments.

As for selection of players, there are always times to take players based on talent alone. Talent + opportunity = NFL Elite player potential.

However, a team full of these guys will rarely be competitive.

Do I draft rookies? Yes. Do I have a young team? Yes. Do I do it at the expense of established players? No.

I want a team that is competitive now and in the future. That's my overarching philosophy.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

Bash others? I bashed you? Did I call you names? Did I make fun of your mom? I thought all I did was break down FBG content (The Audible) to stimulate meaningful discussion on how to approach dynasty FF. Is it bashing you if I break down your commentary on The Audible and disagree with it? I'm surprised you're telling me this post doesn't belong in the Shark Pool. Jeff, I was trying to present a draft philosophy debate. It's about more than SJax or Edge or VY or whomever. HOW you broke down these players was what mattered to me in presenting this article. Your commentary stands out as an example of an analytical approach I find faulty. It's less about whether we agree on SJax's situation (which we do) than HOW you look at him in comparison to a guy like LJ. This is about process over any specific conclusion.

Again, I'm sorry you're mad. But surely this post and this debate belong here.

If you find faults with some of the approach, then fine. Presenting them as the entire argument behind my ranking is irresponsible and I take offense.I've defended my position repeatedly, on The Audible and again in this thread, yet you don't take that into account.

 

[switz]

My disagreement with Faletti is in him using myself as a litmus test to state that he's right and that my basis for picking a player (situation over talent) is flaVVed. I have a problem with that.I chose DeW over Addai last year. I chose MJD over Norwood. Both based on talent, not opportunity.The examples Faletti has used here to illustrate that I'm hypocritical are fundamentally flaVVed. I took an hour of my time to illustrate this earlier today in a lengthy post to refute his statements because I found them to me wrong and inflammatory. He hasn't responded to my arguments.As for selection of players, there are always times to take players based on talent alone. Talent + opportunity = NFL Elite player potential.However, a team full of these guys will rarely be competitive.Do I draft rookies? Yes. Do I have a young team? Yes. Do I do it at the expense of established players? No.I want a team that is competitive now and in the future. That's my overarching philosophy.

Thanks for the explanation... I think probably you and bloom are more balanced in your methods than Marc asserts. I did find this thread very informative, I'm sorry you found Marc's post inflammatory.P.S. I'll still disagree with your estimation of Addai's talent though

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

My disagreement with Faletti is in him using myself as a litmus test to state that he's right and that my basis for picking a player (situation over talent) is flaVVed. I have a problem with that.I chose DeW over Addai last year. I chose MJD over Norwood. Both based on talent, not opportunity.The examples Faletti has used here to illustrate that I'm hypocritical are fundamentally flaVVed. I took an hour of my time to illustrate this earlier today in a lengthy post to refute his statements because I found them to me wrong and inflammatory. He hasn't responded to my arguments.As for selection of players, there are always times to take players based on talent alone. Talent + opportunity = NFL Elite player potential.However, a team full of these guys will rarely be competitive.Do I draft rookies? Yes. Do I have a young team? Yes. Do I do it at the expense of established players? No.I want a team that is competitive now and in the future. That's my overarching philosophy.

Thanks for the explanation... I think probably you and bloom are more balanced in your methods than Marc asserts. I did find this thread very informative, I'm sorry you found Marc's post inflammatory.P.S. I'll still disagree with your estimation of Addai's talent though

I can live with that.

 

[s_ezy]

Speaking of Dynasty Rankings were you going to update yours Jeff?

i do enjoy seeing where both you and Bloom have certain players ranked

thx in advance

 

[Marc Faletti]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

Bash others? I bashed you? Did I call you names? Did I make fun of your mom? I thought all I did was break down FBG content (The Audible) to stimulate meaningful discussion on how to approach dynasty FF. Is it bashing you if I break down your commentary on The Audible and disagree with it? I'm surprised you're telling me this post doesn't belong in the Shark Pool. Jeff, I was trying to present a draft philosophy debate. It's about more than SJax or Edge or VY or whomever. HOW you broke down these players was what mattered to me in presenting this article. Your commentary stands out as an example of an analytical approach I find faulty. It's less about whether we agree on SJax's situation (which we do) than HOW you look at him in comparison to a guy like LJ. This is about process over any specific conclusion.

Again, I'm sorry you're mad. But surely this post and this debate belong here.

If you find faults with some of the approach, then fine. Presenting them as the entire argument behind my ranking is irresponsible and I take offense.I've defended my position repeatedly, on The Audible and again in this thread, yet you don't take that into account.

Again, I'm really sorry. I have nothing but respect for you, Jeff, and I'm not trying to give you short shrift or misrepresent you. After listening to the Audible this week, I felt like you and Bloom were a microcosm of a debate I don't hear broached very often, and I'm just trying to break down your commentary from a different perspective. I think we strongly disagree on some fundamental things, and I have tried to show why, but it comes only from a place of respect for you and Footballguys that I would try and present such a thorough response to your comments.

Mea culpa on the tone.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Speaking of Dynasty Rankings were you going to update yours Jeff?i do enjoy seeing where both you and Bloom have certain players rankedthx in advance

Click my sig, the link is there.I don't know if I will update between now and the draft. maybe.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

That you rank talented players isn't the issue. Of course you do. As I said, it's "outside-in," not just "outside." My point is that when push comes to shove, situation matters more to you than talent, and I think that's continued to play out in this very thread.

