What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

FBG Expert Sortable Rankings Critique (1 Viewer)

Portis potentially has a better (at least more consistent) QB situation now than he had last season with Plummer being a bit up and down and also injured (and Denver's backups were downright brutal when Plummer was out).
No way would I rather have Brunnel than Plummer in almost every system. And when Plummer played he was pretty solid last year...#7 in fantasy ppg.
But the bottom line is Portis' talent. He's good. He's real real good. The numbers he puts up are fanastic. The key thing with him is he can he play a full season?
And this is always the ultimate argument for Portis supporters, the argument that talent perseveres over circumstance. An argument I disagree with.
Jamal Lewis played with putrid QBs and worthless WRs and rushed for more than 2,000 yards last season. That was a case of talent prevailing over circumstance. Corey Dillon played on some horrible Cincinnati teams and put up good numbers. Go back to the days of Barry Sanders and Walter Payton playing on bad offenses and putting up huge numbers. How did they do it? Talent. Talent. Talent. And no, I don't think it's a stretch to start talking about Portis in the class of some of the all-time greats like Sanders and Payton. At the rate he's going, he's going to put up some monster numbers before his career is done. As much as I loved Sanders and Payton, neither one of them averaged 5.5 YPC in their first two seasons. That's an amazing number and Portis has done in each of his first two seasons. Portis has major talent and I think talent is the ultimate difference maker in the NFL. At the end of the day, what separates the winners from the losers is talent and the players who can be difference makers. Portis is both. But I also believe he's in a respectable environment this season. Brunell isn't a great QB by any means, but I think he'll prove to be serviceable (one thing he's always been good at, for example, is not throwing INTs). Coles is a very good WR and better than anyone Portis has played with before and the Redskins have good depth at that position and better than Denver has had the past two seasons. So it's not like Portis has nobody around him. Defenses are obviously going to key on him as they should, but I think the Redskins have enough talent to be, at worst, respectable in the passing game this season. I see absolutely no reason why Portis will suffer a major decline in production this season beyond the issue of durability. That is the only question I have about him. And getting back to an earlier comment about Edge, James has major durability questions also. Since his injury he has yet to play a full season. So he's every bit the risk from an injury standpoint that Portis is and when you consider how inferior his production has been (despite being in one of the league's most potent offenses), there's no way I'd take Edge ahead of Portis at this point in time.
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?
 
Davis runs out of steam almost every season. This isn't news breaking. Here's a clip I had on him a month or two ago.

Here are Davis' rushing totals broken down into 4 game increments:1999:1st 4: 4 games, 92-400-9 (18 receiving yards)2nd 4: 4 games, 53-329-3 (75)3rd 4: 4 games, 94-417-4 (18)Last 4: 2 games, 51-259-1 (0)2000:1st 4: 4 games, 95-372-3 (119)2nd 4: 4 games, 96-430-5 (47)3rd 4: 3 games, 70-271-2 (85)Last 4: 4 games, 71-245-1 (62)2001: 1st 4: 4 games, 52-219-0 (49)2nd 4: 4 games, 110-447-1 (71)3rd 4: 4 games, 89-339-1 (40)Last 4: 4 games, 105-427-3 (65)2002:1st 4: 4 games, 69-306-3 (109)2nd 4: 3 games, 54-222-1 (21)3rd 4: 3 games, 70-198-3 (11)Last 4: 2 games, 14-94-1 (1)2003:1st 4: 4 games, 106-565-2 (52)2nd 4: 4 games, 87-427-3 (26)3rd 4: 3 games, 77-266, 2 (47)Last 4: 3 games, 48-186-1 (34)Overall:1st 4: 20 games, 414-1862-17 (347)2nd 4: 19 games, 400-1855-13 (240)3rd 4: 17 games, 400-1491-12 (201)Last 4: 15 games, 289-1211-7 (162)The numbers certainly support Davis' production slipping as the season progressed.
I recalulated the averaged games missed per year for RB a little while ago and figured it to be 2.07 games per season. By my math, 9 games in 6 seasons is much better than the league average for starting RB.I agree that the PERCEPTION is that Davis is one of the biggest injury risks, but the numbers don't really seem to support this notion. While Dvis does seem to be getting injured frequently, he normally misses a game here and a game there and has not really missed SIGNIFICANT time.
This is some great research, a great post....thank you.
 
