Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You have no concerns that some combination of Ladell Betts (77/255 /2 rushing, 15/167/0 rec), Rock Cartwright (107/411/4 rushing 18/176/0 rec) and Trung Canidate (142/597/1 rushing, 10/71/1 receiving in 2003) will vulture touches and TD's from Portis -- given that Gibbs has always shared the load at RB on his teams in the past? On what basis do you ignore his entire pro coaching history?
John Riggins
George Rogers
I think if you look at year's past you see Kelvin Bryant was a talent I believe they got from the USFL and Gibbs struggled to fit him in. Then, he didn't have much to work with. Older Ernest Byner, older Gerald Riggs, lil Joe's younger brother, even gave James Wilder a shot just before he retired. Then Ricky Ervins.When he had a stud he used him as such. I don't think he had one after Rogers.
The premise for debate was whether production of established WR would deceline with the insertion of an "imported" veteran QB. The discussion in this thread was more focused on whether to downgrade Coles because Brunnell was the likely starting QB in Washington.Basically, if you look at the WR listed on the lefthand side, the QB listed was brought from outside the system, and the WR posted the production listed on the righthand side. All the WR still were very productive (or sometimes even more productive) with the new QB.WR listed more than once had QB changes more than once. QB listed more than once switched teams more than once.Andre Rison did have several unproductive years and then went to KC the year Grbac came on-board. In Rison's example, he had to learn a new system (as did the QB), so that was probably a more complex scenario than just the changing of the guard at QB.
a) Randy had the same QB, Same O-Coordinator and relatively same personnel surrounding when the big move from Green to Tice took place. As for QB changes, I believe them to be less significant than a head coaching/system change...significant nonetheless though. b) I'm not saying Coles is going to drop off the face of the planet, I'm saying he is not a safe #5...I have him ranked 9.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
You mean if he gets fewer yards and fewer TDs, he's not going to do as well as last year? How novel. 
Also, 1700 rush yards, 200 rec yards and 14TDs could very easily put a guy in the top 5. In fact, I'd guess historically, you'd find those numbers would put a guy in the 5 the vast majority of the time.Our #5 guy last year was Clinton Portis with 1591, 314, and 14. Ironically, that adds up to almost exactly the numbers you are talking about and 2003 was an unbeilievably good year for RBs, especially at the top.Our #10 guy was Edge with 1259, 292 and 11 and again that's in a very good year for RB numbers.
I don't consider that to be a significant issue for two reasons: 1) I don't think Gibbs has ever had a RB as good as Portis. Not Rogers, not Riggins, no one. And even if you want to say Riggins or Rogers or any of the others were as good or better than Portis, none of those RBs cost the Redskins arguably the best CB in the NFL. Given the price that was paid for Portis, the chances of him not being utilized to the fullest are remote. But more importantly, I don't think any of the RBs also on the Redskins' roster are any good. And they certainly aren't even close to Portis' class in terms of talent. I don't see how anyone in that group can pose a threat of any kind to Portis. They simply aren't very good.
With all due respect to Riggins, Byner, Rogers, etc., Gibbs never had a RB with close to Portis's talent before, so what he did with those other RBs doens't necessarily have much bearing on how he will use Portis.In particular, I see no reason to ever use Canidate in place of Portis. He doesn't even bring a different element/style. At least Cartwright/Betts could provide a contrast for the defense.Furthermore, consider that last season Washington only had 421 rushing attempts. Over Gibbs' career, excluding 1982 and 1987 due to strikes, his teams averaged 528 rushing attempts, with a peak of 629 (
) in 1983.I expect Washington to have 500+ rushing attempts this season. That leaves plenty of room for Cartwright, Betts, and Canidate to split 200 carries while Portis still gets 300, which is just under 19 per game.