You may take issue with your public commentary being categorized and picked apart, but as a Footballguy, if you demonstrate a behavior common in FF circles, good or bad, you should be expected to be held up as THE example of the behavior.

I enjoy your work on The Audible and here on Footballguys. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

Isn't that what these boards are for?

(Had to thin this down as there were too many quotes to quote)These boards are for discussions, yes, not just soapboxes for you to present your viewpoints and bash others to make your point - again, that's my opinion of this thread and your dissection of my rankings.

Let me know when you want to actually respond to the comments I actually responded to, such as the hypocrisy of my viewpoints and analysis on SJax and FWP.

If you want to drag Edge into the discussion (which is a separate conversation, since you only went after SJax, FWP and VY) you can, but then you'll just be incorrect on four players rather than three.

Also, please tell me where you'd rank VY - 3 is wrong, plain and simple.

So go ahead, expound if you like about:

SJax over LJ, and how you decide to pick the points in my argument that suit yours rather than using the entire discussion
Not being able to find 3 QBs better than VY
The hypocrisy of my detailed analysis - not your summaries - on why the STL offense benefits SJax and the new offense to FWP likely will not
How Edge has lost a step according to your inside-out upside-down viewpoint, and how the offensive line play means less than his allegedly diminished skills

Bash others? I bashed you? Did I call you names? Did I make fun of your mom? I thought all I did was break down FBG content (The Audible) to stimulate meaningful discussion on how to approach dynasty FF. Is it bashing you if I break down your commentary on The Audible and disagree with it? I'm surprised you're telling me this post doesn't belong in the Shark Pool. Jeff, I was trying to present a draft philosophy debate. It's about more than SJax or Edge or VY or whomever. HOW you broke down these players was what mattered to me in presenting this article. Your commentary stands out as an example of an analytical approach I find faulty. It's less about whether we agree on SJax's situation (which we do) than HOW you look at him in comparison to a guy like LJ. This is about process over any specific conclusion.

Again, I'm sorry you're mad. But surely this post and this debate belong here.

If you find faults with some of the approach, then fine. Presenting them as the entire argument behind my ranking is irresponsible and I take offense.I've defended my position repeatedly, on The Audible and again in this thread, yet you don't take that into account.

Again, I'm really sorry. I have nothing but respect for you, Jeff, and I'm not trying to give you short shrift or misrepresent you. After listening to the Audible this week, I felt like you and Bloom were a microcosm of a debate I don't hear broached very often, and I'm just trying to break down your commentary from a different perspective. I think we strongly disagree on some fundamental things, and I have tried to show why, but it comes only from a place of respect for you and Footballguys that I would try and present such a thorough response to your comments.

Mea culpa on the tone.

Apology accepted, but I'd still like to see where you'd rank VY.And I will show no mercy in Red Dog.

See you at the Draft.

 

[Marc Faletti]

Apology accepted, but I'd still like to see where you'd rank VY.

And I will show no mercy in Red Dog.

See you at the Draft.

VY. Well, if you must know the truth, he's behind only Peyton Manning in my dynasty rankings. Yeah, that's right. I know it looks insane now, but I've seen almost every one of his snaps since he came to UT, and I'm usually ruthlessly harsh on guys I follow closely. But Vince has shown this mythical blend of qualities that make me giddy like a kid again. Maybe that means I'm utterly unobjective, or maybe he's just that good. Only time will tell.What makes him #2 on my QB board?



1) He's already elite

Last year, he was #9 overall QB in our Red Dog scoring system despite starting only 12 games. He was #2 overall QB in the last 6 weeks, and that includes a 4 point stinkbomb vs. JAX. In other words, he was already performing at an elite level, including #2 overall when it mattered most.



2) He's shown limitless ceiling as a player

In his redshirt freshman year, he could barely complete a pass against OU. He wound up going 30-40 in the Rose Bowl. Yeah, USC's D stunk, but if you watched Vince himself, you saw how much more touch, accuracy, field vision, and passing confidence he displayed. And last year, he did a LOT more than beat people with his legs; a lot of his comebacks came from big throws at big moments, and I think he probably hadn't figured out how to read NFL defenses very well yet.

Even if he doesn't get better, he's shown he'll produce at a top 2 level. But I think he's gonna get a LOT better.

He's an also unbelievable leader. Did you notice how UT reverted to its choking self without him? He makes whole teams believe they're winners -- just ask the Titans about how they believed they were invincible because of him.

Finally, he's a really hard worker. I bet his offseason with Chow pays huge dividends because he's shown marked improvement over every year of his career.

He's a heckuva rusher, too, and that doesn't hurt in fantasy, does it? Like a lot of great QBs, I believe he'll come to rely on it less as he gets better wideouts and wiser about the game, but it sure mitigates the sucky Tennessee team around him.

They had nothing last year and he was a WONDER to watch. His numbers were too.

I think he'll be the best player in the league soon. And yeah, I know that may sound crazy, but it comes from 4+ years and hundreds of snaps of observation.

Talent, baby.