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
1983 was | 15 | 375 1347 3.6 24 | 5 29 5.8 0 |1984 was | 14 | 327 1239 3.8 14 | 7 43 6.1 0 |
George Rogers
1983 was | 15 | 375 1347 3.6 24 | 5 29 5.8 0 |1984 was | 14 | 327 1239 3.8 14 | 7 43 6.1 0 |
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.
 
If your implication is that WR production drops dramatically with a new veteran QB . . . here's how some other stud WR did when a new veteran QB was brought in.Moulds with Bledsoe added: 100-1287-10Keyshawn with Vinny added: 83-1131-10Michael Jackson with Vinny added: 76-1201-14 Tim Brown with Gannon added: 90-1344-6 Moulds with Flutie added: 67-1368-9 Conway with Flutie added: 71-1125-6Muhammad with Beurlein added: 96-1253-8 Burress with Maddox added: 78-1325-7 Ward with Maddox added: 112-1329-12Westbrook with Brad Johnson added: 65-1191-9Albert Connell with Brad Johnson added: 62-1132-7Keyshawn with Brad Johnson added: 106-1266-1 Moss with Cunningham added: 69-1313-17Moss with George added: 80-1413-11Carter with George added: 90-1241-13 Tim Brown with George added: 104-1408-5 Terrance Matthis with Geroge added: 111-1342-11Rison with Grbac added: 72-1092-7Carter with Moon added: 122-1256-7 Jake Reed with Moon added: 85-1175-4 Galloway with Moon added: 72-1049-12 Toomer with Collins added: 79-1183-6 Herman Moore with Mitchell added: 72-1173-11 Horn with Blake added: 94-1332-8 Those numbers look pretty solid to me, but as I said, I was not sure if teams changing QB were the issue here.
Before that year, Rison ate some crow and his career was "done". Before that he caught passes from Favre, Vinny, and Brunell. He was best 5-6 years before that. Something's wrong or off with him being on this list....regardless....David I don't get your point here. I did but then you kinda "killed it" when you posted the same player twice a few times like Moulds, Carter, Brown etc. lil confused
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.
 
I think QB and coaching changes are somewhat irrelevant when discussing true stud players.  I haven't studies this, so I can't give more than an opinion at this point, but look at Randy Moss as an example.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
w/o top-5 TD numbers and w/o 2G yards rushing, JLew will be bottom ten, if he's lucky.1700 rush yards, 200 receiving yards, and less than 15 TDs won't get him into the top-5.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. :confused: 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.
 