JWB--I don't want to pick on you because I normally love your posts, but I have to disagree here. Let's look at RAW numbers (Thanks to PFR). We'll analyze the rookie years of Portis (2002), Anderson (2000), Gary(1999) and Davis (1995)2002: 273 car, 1508 yards, 15 TD; 33 rec, 364 yds, 2 TD; 289 FPs; 137 value2000: 297 car, 1503 yards, 15 TD; 23 rec, 169 yds, 0 TD; 257 FPs; 098 value1999: 276 car, 1159 yards, 07 TD; 21 rec, 159 yds, 0 TD; 174 FPs; 044 value1995: 237 car, 1117 yards, 07 TD; 49 rec, 367 yds, 1 TD; 196 FPs; 056 valueOn the surface, yes Portis had the best rookie year. However, he certainly didn't outperform Mike Anderson by much--they both just barely hit the gold standard of 1500/15. HOWEVER, not all rookie seasons are the same. For Mike Anderson, he was the main man for only 12 of the 14 games he played. I think a more accurate look at Anderson's rookie year would be just those twelve games, prorated to 16.Olandis Gary didn't even play the first four weeks of 1999 (TD the first four weeks). Likewise, a more accurate look at his numbers would be to pro-rate the 12 games.TD? It looks like he got injured in game 14 early on, and he missed the last two games. Pro-rating his 13 games seems to be the best way to evaluate his season.And what about Mr. Portis? He didn't play much the first two weeks either--Olandis Gary headed that RBBC. However he was the starter by week 3. So we should take his fourteen games and prorate them to sixteen.How do all the numbers look for the four rookies after prorating?2002: 302 car, 1671 yards, 17 TD; 38 rec, 416 yds, 2 TD; 325 FP2000: 387 car, 1965 yards, 20 TD; 29 rec, 217 yds, 0 TD; 338 FP1999: 368 car, 1545 yards, 09 TD; 28 rec, 212 yds, 0 TD; 232 FP1995: 286 car, 1325 yards, 09 TD; 60 rec, 452 yds, 1 TD; 237 FPNote: The FP total may slightly differ because I rounded off the raw numbers for the sake of viewing, but not in calculating FP total. However, the FP total is accurate.According to this, Mike Anderson had the best season of them all. However, one could argue that Portis showed the most talent by performing the most with the least amount of touches. How about their surrounding casts?: In 1995 Davis had an awesome Elway, very much still in the prime of his career. Shannon Sharpe was beginning to become the man, and Anthony Miller had 1079/14. The Broncos were top ten in points scored, passing yards, YPA, rushing yards, rushing YPA and total offense. Denver goes 1-2 without TD, 7-6 with him.In 1999 the Broncos were just awful. Yes they had won back to back Superbowls--but they lost Terrell Davis, John Elway and Shannon Sharpe (INJ) from that squad. Rookie Griese wasn't very good, as the Broncos QBs had more INTs than TDs. The WRs also had down years for them. To me, what Gary did was very underrated (especially if you don't prorate his stats), and that's probably why even in 2002 he was still opening the season as the starter. The Broncos were a very mediocre offensive team. Gary posted back to back 180 yard rushing games in December when the Broncos played their best. Denver goes 0-4 without Gary, 6-6 with him.In 2000, Sharpe was back (#1 TE), and Brian Griese was awesome (19/4). They finished top five in points scored, passing yards, YPA, INTs (low), rushes, rushing yards, rushing TDs and total offense. They were second in Total offense and points scored, which is about as well as anyone could have done (this is the year the Rams scored 540 with 7,335 yards). In most years the Broncos would have had the best offense in the league. Denver goes 2-2 without Anderson, 9-3 with him.Fast forward to 2002, Sharpe has a down year (for him) and Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey are shells of their 2000 selves. The same goes for Griese (15/15). Still Denver finishes top ten in points scored, passing yards, YPA, rushing yards, rushing YPA, rushing TDs, and total offense. Denver goes 2-0 without Portis starting, 7-7 with him.It's up to you how much Portis benefitted from that system.
In the thread I posted after Portis's rookie year, there was analysis supported by Doug Drinen that it ranked as around the 5th best of all time IIRC. I think I may have the thread archived on another computer, so I'll look for it when I get a chance.We did not make an attempt in that thread to prorate the games played/started as you did, so there was a larger gap between Portis and Anderson. That is what I based my statement about their respective rookie seasons on.Even with your situational analysis, Davis and Gary don't come close to the other two, so there is no need to include them further in this discussion.I think your scaling was slightly off for Portis. At this LINK, ESPN shows Portis with only 12 starts in 2003, which is also what I remember from having looked this up previously.Scale up Portis's last 12 games of 2002 and you get 1739 yards rushing, 440 receiving, and 21.3 TDs. That's 345.7 fantasy points, which is better than your version of scaled up numbers for Anderson, though not by much.Also, while Denver did not make the playoffs in Portis's rookie season, they did in Anderson's. So it would be reasonable to add that game (10/40/0 rushing and 2/10/0) to his sample before scaling up, particularly given that he missed the first game completely, so it would simply bookend a 16 game span for him. That would obviously drop his scaled up numbers... to roughly 1860 rushing, 213 receiving, and 18.5 TDs. That's about 318 fantasy points, a great season to be sure, but not quite in Portis's class.Beyond all that, Portis's rookie season was more impressive than Anderson's for a few reasons that do not involve prorating numbers:- 5.5 ypc for Portis, 5.0 ypc for Anderson. To put it another way, he outrushed Anderson by 21 yards despite carrying the ball 26 fewer times.- Anderson's receiving line: 23/169/0 (7.3 ypr). Compare to Portis: 33/364/2 (11.0 ypr!).- Portis scored 2 more TDs despite getting 16 fewer touches.I'm really not sure where you were going with the supporting cast analysis. You seemed to indicate that Anderson had a better supporting cast, which I would agree with. To me, that would indicate that defenses were less inclined to stack the line against him, which obviously would have helped him.Also germane to this discussion, which was originally oriented around Portis's talent level, Portis repeated his awesome rookie performance, while Anderson did not.