 

[LHUCKS]

Archie Manning

 

[renesauz]

AS a FBg on the outside of this debate, I have to say that Marc's arguments were compelling and thought provoking, but ultimately held little meaning other then to make me recognise WHY I slot a particular player where I do.

By little meaning, I mean that Jeff and Bloom come to similar rankings and conclusions for most players....so the difference in HOW they do it, HOW they analyze, is either very small, or immaterial.

Did you know that there are at least 4 DIFFERENT thought patterns one can use to solve a simple math problem such as 11 X 13?

Some folks simply have the answer memorized. Any problem they don't have pre-memorized they need pen and paper or a calculator for.

Others know the fomulas to work it out, but need pen and paper.

Others know 10 times 13 is easy...130, and 11 X 13 is only 13 higher. Those folks may not have even the basic 12 times 12 times table memorized, but have a far greater concept of mathematics then either of the first two.

Does it matter if they all arrive at the same answer????????

Marc...the tone of your post seemed slightly inflammatory to me also, even though it wasn't directed at me. I appreciate the illustrations of how we think to evaluate a players FF potential, but I think Jeff made it pretty clear by his own (often angry) replies that you probably did oversimplify by categorizing him and Bloom in opposite camps. It seems clear to me that NEITHER of them strongly values talent or situation over the other, and that both of them take both talent AND situation into serious account. The fact that they arrive at the same conclusions on a regular basis validates the idea that IT SIMPLY DOESN"T MATTER WHICH YOU LOOK AT FIRST, as long as you look at BOTH!

To illustrate that final statement with another math problem, consider this...

43

X

4278596

4278596

X

43

Give a child the first example of the SAME PROBLEM, and he'll almost certainly start by taking 6 times 3, and then times 4, then 90 times 3, etc. He'll do 14 small multiplications, and use half his paper to add up 7 different sums.

The wise man knows that by inverting the problem, he will get the same result. He'll still do 14 small multiplications, but have only TWO SUMS to add....and therefore will complete the problem faster with more accuracy.

Neither are wrong. Both are valid.

(PS: I actually had a teacher in fourth grade mark a math question wrong when I inverted like this...It took me an hour to convince her that it was the same problem. She couldn't understand how I got the right answer! )

 

[Cecil Lammey]

I thought this was headed to IBTL.

Great discussion, BTW fellas. Can't wait to see the debate after we record the WR rankings show tonight!

 

[Marc Faletti]

AS a FBg on the outside of this debate, I have to say that Marc's arguments were compelling and thought provoking, but ultimately held little meaning other then to make me recognise WHY I slot a particular player where I do.

By little meaning, I mean that Jeff and Bloom come to similar rankings and conclusions for most players....so the difference in HOW they do it, HOW they analyze, is either very small, or immaterial.

Did you know that there are at least 4 DIFFERENT thought patterns one can use to solve a simple math problem such as 11 X 13?

Some folks simply have the answer memorized. Any problem they don't have pre-memorized they need pen and paper or a calculator for.

Others know the fomulas to work it out, but need pen and paper.

Others know 10 times 13 is easy...130, and 11 X 13 is only 13 higher. Those folks may not have even the basic 12 times 12 times table memorized, but have a far greater concept of mathematics then either of the first two.

Does it matter if they all arrive at the same answer????????

Marc...the tone of your post seemed slightly inflammatory to me also, even though it wasn't directed at me. I appreciate the illustrations of how we think to evaluate a players FF potential, but I think Jeff made it pretty clear by his own (often angry) replies that you probably did oversimplify by categorizing him and Bloom in opposite camps. It seems clear to me that NEITHER of them strongly values talent or situation over the other, and that both of them take both talent AND situation into serious account. The fact that they arrive at the same conclusions on a regular basis validates the idea that IT SIMPLY DOESN"T MATTER WHICH YOU LOOK AT FIRST, as long as you look at BOTH!

To illustrate that final statement with another math problem, consider this...

43

X

4278596

4278596

X

43

Give a child the first example of the SAME PROBLEM, and he'll almost certainly start by taking 6 times 3, and then times 4, then 90 times 3, etc. He'll do 14 small multiplications, and use half his paper to add up 7 different sums.

The wise man knows that by inverting the problem, he will get the same result. He'll still do 14 small multiplications, but have only TWO SUMS to add....and therefore will complete the problem faster with more accuracy.

Neither are wrong. Both are valid.

(PS: I actually had a teacher in fourth grade mark a math question wrong when I inverted like this...It took me an hour to convince her that it was the same problem. She couldn't understand how I got the right answer! )

renesauz,thanks for the feedback about the tone. i will work on it in the future, for sure.

but as to your point about it not mattering, i'm afraid we disagree. you're going to have to rank guys against each other, and that means you're going to have to decide whether you think a great player in a bad situation should be ranked higher or lower than a lesser player in a better situation.

LJ and SJax are a perfect example. in my eyes, SJax is in a way better spot. LJ is way more talented. when deciding where to rank them, push comes to shove and i have to decide whether to take the guy in the good spot or the one with the better wheels. i choose the talent b/c i think situations are fluid and hard to accurately predict even if they don't change on the outside.

now, you may think SJax is flat out better, and that's cool. you can rate him on talent and his situation doesn't hurt a bit -- it helps. but we all run into a dilemma like the above at some point, and you have to choose one over the other.