Portis potentially has a better (at least more consistent) QB situation now than he had last season with Plummer being a bit up and down and also injured (and Denver's backups were downright brutal when Plummer was out).
No way would I rather have Brunnel than Plummer in almost every system. And when Plummer played he was pretty solid last year...#7 in fantasy ppg.
But the bottom line is Portis' talent. He's good. He's real real good. The numbers he puts up are fanastic. The key thing with him is he can he play a full season?
And this is always the ultimate argument for Portis supporters, the argument that talent perseveres over circumstance. An argument I disagree with.
Jamal Lewis played with putrid QBs and worthless WRs and rushed for more than 2,000 yards last season. That was a case of talent prevailing over circumstance. Corey Dillon played on some horrible Cincinnati teams and put up good numbers. Go back to the days of Barry Sanders and Walter Payton playing on bad offenses and putting up huge numbers. How did they do it? Talent. Talent. Talent. And no, I don't think it's a stretch to start talking about Portis in the class of some of the all-time greats like Sanders and Payton. At the rate he's going, he's going to put up some monster numbers before his career is done. As much as I loved Sanders and Payton, neither one of them averaged 5.5 YPC in their first two seasons. That's an amazing number and Portis has done in each of his first two seasons. Portis has major talent and I think talent is the ultimate difference maker in the NFL. At the end of the day, what separates the winners from the losers is talent and the players who can be difference makers. Portis is both. But I also believe he's in a respectable environment this season. Brunell isn't a great QB by any means, but I think he'll prove to be serviceable (one thing he's always been good at, for example, is not throwing INTs). Coles is a very good WR and better than anyone Portis has played with before and the Redskins have good depth at that position and better than Denver has had the past two seasons. So it's not like Portis has nobody around him. Defenses are obviously going to key on him as they should, but I think the Redskins have enough talent to be, at worst, respectable in the passing game this season. I see absolutely no reason why Portis will suffer a major decline in production this season beyond the issue of durability. That is the only question I have about him. And getting back to an earlier comment about Edge, James has major durability questions also. Since his injury he has yet to play a full season. So he's every bit the risk from an injury standpoint that Portis is and when you consider how inferior his production has been (despite being in one of the league's most potent offenses), there's no way I'd take Edge ahead of Portis at this point in time.
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?
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.
 
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?
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 ( :shock: ) 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.
 
Portis had one of the top 5 rookie RB seasons of all time, as I posted in a thread last year. Think about that. Did Mike Anderson have that type of rookie season? No. Did Olandis Gary? No. Did Terrell Davis? No. Did any of those other Denver RBs have that type of second season? No.
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.
 
Portis had one of the top 5 rookie RB seasons of all time, as I posted in a thread last year. Think about that. Did Mike Anderson have that type of rookie season? No. Did Olandis Gary? No. Did Terrell Davis? No. Did any of those other Denver RBs have that type of second season? No.
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.
 
The fact of the matter remains that Terrel Davis, Mike Anderson,Olandis Gary have never done squat outside of Denver.

So comparing each of them with their Denver stats doesn't tell me one thing about how Portis is going to perform in Washington under Joe Gibbs.

Not to sidetrack, I just don't think this is very relevant. The focus should be on:

a) How successful will the new Washington offense be in its inaugural year?

b) What role will Portis have in it?

It is a given that he is talented. It is a given that he is just as much of an injury risk as the other top backs.

I'm trying to focus on a) and b), because they are the unknowns to the equation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The focus should be on:a) How successful will the new Washington offense be in its inaugural year?b) What role will Portis have in it?
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.
 
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).
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.
You have taken the stance that the new combination of circumstances will result in a decrease in production for the players involved. 
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.
on the other hand you are looking for someone to make a case
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Portis is too much of a risk to take at #5.
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?
 
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.
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.
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'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.
Where would you feel Portis is worth drafting?
Undecided between #8 or #9. :football:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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'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.
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.
 
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'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.
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.
Clearly that will be the kind of sample size I will use. I will be using the Portis comments as illustrative examples of the mindset of the average ff'er.
 
Clearly that will be the kind of sample size I will use. I will be using the Portis comments as illustrative examples of the mindset of the average ff'er.
Feel free to quote me when I go "on the record" for a Player Spotlight on Portis coming relatively soon.(If you noticed, I never actually said what I thought Portis will actually do this year . . .)
 
Clearly that will be the kind of sample size I will use. I will be using the Portis comments as illustrative examples of the mindset of the average ff'er.
Feel free to quote me when I go "on the record" for a Player Spotlight on Portis coming relatively soon.(If you noticed, I never actually said what I thought Portis will actually do this year . . .)
I didn't mean you directly. I wouldn't even mention specific handles/names and definitely not even the messageboard or website...they would only detract from the points being made. So where are you ranking Portis....obviously 5 or higher?
 