Based on the way this thread has evolved, it does not seem that there is an answer to those questions (at least none that would appease you).So if there is no answer to things that currently are unknown we can't really help any.This is not a knock on you or your opinions. To the letter of the law you are right. We DON'T know what to expect from the Redskins this year, and all of us can guess whatever we want at this point.Brunell and Coles have not yet played together, so we have no way of knowing what they will do production wise together. Portis has never played outside of the Denver offense either, so again we have no true knowledge of what he will do. We don't know what will happen with Gibbs returning as coach either.However, by the same token, it is inherantly wrong to assume that any of these combinations will turn out better OR WORSE than their situations before. If we don't know, we don't know.You have taken the stance that the new combination of circumstances will result in a decrease in production for the players involved. That's your judgment call. That doesn't make it right or wrong. Others have taken the stance that the shakeup won't make an impact or could result in increased production. Again, at this point it's all conjecture.On the one hand, you say there is not a case to be made based on lack of evidence, but on the other hand you are looking for someone to make a case. I think we all agree that this is a very fluid situation and one that will be hard to predict. Yes there is risk involved. For those that are risk adverse, simply draft other players from other teams.Thank you and have a nice day.
That is accurate. An answer has not been given to those questions. I believe it's because nobody really knows the answer...which is my ultimate point.
Incorrect. I haven taken the stance that since nobody really knows how effective the offense will be, Portis is too much of a risk to take at #5.
Yes I am as a matter of fact and I'm going to use those cases as part of a case study for my ff white paper "The Risk Management Perspective of Fantasy Football; How to win at FF." It will be a classic instance of risk not being taken into account because of the fascination with the player instead of logically considering their overall circumstances which IMO usually has more to do with ff production.This couldn't be a more classic case study. People on this board, whom I consider very intelligent and knowledgable about football, refuse to recognize the risk. Risk that could easily kill a ff team with the lofty ranking of #5 granted on the consensus rankings.I honestly expected some better arguments, mostly from the perspective of fantasy success for teams in their inaugural year of a new system...but nobody has gone down that path to my dismay. In my judgement finding instances where new offenses produced stud FF players in their inaugural year and comparing them to the new Gibbs' regime is the logical approach, but again it hasn't been done.We are basically at a wait and see, but I've enjoyed the discussion.
But there's also the reward. How many other players could you honestly say have the potential to get 2,000 rushing yards and 20+ TD? I'm not saying Portis will actually do that, but it's certainly a possibility should he ever stay healthy enough to play 16 games.And no matter what Portis does this year, I don't think anyone can "prove" much based on the performance of a single player in a single season.I think Portis is in a similar group with the other top RB. If I am at the 5 slot and Portis is there, I will give him ample consideration. If he is there at 6, I can't see picking somone else there.Where would you feel Portis is worth drafting?
I count nine that have that kind of potential...maybe 10. And like you said, I'm not saying they will do it, but the potential is there...with less risk.
I'm not following you here. If you're talking about my study...I completely disagree. The first year in a system is the perfect factor amongst others.
Undecided between #8 or #9.
I'm not saying Portis' performance this year should not be included in your study. I'm just saying that this isolated instance will not prove anything. If Portis gets 1,000 yards or 2,000 yards, that does not prove anything long-term about risk of players in a new system. If you had the results of 100 players in similar conditions, then you'd be on to something.
I don't see how:- A comment on teams changing coaches or QBhas anything to do with:- A comment on Top 5 QB/RB frequently being paired togetherWhere in the article segment did I mention anything about new coaches, new systems, or new QB?
Well, I specifically addressed (b) above. I expect Portis to get 300+ carries. Particularly given your statement that he is no more of an injury risk than other backs (which I agree with), what basis could you have to argue that?I didn't go into it above, but I would expect him to get 40+ receptions as well.