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

 

[Marc Faletti]

I thought this was headed to IBTL.Great discussion, BTW fellas. Can't wait to see the debate after we record the WR rankings show tonight!

Really? I must be one mean SOB.

 

[nerangers]

Jeff, why are you so certain he's wrong and you're right? It's not like you have many people in this thread taking your POV...Maybe his initial tone seemed argumentative to you, but I thought the foundation of this discussion is a good one, and it seems many in here again, share that point of view. Talent, like cream, rises to the top.

Why does Talent like LT (whom I would assume many would rank as the #1 RB) credit his line for the records he got this year? Talented Players will succeed, but the supporting cast can make you or break you.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

I start by ranking how many Fantasy Points that player will score in Year 1, then adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.).To go back to the math analogy - as the # of years shrinks and approaches 1, the rankings should == redraft rankings.So why not start from there and work towards Dynasty?Rank Year 1, add factors for Years 2-4. As Ruffrodys05 would say, "wa-la". (That's his best French for "Voila").

 

[dirtyhalos]

I thought this was headed to IBTL.Great discussion, BTW fellas. Can't wait to see the debate after we record the WR rankings show tonight!

Really? I must be one mean SOB.

hey clown, you are only carrying 44 players in red dog, you know roster size is 53?....what a dope:tonedeaf:

 

[renesauz]

AS a FBg on the outside of this debate, I have to say that Marc's arguments were compelling and thought provoking, but ultimately held little meaning other then to make me recognise WHY I slot a particular player where I do.

By little meaning, I mean that Jeff and Bloom come to similar rankings and conclusions for most players....so the difference in HOW they do it, HOW they analyze, is either very small, or immaterial.

Did you know that there are at least 4 DIFFERENT thought patterns one can use to solve a simple math problem such as 11 X 13?

Some folks simply have the answer memorized. Any problem they don't have pre-memorized they need pen and paper or a calculator for.

Others know the fomulas to work it out, but need pen and paper.

Others know 10 times 13 is easy...130, and 11 X 13 is only 13 higher. Those folks may not have even the basic 12 times 12 times table memorized, but have a far greater concept of mathematics then either of the first two.

Does it matter if they all arrive at the same answer????????

Marc...the tone of your post seemed slightly inflammatory to me also, even though it wasn't directed at me. I appreciate the illustrations of how we think to evaluate a players FF potential, but I think Jeff made it pretty clear by his own (often angry) replies that you probably did oversimplify by categorizing him and Bloom in opposite camps. It seems clear to me that NEITHER of them strongly values talent or situation over the other, and that both of them take both talent AND situation into serious account. The fact that they arrive at the same conclusions on a regular basis validates the idea that IT SIMPLY DOESN"T MATTER WHICH YOU LOOK AT FIRST, as long as you look at BOTH!

To illustrate that final statement with another math problem, consider this...

43

X

4278596

4278596

X

43

Give a child the first example of the SAME PROBLEM, and he'll almost certainly start by taking 6 times 3, and then times 4, then 90 times 3, etc. He'll do 14 small multiplications, and use half his paper to add up 7 different sums.

The wise man knows that by inverting the problem, he will get the same result. He'll still do 14 small multiplications, but have only TWO SUMS to add....and therefore will complete the problem faster with more accuracy.

Neither are wrong. Both are valid.

(PS: I actually had a teacher in fourth grade mark a math question wrong when I inverted like this...It took me an hour to convince her that it was the same problem. She couldn't understand how I got the right answer! )

renesauz,thanks for the feedback about the tone. i will work on it in the future, for sure.

but as to your point about it not mattering, i'm afraid we disagree. you're going to have to rank guys against each other, and that means you're going to have to decide whether you think a great player in a bad situation should be ranked higher or lower than a lesser player in a better situation.

LJ and SJax are a perfect example. in my eyes, SJax is in a way better spot. LJ is way more talented. when deciding where to rank them, push comes to shove and i have to decide whether to take the guy in the good spot or the one with the better wheels. i choose the talent b/c i think situations are fluid and hard to accurately predict even if they don't change on the outside.

now, you may think SJax is flat out better, and that's cool. you can rate him on talent and his situation doesn't hurt a bit -- it helps. but we all run into a dilemma like the above at some point, and you have to choose one over the other.

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

I think you missed the point. Bloom and Jeff might START at different points, yet come to the same conclusions (for the most part). NEITHER of them ignores one of the two key aspects when evaluating a particular player. Look at those two math problems again. ON paper, the solutions LOOK a lot different, but they ARE NOT DIFFERENT! That's my point....Bloom and Jeff are simply starting at a different point. Neither is more right or wrong then the other. NEITHER ignores either aspect.If they differ on a particular player, it will come down to a difference of opinion on exactly what that players talent really is, or what that player's situation really is, NOT which one (talent or situation) they looked at first.

The fact that they arrive at virtually the same conclusions shows that REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR WRITTEN OR VERBAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF RANKING ARE, they have weighed talent to the same degree as each other, and situation to the ssame degree.

On those occassions when they significantly differ in rankings, it's usually EASY to see where they differ in opinion.