My point is that there is too much risk.  Your point is that there is less risk because you believe Coach Gibbs is an offensive mastermind and will make the offense good enough right away to support Coles' and Portis' lofty rankings.
I think QB and coaching changes are somewhat irrelevant when discussing true stud players. I haven't studies this, so I can't give more than an opinion at this point, but look at Randy Moss as an example.
Your preceding statement from this thread appears to contradict the following statement in your article that states:
I find it interesting that there were that many teams that had Top 5 RB and Top 5 QB at the same time. While somewhat inconclusive overall, it almost seems like teams with elite QB performance also have had more incidents of elite RB performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point is that there is too much risk.  Your point is that there is less risk because you believe Coach Gibbs is an offensive mastermind and will make the offense good enough right away to support Coles' and Portis' lofty rankings.
I think QB and coaching changes are somewhat irrelevant when discussing true stud players. I haven't studies this, so I can't give more than an opinion at this point, but look at Randy Moss as an example.
Your preceding statement from this thread appears to contradict the following statement in your article that states:
I find it interesting that there were that many teams that had Top 5 RB and Top 5 QB at the same time. While somewhat inconclusive overall, it almost seems like teams with elite QB performance also have had more incidents of elite RB performance.
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point is that there is too much risk.  Your point is that there is less risk because you believe Coach Gibbs is an offensive mastermind and will make the offense good enough right away to support Coles' and Portis' lofty rankings.
I think QB and coaching changes are somewhat irrelevant when discussing true stud players. I haven't studies this, so I can't give more than an opinion at this point, but look at Randy Moss as an example.
Your preceding statement from this thread appears to contradict the following statement in your article that states:
I find it interesting that there were that many teams that had Top 5 RB and Top 5 QB at the same time. While somewhat inconclusive overall, it almost seems like teams with elite QB performance also have had more incidents of elite RB performance.
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?
You're right. I'm assuming that QBs in new systems are less likely be top 5 QBs...a safe assumption IMO, but without conclusive data your statement wouldn't be contradictory.So where do you have Portis ranked?
 
The fact of the matter remains that Terrel Davis, Mike Anderson,Olandis Gary have never done squat outside of Denver.

So comparing each of them with their Denver stats doesn't tell me one thing about how Portis is going to perform in Washington under Joe Gibbs.

Not to sidetrack, I just don't think this is very relevant. The focus should be on:

a) How successful will the new Washington offense be in its inaugural year?

b) What role will Portis have in it?

It is a given that he is talented. It is a given that he is just as much of an injury risk as the other top backs.

I'm trying to focus on a) and b), because they are the unknowns to the equation.
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.

As for Washington's offense, I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. They will likely have a much improved offensive line. Brunell will play solid, relatively mistake free football, and the passing game should be effective. I'm thinking 3600 passing yards, around 20 passing TDs, 15 or fewer interceptions. They will be top 10 in rushing attempts, with Portis getting about 2/3 of those. When in the red zone, Portis will get the bulk of the scoring opportunities.

 
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.As for Washington's offense, I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. They will likely have a much improved offensive line. Brunell will play solid, relatively mistake free football, and the passing game should be effective. I'm thinking 3600 passing yards, around 20 passing TDs, 15 or fewer interceptions. They will be top 10 in rushing attempts, with Portis getting about 2/3 of those. When in the red zone, Portis will get the bulk of the scoring opportunities.
I guess I'm just not as sold on the system as you are. I am not willing to concede that:a) Portis will get 40 receptions and 300 carriesb) 3600 passing yardsc) Top 10 in rushing attemps with Portis getting 2/3d) Portis will get redzone carries
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey guys. I liked this thread so much it inspired a whole article at our site, which folks are welcome to come and read..

