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 IDP Projections Are In (1 Viewer)

Beaumont

Footballguy
One of the first things I noticed was Lance Mitchell gets serious love, Gerald Hayes and Orlando Huff get none ...

 

The_Hunchback

Footballguy
I know that some think Mithcell is the super LB sleeper of all the rookies. He would have been drafted higher if he hadn't torn his ACL a couple years (I think a couple) and that dropped him. Huff isn't worth much IMHO but I do think Hayes will hold the starting job this year, but keep in mind he wasn't drafted by Green.

 

Tick

Footballguy
Thanks. Does anyone know if this is one man's opinion or the consensus of the IDP staffers?

 

Beaumont

Footballguy
The FBG projections have Huff at 9-1 and Hayes at 18-5. I would be shocked if these are even close to correct. FBG has Huff as the current depth chart starter at MLB backed by Hayes .. and as stated in the earlier Hayes-love thread Denny Green has pencilled in Hayes at MLB and Huff at WLB ... even if this does not hold pat, I find it hard to believe that Mitchell and Darling/Blackstock take all of that PT ...The projections just seem a little kooky? Mitchell may be a sleeper as a 5th rounder, but seriously?

 

RAPTURE

Footballguy
I think the writers went out on a limb on this one before Dennis Green came out with their projections. The writers saw who the Cardinals drafted at MLB and plugged him in as an instant starter without putting much thought into it.You can't always go by what the writers say or else you would in trouble. I have noticed numerous errors on their write-ups (Team Report) about who will be starting for the 05 season. At times, I think they just look at last year's starting lineups and copy-and-paste it to this years articles.Take it for what its worth.RAPTURE

 

Rovers

Footballguy
I was surprised to see Ruud with more points than Quarles. I figure this is Quarles last year in Tampa, but I'm not sure they will push the rookie this much. Is this based on Ruud seeing some time at the OLB? If so, I think Quarles may be a bit low. I sure hope they are right about Vilma! :P I noticed that Gabril Wilson is penciled in for more points than Williams, on the NYG. Most likely Williams will come back at SS, with Wilson returning to FA. last year, after Williams got hurt, Wilson moved to SS and racked up serious points at SS before he too, got hurt. Barring more injuries, I'd be tempted to swap the projections for these two, I suspect Williams will outscore Wilson. The wild card is if Wilson can ball hawk and score some TD's. Williams carries some injury risk, with season ending knee injuries two years in a row, though.I picked up Cowart very late in a draft last week, as my fifth LB. I do think he has upside, but this might be a bit optomistic. Contrary to what I've read here, I'm not sure Cowart is a three down LB. I just don't think he has the speed to cover anymore. I also have Ed Hartwell ranked considerably higher than 24. He'll be playing MLB in a 4-3, his natural position. I think he will outscore Cowart. Reports out of Atlanta have, of course been glowing, but I think there is something more than fluff in all that talk. I realise Wong has taken Sharper's old spot in the Texans' defense, but I'm not sure he will equal Sharper's number as projected. The numbers plugged in for Wong almost exactly match Sharper's numbers from 2004. I would think that is overly optomistic until Wong can prove he is as good as Sharper was, FF-wise. I hope my comments are tactful and somewhat constructive. :football:

 

Beaumont

Footballguy
I realise Wong has taken Sharper's old spot in the Texans' defense, but I'm not sure he will equal Sharper's number as projected. The numbers plugged in for Wong almost exactly match Sharper's numbers from 2004. I would think that is overly optomistic until Wong can prove he is as good as Sharper was, FF-wise.
I thought that Greenwood was taking Sharper's old spot ... with Wong playing the Foreman role?
 

RAPTURE

Footballguy
First off, I agree with Rovers assessment of S. Williams and G. Wilson. I believe they should be flip-flopped in there respective rankings. Though, I would bet my Chrysler 300 that M. Greenwood outscores K. Wong this year. Beaumont is right about how Greenwood is taking over for J. Sharper's old position. I am really tempted to make my own IDP rankings for others who may not know what has gone down this offseason. If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly.I would love to hear Norton's views on some of these topics. RAPTURE

 

Tick

Footballguy
RAPTURE, I think you're overstating it. There are some things you might not agree with, but they're not so totally insane. Norton has opinions, it's good to see them. Also, you only seem to have a problem with 5% of the rankings.

 

The_Hunchback

Footballguy
RAPTURE, I think you're overstating it. There are some things you might not agree with, but they're not so totally insane. Norton has opinions, it's good to see them. Also, you only seem to have a problem with 5% of the rankings.
It would be nice to see why he has them the way he does then.I haven't actually read any reports listing Wong as the starting ILB this year. Most of the speculation I have seen about this have only been on message boards or from articles guessing what HOU will do.

I think there is more than 5% that I wouldn't agree with to be honest but they aren't my rankings so I treat them as just someone elses opinion.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
I think the writers went out on a limb on this one before Dennis Green came out with their projections.  The writers saw who the Cardinals drafted at MLB and plugged him in as an instant starter without putting much thought into it.

You can't always go by what the writers say or else you would in trouble.  I have noticed numerous errors on their write-ups (Team Report) about who will be starting for the 05 season.  At times, I think they just look at last year's starting lineups and copy-and-paste it to this years articles.

Take it for what its worth.