Bottom line: At this point you are simply being stubborn in your insistance that it's wrong to look at situation first, and stubborn in your WAY over-simplified classifications of Jeff and Bloom, which I thought I clearly illustrated were, if not flawed, certainly immaterial.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

 

[Marc Faletti]

Bottom line: At this point you are simply being stubborn in your insistance that it's wrong to look at situation first, and stubborn in your WAY over-simplified classifications of Jeff and Bloom, which I thought I clearly illustrated were, if not flawed, certainly immaterial.

Hmm. I think that statement could be seen as somewhat inflammatory, actually, but hey, dem's da breaks.I'm not trying to be stubborn. Here's the thing: Even if both ways of thought often lead you to similar conclusions, they don't always, do they? Jeff and Sig really disagree on SJax and Lj, and that's a crucial decision if you sit at #2 in a draft. They also disagree on Alexander and Parker and others.

Even if they yield the same results 90% of the time, that 10% could be the difference between winning and losing. I think that matters. If that's stubborn, I'm sorry.

 

[renesauz]

If it helps Mark, go back and read the example of my fourth grade teacher again.

She was so certain about how to solve the problem, that she insisted my method was wrong, even when she could clearly see that I got the same result. You are doing the same thing.

You've assumed Bloom starts a list on talent, then adjusts to situation, and Jeff starts a list based on situation, and then adjusts to talent. If in the end their lists are similar, then obviously BOTH methods are effective and valid.

The assumption that this is how they do it is based strictly on their commentary. Bloom is a top-notch talent scout, it's natural for him to explain himself based on talent. Jeff is a little bit more analytical, and it's easier for him to explain big picture stuff, so that's where he naturally goes to explain his rankings.

Just because they use different terms to explain their rankings does NOT by any stretch mean that they have VALUED situation or talent differently from each other.

 

[renesauz]

Bottom line: At this point you are simply being stubborn in your insistance that it's wrong to look at situation first, and stubborn in your WAY over-simplified classifications of Jeff and Bloom, which I thought I clearly illustrated were, if not flawed, certainly immaterial.

Hmm. I think that statement could be seen as somewhat inflammatory, actually, but hey, dem's da breaks.I'm not trying to be stubborn. Here's the thing: Even if both ways of thought often lead you to similar conclusions, they don't always, do they? Jeff and Sig really disagree on SJax and Lj, and that's a crucial decision if you sit at #2 in a draft. They also disagree on Alexander and Parker and others.

Even if they yield the same results 90% of the time, that 10% could be the difference between winning and losing. I think that matters. If that's stubborn, I'm sorry.

To be honest, it was meant to be slightly inflammatory. We ALL disagree on certain players. WE ALL are wrong on those players as often as right. A somewhat derogatory initial comment on why Jeff's entire ranking system is flawed, and your primary example is Johnson VS. Jackson? RB2 vs RB3???????The difference between winning and losing is making the right call on ALL ASPECTS. Who cares which one you look at first!?

 

[renesauz]

Are you related to Ms. Fields?

(My fourth grade teacher)

 

[Marc Faletti]

If it helps Mark, go back and read the example of my fourth grade teacher again.She was so certain about how to solve the problem, that she insisted my method was wrong, even when she could clearly see that I got the same result. You are doing the same thing. You've assumed Bloom starts a list on talent, then adjusts to situation, and Jeff starts a list based on situation, and then adjusts to talent. If in the end their lists are similar, then obviously BOTH methods are effective and valid.The assumption that this is how they do it is based strictly on their commentary. Bloom is a top-notch talent scout, it's natural for him to explain himself based on talent. Jeff is a little bit more analytical, and it's easier for him to explain big picture stuff, so that's where he naturally goes to explain his rankings. Just because they use different terms to explain their rankings does NOT by any stretch mean that they have VALUED situation or talent differently from each other.

I know in my own head, I used to obssess over situations, and I eventually learned that this was less reliable than approaching things from talent first and foremost in dynasty. In other words, I have seen a qualitative difference in my fantasy success based on switching from one mode of thinking to the other. I felt Jeff and Sig's commentary served to illustrate the two modes of thought I expressed, and I merely wanted to show why I favor one over the other using it. I'm not in either dude's head. Maybe they do things exactly the same way, who knows. But I really believe there are 2 different mindsets out there (based on my personal experiences) and they lead to 2 different result sets. Even if those results sets have several similar data points, the points where they differ could be key.

 

[nerangers]

Bottom line: At this point you are simply being stubborn in your insistance that it's wrong to look at situation first, and stubborn in your WAY over-simplified classifications of Jeff and Bloom, which I thought I clearly illustrated were, if not flawed, certainly immaterial.

Hmm. I think that statement could be seen as somewhat inflammatory, actually, but hey, dem's da breaks.I'm not trying to be stubborn. Here's the thing: Even if both ways of thought often lead you to similar conclusions, they don't always, do they? Jeff and Sig really disagree on SJax and Lj, and that's a crucial decision if you sit at #2 in a draft. They also disagree on Alexander and Parker and others.

Even if they yield the same results 90% of the time, that 10% could be the difference between winning and losing. I think that matters. If that's stubborn, I'm sorry.