In the meantime, since this discussion has since moved on from Foster to Portis, I have to say that our ratings have had the Washington offensive line as better than people think for a couple of years now. For a team that was known for passing, the Redskins had good success running the ball. I don't see how Portis' movement from Denver to Washington will have an effect on his numbers from that point of view. What will matter will be leaving the run-crazy AFC West, where Denver just happens to be the only team with a passable run defense (and Portis of course didn't have to face them). Washington's problem was a lack of long runs, but that's more dependent on running backs, not the line - and Portis was great at long runs.

Looking at Griffin and Anderson's numbers, it is pretty clear that Portis' awesome 2002 and 2003 are not just a product of the Denver system. He'll probably be #2 or #3 on my personal cheatsheet after Priest and maybe LT.

Aaron

 
Hey guys.  I liked this thread so much it inspired a whole article at our site, which folks are welcome to come and read..In the meantime, since this discussion has since moved on from Foster to Portis, I have to say that our ratings have had the Washington offensive line as better than people think for a couple of years now.  For a team that was known for passing, the Redskins had good success running the ball.  I don't see how Portis' movement from Denver to Washington will have an effect on his numbers from that point of view.  What will matter will be leaving the run-crazy AFC West, where Denver just happens to be the only team with a passable run defense (and Portis of course didn't have to face them).  Washington's problem was a lack of long runs, but that's more dependent on running backs, not the line - and Portis was great at long runs.Looking at Griffin and Anderson's numbers, it is pretty clear that Portis' awesome 2002 and 2003 are not just a product of the Denver system.  He'll probably be #2 or #3 on my personal cheatsheet after Priest and maybe LT.Aaron
Well, when I have time this afternoon I will write my opinion of your article. I believe it has a number of shortcomings. Interesting read though, I'll look at anything related to ff with an anlaytical approach.Thanks for the press!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
our ratings have had the Washington offensive line as better than people think for a couple of years now. For a team that was known for passing, the Redskins had good success running the ball.
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.
 
In the meantime, since this discussion has since moved on from Foster to Portis, I have to say that our ratings have had the Washington offensive line as better than people think for a couple of years now.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the meantime, since this discussion has since moved on from Foster to Portis, I have to say that our ratings have had the Washington offensive line as better than people think for a couple of years now.
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.
 
our ratings have had the Washington offensive line as better than people think for a couple of years now. For a team that was known for passing, the Redskins had good success running the ball.
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.
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 :eek: 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.
 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow

 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
Agreed. I posted this in the Curtis Martin Player Spotlight thread:
Martin's stats with Pennington as starting QB during the past two seasons: 2463 total yards and 9 TDs in 23 games. That scales to 1713 total yards and 6.26 TDs per 16 games. That is ~209 fantasy points, which would have ranked #11 among RBs last season.Now consider that Pennington has more experience and the Jets have probably a better set of receivers than in the past two years. If anything, this could open up the running game a bit.I feel safe predicting numbers similar to those above: 1400 rushing yards, 350 receiving yards, 7 total TDs.One thing to note about Martin is that he is a virtual lock to play 16 games. His ppg may not be in the top 15, but there is a great chance his total points will be. And given where he will likely be drafted, he offers value IMO.
 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
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.
 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
I wouldn't rank him as high as 20-21, but I agree Martin is under-valued as well.
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.
 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
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 :wall: ...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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
I wouldn't rank him as high as 20-21, but I agree Martin is under-valued as well.
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.
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.
 
As I see it, there are "X" amount of RB that are bonafide, clear #1s on their teams. Martin is one of those backs. I would rank those guys at or near the top of the RB food chain. At worst, he should be ranked as the last clear #1 option.Using that approach, I don't see how there are 20 full-timers out there. With 32 teams, I see no "clear" #1 in Cle, TB, Oak, Den, Oak, Min, NYG, Pit, Atl, Ten, and Phi. That's 11 teams, putting Martin at around RB 21 if we decide to label him as the "worst" full-time back (which I don't think he is). (I would put Buf, Chi, and Det in the too-soon-to-tell category.)