I have always observed that the skins ran well enough considering Spurrier's pass first second and third philosophy - they just haven't produced a decent fantasy option at the position since Spurrier arrived - there's a shocker.They also had a real bad string of luck with injuries to their backs as Betts, Canidate, and SDavis all suffered injuries the last couple of years that took them out of ballgames for long stretches.If Portis brings continuity to the run game, which will be a more traditional run game rather than whatever the heck it was that Spurrier was doing, I have full confidence the the skins OL can produce a 1500 G rusher.
Very interesting article. Nice work. (I look forward to LHUCKS's comments as well.)
There's an interesting article at WarpathInsiders.com on the Skins' OL and the difference between former OL coach Kim Helton and "new" OL coach Joe Bugel. It's a subscription-only article, but the upshot is that a lot of people felt Helton was trying to fit square pegs into round holes, which particularly hurt Chris Samuels; but Bugel is more flexible in his approach in designing his blocking schemes and techniques around his players rather than trying to force-fit his players into his schemes. The players say that Bugel's approach is a lot more like Russ Grimm's than Kim Helton's, and they expect it to benefit them.
There is no surprise - Spurrier's entire offensive revamping wasa an attempt to fit sguare pegs into round holes. In fact - they were not even round holes - they were squiggly-lined holes that looked really pretty but had absolutely NO application to the NFL and were busted by bull rushing defenders up the middle.
Good point Levin about the backs being dinged up throughout the year, it's a good thing Washignton picked one now that doesn't have that problem
LOL Washington, can't wait till this year again. With Portis and Gibbs in town, I can just see the balloon/confidence rising and Dallas will be there to pop it again.
Wish there was a way to shush this all the way to draft time.In the FanEx draft, I just did a write up of Curtis Martin, selected at 4.02 in a RB heavy league as the RB 25 AFTER guys like Anthony Thomas, Julius Jones, and Bennett:4th round of FanEx draftSome good info in there.
I wouldn't rank him as high as 20-21, but I agree Martin is under-valued as well. Everybody wants to write him off, well everybody wanted to write him off last season too and all he did was rush for 1,300 yards and keep Jordan planted firmly on the bench for the most part. The lack of TDs is a huge concern, but having Pennington back for a full year should improve the offense (not to mention McCareins' addition which I think is going to be huge) and I think that will help Martin's effectiveness. With an improved offense, I think Martin should be able to reach the 5-6 TD mark even if Jordan handles the bulk of the work inside the 5. With Martin, you can put 1,000-plus yards in the book, so it all comes down to how many TDs you think he can get.
These are the thoughts I'd like toi keep going all summer: I hope most folks don't consider a 31 year old 300 carry, 50 reception bacx\k who has missed one game in 6 years a top-20 back. Keeps his value where i need it to add him for insane value.
I have to agree with you on this one Wood. I also looked at Martin's numbers with Pennington and liked what I saw. As a matter of fact I look at game by game statistics for every player and take into account QB injury/Matchups(@Baltimore) etc. etc. to try and get a better gauge of what I can expect the upcoming year...see the Bulger discussion as an example. It's a lot easier to do this when I get my FF Index copy because it has that awesome team statistic graphic that I have yet to find anywhere else in the fantasy universe
...absolutely vital for anybody trying to make accurate projections. What is most encouraging for Martin's prospects is that Lamont Jordan was unimpressive, giving me very little concern about who will be getting the carries in Jet land.I wanted to keep my overrated and underrated to three players so that the thread wouldn't get too diluted and so far it seems to be a good number. There were definitley other players I wanted to add though.
It really depends who you're going to rank him above. I think there's some real quality depth at RB so I can't see putting Martin in the Top 20. The highest I could see ranking Martin right now is around 22 or 23. I would put him ahead of Garner (who I think is being over-valued) and ahead of Staley (I don't think Bettis is going to go away completely even if people want him to) and maybe ahead of the Cleveland winner if there is an outright winner there (though I do like Suggs). If Thomas Jones flops in the pre-season, I could see moving Martin ahead of Jones too, but for now I have Jones right outside the Top 20 at around 22.
In my initial expert rankings, I have him at #20, deliberately low to keep his value down - none of the backs I have ranked behind him have much chance to leapfrog him on my charts, and several of the backs I have ahead of him could fall to about his level or lower. I will continue to "rank" Martin below them, with the knowledge I am looking at a 16-1800 total yardage, 7-9 total TD back in Martin, a back I am willing to lay money won't miss a single game in 2003. (edit - sorry, 2004)Read my write up on him above, and here's my rankings:Levin Running BacksIn short, the more folks who keep Martin out of the top-20 backs, the better chance I have of landing him for insane value.