Poor example if you think picking SJAX over LJ or visa versa is going to be a killer for your team. They both have them ranked 2/3 just in reverse order. I think at pick #2 you would be happy to have either of them. Unless you own a crystal ball, I don't think you will be able to definitely determine which will have a better season. To me that is not a big "REALLY" disagreement having them ranked so close. Everyone is going to rank players a little different. I think you more have to ask yourself on a player like Alexander where they have him ranked 5/10 or Reggie Bush 16/5 and FWP 22/9. Bigger gap and could be a difference maker. There you could have a legitamate argument in the rankings. Since we are talking dynasty here though, you are not just talking a season, but multiple seasons. Personally I think Jeff is more correct on SJAX and Alexander, but a little off on FWP and Bush.

oh, and if the Situation doesn't matter, why do we care where rookies end up?

 

[Marc Faletti]

To be honest, it was meant to be slightly inflammatory. We ALL disagree on certain players. WE ALL are wrong on those players as often as right. A somewhat derogatory initial comment on why Jeff's entire ranking system is flawed, and your primary example is Johnson VS. Jackson? RB2 vs RB3???????The difference between winning and losing is making the right call on ALL ASPECTS. Who cares which one you look at first!?

Hey, if you're mad at me, too, that's fine. I'm just trying to talk mindsets here. I realize I was too loose with my tone before, and that's my bad. Jackson vs. Johnson is ESSENTIAL if you're sitting at #2. It could make or break your season, just like any 1st round pick decision. And Shaun Alexander at #5 vs. #10 could also be huge. And Willie Parker as elite back or not is a great question to answer. Yeah, those matter. And I think what you value most changes those rankings. I see you look at this totally different. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Marc Faletti]

Bottom line: At this point you are simply being stubborn in your insistance that it's wrong to look at situation first, and stubborn in your WAY over-simplified classifications of Jeff and Bloom, which I thought I clearly illustrated were, if not flawed, certainly immaterial.

Hmm. I think that statement could be seen as somewhat inflammatory, actually, but hey, dem's da breaks.I'm not trying to be stubborn. Here's the thing: Even if both ways of thought often lead you to similar conclusions, they don't always, do they? Jeff and Sig really disagree on SJax and Lj, and that's a crucial decision if you sit at #2 in a draft. They also disagree on Alexander and Parker and others.

Even if they yield the same results 90% of the time, that 10% could be the difference between winning and losing. I think that matters. If that's stubborn, I'm sorry.

Poor example if you think picking SJAX over LJ or visa versa is going to be a killer for your team. They both have them ranked 2/3 just in reverse order. To me that is not a big "REALLY" disagreement. Everyone is going to rank players a little different. I think you more have to ask yourself on a player like Alexander where they have him ranked 5/10 or Reggie Bush 16/5 and FWP 22/9. Bigger gap and could be a difference maker. Since we are talking dynasty here though, you are not just talking a season, but multiple seasons. Personally I think Jeff is more correct on SJAX and Alexander, but a little off on FWP.

oh, and if the Situation doesn't matter, why do we care where rookies end up?

I believe I have said many times that situation matters. It's just not as important to me as talent if I have to choose between the two. So I don't care where AP or CJ go. They are 1-2 for me in rookie leagues no matter what. Lynch is probably #3 no matter what. And I bet we all feel pretty much the same way. But after that, I bet folks will start looking at situation a lot, whereas I'm probably going to stick with Rice, Meachem, Russell, Olsen, etc., in that order because I already have assessed their talent and would rather have the dynasty player I believe in than one whose situations looks more enticing in the moment.

 

[renesauz]

I know in my own head, I used to obssess over situations, and I eventually learned that this was less reliable than approaching things from talent first and foremost in dynasty. In other words, I have seen a qualitative difference in my fantasy success based on switching from one mode of thinking to the other.

I felt Jeff and Sig's commentary served to illustrate the two modes of thought I expressed, and I merely wanted to show why I favor one over the other using it. I'm not in either dude's head. Maybe they do things exactly the same way, who knows.

But I really believe there are 2 different mindsets out there (based on my personal experiences) and they lead to 2 different result sets. Even if those results sets have several similar data points, the points where they differ could be key.

Maybe that's why this whole argument has gotten out of hand. Just because a guy explains himself more often based on situation, doesn't mean he's obsessed over the situation to the exclusion of talent as you may have done in your less experianced years.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

If it helps Mark, go back and read the example of my fourth grade teacher again.She was so certain about how to solve the problem, that she insisted my method was wrong, even when she could clearly see that I got the same result. You are doing the same thing. You've assumed Bloom starts a list on talent, then adjusts to situation, and Jeff starts a list based on situation, and then adjusts to talent. If in the end their lists are similar, then obviously BOTH methods are effective and valid.The assumption that this is how they do it is based strictly on their commentary. Bloom is a top-notch talent scout, it's natural for him to explain himself based on talent. Jeff is a little bit more analytical, and it's easier for him to explain big picture stuff, so that's where he naturally goes to explain his rankings. Just because they use different terms to explain their rankings does NOT by any stretch mean that they have VALUED situation or talent differently from each other.

Your point is well-taken, but there are some cases where Jeff and I differ and it really comes down to talent vs. situation. I have always had Michael Turner significantly higher than Jeff because I weight his talent very heavily, Jeff weighs the uncertainty of his future situation heavily. Vince Young is another example where our approaches cause us to come up with very different results.On the whole, I think you're correct, but Faletti's point about the 10% where we differ maybe being the difference between winning and losing is also correct.