 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
I wouldn't rank him as high as 20-21, but I agree Martin is under-valued as well.
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.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In 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. :thumbup:
 
In 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. :thumbup:
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.
 
In 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. :thumbup:
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. :P
 
Hey LHUCKS,Although my first rankings don't reflect this, I'm now convinced Curtis Martin is undervalued as well. With Pennington under center Martin was on a 1,500 yard pace. Yes, the TD production is cause for concern, but I think you can do a lot worse than Martin as your RB2 (if you wait until the 4th round for said RB2) or an ideal RB3...he shouldn't be ranked lower than 20-21 at worst, IMHO.Woodrow
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.
 
I put Martin at RB18 in the message board poll:Everyone's top seven:Holmes - Tomlinson - McAllister - AGreen - Portis - Alexander - LewisMost people's next four:James - RWilliams - Taylor - FaulkThe other clear/semi-clear starters (I know not everyone thinks Henry is):Dillon - 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.

 
I want 500 bucks, and I'd sell my integrity to get it. :P
You'd have to have some first before you could sell it. ;)
It would actually be 12 teams if you listed Oak one more time.
Oakland has enough RB to fill the rosters of two teams, so I think I'm justified in listing them twice.
 
Hey guys.  I liked this thread so much it inspired a whole article at our site, which folks are welcome to come and read..
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.

I. Summary of Article Utilizing IRAC

a) issue

b) rule

c) analysis

d) conclusion

II. Strengths and Weaknesses of Article(Dissenting Opinion)

a) Strengths

b) Weaknesses

c) Summary of Article

III.More on Why Foster Is Underrated at #36

a) Summary of My Pro-Foster Argument

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I: IRAC Breakdown of Article

First I will summarize the article with a legal method called IRAC(Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) It is used as a common framework to study case law at most likely every respected law school in the country.

Issues:

Was Rock Cartwright a better RB than Foster in '03? (Implied in article)

Is Foster Overrated on this Board at #36? (Implied in article)

Rule:

VOA, or Value Over Average - This stat breaks down the NFL season play by play to see how much success offensive players achieved in each specific situation compared to the league average.

DVOA - DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) - VOA, but each play adjusted to take into account the defense it was against.(the definition given in the article where it is defined is very poor, I'm pretty sure this is what they mean)

Analysis:

*Rock Cartwright has a better DVOA than does Foster

*Cartwright has a better DVOA than does Foster on all downs

*Cartwright has a better DVOA thand does Foster on various yards-to-go categories(example need 2-3 yards for first down)

Conclusion:

"But if last year represents Foster's true ability, Carolina is going to find that depending on Foster doesn't win them a lot of games. DVOA doesn't determine fantasy value, but it does show me that I'd rather have Stephen Davis on my team, and if John Fox agrees, you would rather have Stephen Davis on your fantasy team too."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II: Strengths and Weaknesses of Article

Strengths

*DVOA is a legitimate attempt to determine how effective a runningback is from a team perspective. Team perspective meaning fantasy value is not the object of DVOA, rather it is used to determine how effective players are in real-life game situations. Example, 2nd down.

Weaknesses

*You cannot compare one offensive system to another. Comparing the Redskins offensive scheme to the Panthers offensive scheme is like comparing apples to oranges. Offenses have different styles that have a direct effect on the various DVOA categories, such as the number of yards on first down attempts. Furthermore, offenses that play from behind usually have inflated rushing stats because the defense concedes the run...which is a huge reason why Carolina cannot be compared to Washington...Washington was behind a heck of a lot more than was Carolina.

*As Stated In the Article - Deshaun Foster was never 100% during the regular season last year. This is HUGE. I'm almost willing to disregard this article on that fact alone.

*Deshaun's playoff game was not taken into account, which is indisputably the best indicator of how Deshaun will perform this year(from a game perspective) because he was healthier and it was his most recent game from an experience factor.