Way to remain unbiased, objective, and impartial. Keep up the good work.
LOL...well as I said, I rank him 25th in our first set of ranking but will be moving him up to at least 20-21 the next go around.Way to remain unbiased, objective, and impartial. Keep up the good work.
Until after this dang Survivor draft, Martin's getting dropped on my boards to #30.I want 500 bucks, and I'd sell my integrity to get it.Way to remain unbiased, objective, and impartial. Keep up the good work.
He's been going at 4.11 (25th RB) over at Antsports (HP, 12 team, TE) just behind Westbrook, Shipp, Staley, Garner, & Suggs. If he keeps flying under the radar like that, you should be able to build a pretty powerful WR crew also. A team that starts off with, say, LT-Chad Johnson-Ward-Martin would be pretty strong.
It would actually be 12 teams if you listed Oak one more time.
illon - Henry - DDavis - SDavis - Barlow - Barber - Martin - JJones - ShippThat's 20 clear starters if you include Henry. I could see KJones included, so 21. I can't see ranking Martin any later than 21 unless you're predicting that some of these players (or the other guys on their teams) get way more touches than most people expect:Bennett - Staley - Duckett - TJones - KJones - Suggs - Fargas - Garner - Perry - CBrown.To me, Martin should fall somewhere between 16 and 20 on just about everyone's rankings.
You'd have to have some first before you could sell it.I want 500 bucks, and I'd sell my integrity to get it.
Oakland has enough RB to fill the rosters of two teams, so I think I'm justified in listing them twice.
Before we go any further a little background...I started this thread stating that Foster was an underrated runningback. It inspired this article(link above), which basically challenges my assertion that Foster is worthy of being ranked higher than #36. Please read the article before proceeding if you want to fully understand the following arguments. I will approach this article with the same analytical approach they drilled into our heads at law school. This will be a three step process. Here is the outline.
This is not an argument, this is hand-waving. Certainly some offenses rely on different types of runs or runners on different downs, or different types of passing schemes. But when any teams hands of to a particular running back at a particular situation, every team has the exact same goals: (a) maximize the number of yards gained, and (b) maximize the probability of a first down. A team's style has nothing to do with this.Certainly, the talent of the runner is difficult to distinguish from the talent of the O-line and the ability of the entire offense to misdirect the defense. But this is a flaw in every conceivable football statistic, so to take this as a criticism of DVOA is basically a straw man.
Except that most of Washington's losses were close games, so the opposing defense rarely concedes the run. And I believe DVOA adjusts for the amount of points that a team is behind at whatever stage of the game, but I am not positive.
By this logic all possible evaluation of Foster's ability is a waste of time. Yet you seem to believe that he is immensely talented. You can't have it both ways, unless you are only looking at his college career and a handful of carries during preseason two years ago, which isn't much to judge a player on. You also seem to assume that Foster will be 100% this year, which may not be justified considering the kind of injury and surgery that he underwent.
Did law school teach you to selectively choose the evidence that supports your argument and ignore all evidence that points to the opposite direction? I'm glad went to a different grad school where people actually care about objective analysis. I'm sorry, one game out of a season does not indicate anything more than than any other game (even the final game -- ever heard of Jermaine Fazande?), and your claim that he was healthier for that one game is assertion without evidence.
This is entirely true.
In Foster's case it is not as big a leap as for most RBs. Foster's success is going to be determined by his contribution to the team when he is on the field, in terms of making the most of his opportunities. He will only have fantasy success if he proves to Fox that he contribute more than Davis. You are judging Foster based on his likely opportunity, but you also have to account for whether he is likely to succeed with the opportunity he will be given, and that's what DVOA can help to judge.
Does this count RBBC situations or cases where the starting job is up for grabs? I'd take the 2nd best of the A.Thomas/T.Jones, Griffin/Hearst/Bell, Dunn/Duckett, Henry/McGahee, Bennett/M.Williams/O.Smith, and Garner/Pittman over Foster any day.Personally I would place him on the same tier as C.Perry, D.Rhodes, L.Jordan, and S.Jackson, all guys who have a limited track record and mild potential to take over for injury/ineffectiveness.
This has been debunked earlier in the thread.
I think most ff'ers agree that there is a strong presumption against using evidence from preseason to justify the possibility of ff success, so the burden of proof is on you to argue that Foster's case is different.