 

[nerangers]

So I don't care where AP or CJ go. They are 1-2 for me in rookie leagues no matter what. Lynch is probably #3 no matter what. And I bet we all feel pretty much the same way. But after that, I bet folks will start looking at situation a lot, whereas I'm probably going to stick with Rice, Meachem, Russell, Olsen, etc., in that order because I already have assessed their talent and would rather have the dynasty player I believe in than one whose situations looks more enticing in the moment.

I doubt many were happy to see Chad Jackson (CJ) go to the Patriots last year...I think many had him #1 or #2 for WRs. You are right that the Top Rookies are going to be drafted in the top of their fantasy football rookie drafts, but I am sure you would like to see this years CJ go to someone that will get him the ball the next few years!

 

[nerangers]

Your point is well-taken, but there are some cases where Jeff and I differ and it really comes down to talent vs. situation. I have always had Michael Turner significantly higher than Jeff because I weight his talent very heavily, Jeff weighs the uncertainty of his future situation heavily. Vince Young is another example where our approaches cause us to come up with very different results.On the whole, I think you're correct, but Faletti's point about the 10% where we differ maybe being the difference between winning and losing is also correct.

True, but you both will end up with home runs (sorry it is finally baseball season) on some players, and strike-outs on others.I think something of interest with Dynasty rankings would be how you would rank them based on one years performance vs three years performance. No one can predict how a players situation will be three years from now, except for their age, and the second ranking would proabably be based more on talent where the one year projection definitely would be more influenced by situation.I like the Turner example. He is definitely talented, but as long as his situation has him running behind a healthy LT, his talent will be riding the pine more than if he was somewhere else.

 

[renesauz]

So I don't care where AP or CJ go. They are 1-2 for me in rookie leagues no matter what. Lynch is probably #3 no matter what. And I bet we all feel pretty much the same way. But after that, I bet folks will start looking at situation a lot, whereas I'm probably going to stick with Rice, Meachem, Russell, Olsen, etc., in that order because I already have assessed their talent and would rather have the dynasty player I believe in than one whose situations looks more enticing in the moment.

Great, and very understandable. But...what if you really need a WR to be competitive THIS YEAR? Do you take Rice over Olsen simply because you THINK he's better if Rice projects to be a WR4 on his team, while Olsen projects to be a WR2? Are you that incredibly certain of your own rankings when NFL scouts and GM's miss on so many first round picks? Are you better then they are???????Even if you're right, you don't get the WR you need this year.All too often in dynasty, guys are trying to look four or five seasons ahead based on their own often flawed evaluations of talent. To bypass a guy you rank only a few slots lower in talent but with a far better scenario is foolish.

 

[Mister CIA]

To me, if you disagree with Jeff's rankings, then his rankings are all the more valuable because they make you think (well, they should), whereas (so it seems) if you agree with Bloom's rankings, you may give yourself a mental high-5, not realizing the possibility that your opinions are the same as Bloom's because you are predisposed to align yourself with his rankings.

Eschew homogeneity, I say.

 

[renesauz]

If it helps Mark, go back and read the example of my fourth grade teacher again.

She was so certain about how to solve the problem, that she insisted my method was wrong, even when she could clearly see that I got the same result. You are doing the same thing.

You've assumed Bloom starts a list on talent, then adjusts to situation, and Jeff starts a list based on situation, and then adjusts to talent. If in the end their lists are similar, then obviously BOTH methods are effective and valid.

The assumption that this is how they do it is based strictly on their commentary. Bloom is a top-notch talent scout, it's natural for him to explain himself based on talent. Jeff is a little bit more analytical, and it's easier for him to explain big picture stuff, so that's where he naturally goes to explain his rankings.

Just because they use different terms to explain their rankings does NOT by any stretch mean that they have VALUED situation or talent differently from each other.

Your point is well-taken, but there are some cases where Jeff and I differ and it really comes down to talent vs. situation. I have always had Michael Turner significantly higher than Jeff because I weight his talent very heavily, Jeff weighs the uncertainty of his future situation heavily. Vince Young is another example where our approaches cause us to come up with very different results.On the whole, I think you're correct, but Faletti's point about the 10% where we differ maybe being the difference between winning and losing is also correct.

I understand and respect that. But the simple truth is neither of you will be useing him in your league this year, barring an LT injury or an emergency fill-in. My last post illustrated my point on this. Neither of you is right or wrong based on the limited information. But what if you need an every week RB this year? Is Turner still your RB of choice over a less talented, but better positioned player? Are you talking about winning and losing this year, or next year? IN 3 years? The needs of your roster, and the league rules would need to be taken into account. A dynasty league with a 17 man roster is different then one with a 22 man roster. At 17 men, Turner's value is far less because you simply don't have enough flexibility to let him rot on the bench for years as a high pick. At 22 men, you would have that luxury, and his value would be much higher because of his future stud potential.What I'm getting at is when you and Jeff do have significant differences of opinion that are clearly based on the priority of situation vs. talent, you may BOTH be right, depending on the league he's applied to. Neither method is invalidated.

Out of curiousity, and both Bloom and Jeff need to answer this, do your dynasty rankings take roster sizes and limitations into account? On an unlimited roster size (or ridiculously large size), I could see Turner as a top ten pick. With a severely limited roster size, he could easily fall into the 20's or even lower.