*The fact that this was for all intensive purposes Deshaun's rookie season was not taken into account. In the history of the NFL an extremely lopsided percentage of runningbacks don't have their most effective seasons until a couple of years into their career. Deshaun's experience will improve his numbers.

*You are making a leap from DVOA success to fantasy success that I'm assuming the creators of VOA did not intend. Again you admit this, but it needs to be pointed out as a weakness...because it just is.

Summary: I hate to break it to you but you just wasted a colossal amount of time on a meaningless study. I respect your efforts and understand what you are trying to demonstrate, but there are so many significant logic loopholes in your article that its statistical conclusions hold little to no water in my opinion. You even admit to many of them in your article, but sort of dismiss them as being relatively insignificant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III: Foster Ranking Argument/Summary

Now to get back to my Foster argument that I really haven't had the opportunity to elaborate on as much as I'd like.

*I don't rank players strictly based on my fantasy projections. For runningbacks I rank my top 24-26(depending on tier) based on projections. After that I rank my players strictly according to upside and perceived opportunity.

*I have Foster ranked 29 because I believe he is the best backup in the NFL...and he is backing up one of the most injury plagued runningbacks in the NFL. It doesn't mean I have him projected for the 29th most points. It means after the starters are gone he's one of the RBs that I value most because he has the greatest potential to have a fantasy impact.

*Something that nobody has mentioned in this thread is that the last time Foster was 100% he was UNSTOPPABLE, which was in the 2002 preseason.

*I've never stated that I think Foster is going to take over Davis...I just believe there is a good chance. Fantasy football is a game of odds.

Sorry if I came off a little harsh concerning the article, I'm just not one to sugarcoat my opinions...and surely I'm not going to back down from an article that insinuates I'm one of the Deshaun sheep. I'm sure you understand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LHUCKS, your own logic has a lot more flaws than you ascribe to DVOA.

You cannot compare one offensive system to another. Comparing the Redskins offensive scheme to the Panthers offensive scheme is like comparing apples to oranges. Offenses have different styles that have a direct effect on the various DVOA categories, such as the number of yards on first down attempts.
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.
Furthermore, offenses that play from behind usually have inflated rushing stats because the defense concedes the run...which is a huge reason why Carolina cannot be compared to Washington...Washington was behind a heck of a lot more than was Carolina.
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.
As Stated In the Article - Deshaun Foster was never 100% during the regular season last year. This is HUGE. I'm almost willing to disregard this article on that fact alone.
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.
Deshaun's playoff game was not taken into account, which is indisputably the best indicator of how Deshaun will perform this year(from a game perspective) because he was healthier and it was his most recent game from an experience factor.
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.
The fact that this was for all intensive purposes Deshaun's rookie season was not taken into account. In the history of the NFL an extremely lopsided percentage of runningbacks don't have their most effective seasons until a couple of years into their career. Deshaun's experience will improve his numbers.
This is entirely true.
You are making a leap from DVOA success to fantasy success that I'm assuming the creators of VOA did not intend. Again you admit this, but it needs to be pointed out as a weakness...because it just is.
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.
*I have Foster ranked 29 because I believe he is the best backup in the NFL
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.
...and he is backing up one of the most injury plagued runningbacks in the NFL.
This has been debunked earlier in the thread.
Something that nobody has mentioned in this thread is that the last time Foster was 100% he was UNSTOPPABLE, which was in the 2002 preseason.
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.
 
Bump for the world to see my brilliance...Since I posted this three months ago...A) Foster declared a much bigger part of the offense by Fox(Don't the Football Outsider guys feel like Jackasses...see thread for clarification)B) Kevin Jones Steadily Rising in the Consensus Rankings & Davis DroppingC) The jury is still out on Westbrook, Edge and PortisYes, I'm lacking humility this morning. Please read all the replies to my post...there are some keepers in there. A few may even make my sig.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top