 

[Biabreakable]

I'll throw in my $.02. I think a lot of very good points have been made in this thread -- interesting discussion. I guess my only problem with the discussion in this thread is the focus on trying to "prove" that talent (or situation) is the single most important factor related to valuation of players for dynasty purposes. Certainly, talent and situation can be viewed as opposite ends of one of the most important dimensions for evaluation and ranking of players.But I think there are several relevant dimensions including (in no particular order of importance): (1) age, (2) talent, (3) years of NFL experience, (4) opportunity, (5) situation, (6) accumulated wear and tear, (7) injury history (past), (8) injury risk (future), (9) demonstrated track record (past), (10) potential upside (future), (11) NFL draft round (or UDFA), (12) college/pedigree, (13) quality years remaining in a player's career, (14) motivation (especially any problems related to a player working hard to maximize talent and opportunity), and (15) general knucklehead factor (including legal problems, drug problems, risk of suspension, etc.).IMO all of these factors need to be considered for accurate player valuation in a dynasty format.

again Driver. But don't scare the fish with so many variables. This thread has wings from stating things as being black and white rather than so many shades of grey.A few more that I think are significant. (16) Team's front office, (17) Contract length and it's relative value (percentage of teams cap), (18) Coaching staff.Many of these 18 things can be broken down into subcategories as well. While others are more straightforward.

 

[renesauz]

FWIW:

I highly value both Jeff's and Bloom's thoughts and commentaries. I trust Bloom a little more in raw talent evaluation, and I trust Jeff's understanding of the big picture a little better.

The reason I'm arguing in here so much is because I believe the whole premise of the discussion to begin with to be flawed, or at the very least, ultimately immaterial.

I suspect a close look at both Jeff's and Bloom's fantasy football success in dynasty leagues would show that both of them have similar, successful, track records.

I also suspect that Marc uses far more situation evaluation in his own rankings then he realizes.

 

[bloomfan#1]

Are you trying to say that people other than Bloom rank players on this site?

 

[renesauz]

Are you trying to say that people other than Bloom rank players on this site?

:(

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Talent vs. Situation is typified by Addai in my mind, as 12 months ago we were debating the Top 5 RBs for 2006.

Most had 3 or 4 RBs ahead of him (Maroney, DeAngelo, LenDale, and of course Bush). Now, in 2006, we saw each of their productivity. MJD and Norwood were a tier below.

Would you still go with the talent rankings from March 2006, or would situations now weigh in?

Reggie Bush, and possibly now Maroney, would be the only ones ahead of Addai - purely based on current (2007) projections.

So with the average life of a RB at about 4.5 years, do you want to have your RB on the pine and hope he gets a shot or pans out, or would you rather have a RB step in and be a RBBC guy in year one (Addai, Norwood, Bush, MJD, DeW) and possibly take over in Year 2 or 3?

That's the debate right there.

If I had a superb Dynasty team, I'd take talent over situation more. If my team was hurting for RB I'd take the guy most likely to perform now vs. later.

There's also the part where you'd have to ask who is more tradeable / marketable now - Addai? MJD? LenDale?

MJD is a "sell high" candidate, as he had a great Year 1 and who knows about the future. Could he continue to excel and be an elite back? Sure. Could he be trapped in a RBBC? Absolutely. Could he lose touches in Years 2 and 3 as defenses learn and adjust to his NFL films? Also possible.

There is no right answer - just opinions, to which we are all entitled.

Right now some of us (myself included) love Brian Leonard and Lorenzo Booker. Others like LHUCKS beat the drum for Brandon Jackson. Will that change if one of them gets put behind McGahee in Baltimore or the O-line in Cleveland? That's up to you to decide.

 

[renesauz]

If it helps Mark, go back and read the example of my fourth grade teacher again.She was so certain about how to solve the problem, that she insisted my method was wrong, even when she could clearly see that I got the same result. You are doing the same thing. You've assumed Bloom starts a list on talent, then adjusts to situation, and Jeff starts a list based on situation, and then adjusts to talent. If in the end their lists are similar, then obviously BOTH methods are effective and valid.The assumption that this is how they do it is based strictly on their commentary. Bloom is a top-notch talent scout, it's natural for him to explain himself based on talent. Jeff is a little bit more analytical, and it's easier for him to explain big picture stuff, so that's where he naturally goes to explain his rankings. Just because they use different terms to explain their rankings does NOT by any stretch mean that they have VALUED situation or talent differently from each other.

Your point is well-taken, but there are some cases where Jeff and I differ and it really comes down to talent vs. situation. I have always had Michael Turner significantly higher than Jeff because I weight his talent very heavily, Jeff weighs the uncertainty of his future situation heavily. Vince Young is another example where our approaches cause us to come up with very different results.On the whole, I think you're correct, but Faletti's point about the 10% where we differ maybe being the difference between winning and losing is also correct.

Bloomy...how long has Turner been in the league? Where do his total points rank during that span? Maybe Jeff has him too low now, since Turner is only a year from FA, but you had him too high the last couple of years. This whole thing is more complex then Marc (and now you) are trying to make it. And NONE OF US are really wrong. Now, let's this thread and just go get some I'll even buy.