RAPTURE
hey rapture,thanx for the feedback, we appreciate it...

i can assure you that it isn't the case that we just slap last seasons starting lineups into this year's reports.

i can't speak for other team report writers specifically, and without boring you with details about how much time & effort goes into them (you & other readers shouldn't concern yourself with those kind of details... you are rightly just concerned with bottom line... quality of finished product), we do take pride in our work, are cognizant of the fact that we represent joe bryant and david dodds in anything we write for FBG, thousands (potentially tens of thousands?) of readers could be basing decisions on their teams which could be as good as the accuracy of our work...

and on a more mundane & pedestrian level... we know we will hear about it if we get something wrong. :^)

there are 32 teams X 11 starters plus a lot more key reserves we discuss. changes can take place via injuries, trades, FA, draft & internal movement... keep in mind that some of this takes place after our work gets posted to the site. we have a little more flexibility than last season to update changes... i wouldn't expect daily revisions, but you will certainly see some as inevitable changes take place in training camp & pre-season.

not saying that occasional oversights don't take place, but these would probably be confined and restricted to a relatively small number of instances... perhaps that doesn't warrant your seeming blanket indictment? if you have noticed any specific errors, we would welcome you bringing them to our attention so they can be corrected.

also, some cases like thomas davis present the obvious challenge that we just aren't certain where he will be playing yet (is he a SS, or as was thought early on & i just read may in fact be the case... is he a WLB?). we will update these few cases as soon as this information becomes public & it is humanly possible to do so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

helix

Footballguy
Just look at this as a baseline. There are some mistakes, but nothing is perfect.That said, I've seen much better rankings by guys on this board-

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Diablo

Footballguy
RAPTURE, I think you're overstating it.  There are some things you might not agree with, but they're not so totally insane.  Norton has opinions, it's good to see them.  Also, you only seem to have a problem with 5% of the rankings.
It would be nice to see why he has them the way he does then.I haven't actually read any reports listing Wong as the starting ILB this year. Most of the speculation I have seen about this have only been on message boards or from articles guessing what HOU will do.

I think there is more than 5% that I wouldn't agree with to be honest but they aren't my rankings so I treat them as just someone elses opinion.
Hunch, Check the news links for the Texans latest. There the HC has listed out who is playing where including Greenwood and Wong as ILB with Wong as the SILB or Foreman's old spot.

As for the rankings, the funny thing was that Texans' ILBs usually both have solid top 25 numbers. Seeing Greenwood down that far was a surprise as he is listed as being the 3 down guy playing in nickel and dime situations this year.

 

Rovers

Footballguy
I think these rankings are pretty darned good. No one gets everything 100% all of the time. The idea is to tactfully ask about specific players, while offering something substantive to gnaw on. I guess I was wrong about Wong, but that does make the question of his high ranking perhaps more subject to question. Rapture, you may well know yer stuff, but if you posted your rankings, I :confused: don't think you would want to hear what Rapture would have to say about them! Or, maybe just they way Rapture would question your rankings. I made the mistake of being a little too confrontational in one of my earlier posts re: player rankings, even though I though some of them were really wacky. It would have been much better if I were more tactful. In addition, I KNOW there will always be mistakes in a first pass. Sometimes you have to walk away and come back to see some questionable stuff. :soap: So, I'm :potkettle: Back to Wong.... if he is taking Foreman's spot, why would he be so high? I would more or less expect to see Grennwood's numbers higher than Wong's, not the other way around. I would love to see one addition to the rankings.... adding the players' position next to thier name. I'm getting up to speed on IDP's, but knowing the third tier guys' positions, like DE vs. DT would be very helpful. I know this might be harder to do, but even a differentiation of where in a 3-4 an LB will play would be quite useful, at least to me. Just a suggestion. :hophead:

 

Kleck.

Footballguy
GB the staff members that will have to keep up with Green Bay's IDP's all preseason. Definitely not a job I'd want as this crew will be pretty darn tough to project with all the additions (rookies, FA'a, other players being back and healthy, and a new DC and system).

Interesting that Collins is the #1 DB. I wouldn't be shocked if Roman loses his starting job either.

 

John Norton

Moderator
Hello everyone, Let me answer some of your questions. For starters the IDP projections ARE one man's opinion and not a collective. It would be very tough to collect and sort projections by several different guys so I got picked to stick my neck out for you guys to rip on :X Keep in mind its only May. A lot can happen between now and the beginning of the season. Also keep in mind that these are PROJECTIONS and not rankings. There is a HUGE difference. Some projections come with a lot of confidence and others admittedly seem like a bit of a stretch but I don't just stick numbers beside a guy for no reason. After all its the "out of the ordinary" stuff everyone is lookng for isn't it? The whole point here is to find sleepers etc. Heck everyone knows Ray Lewis is an animal. Some of the comments in this thread remind me of those from a couple of years back when I projected Andra Davis as a top 15 LB while Barry Gardner was still listed as the starter. You guys need to look beyond the current depth charts. I go much deeper in my consideration that just last years stats. Rapture, you can't have it both ways. In one reply you claim that we just copy last years depth charts and in another you want to burn us at the stake for deviating from what last years numbers would suggest. You should check out a guys track record before being so critical. Instead of blurting out how ridicules you think a projection is, maybe you should explore the reasoning first. You obviously have a lot of knowledge but just because someone sees something a little different than you, don't assume they are wrong. A wise man once told me "one should always coat his words with honey for you never know when you may be called upon to eat them". So now on to the answers. I project Mitchell so highly because next to Dansby he is the team's most talented linebacker AND he is playing in the most fantasy productive position of MLB. It wasn't long ago when a very average Ronald McKinnon was putting up nearly 100 solo tackles every year from that spot. Orlando Huff is a very average player who I don't believe has a sniff of a shot at starting and if Gerald Hayes was the answer wouldn't he have emerged as the starter last year? He's had his shot and didn't measure up. He's not a Dennis Green player and I don't believe he will amount to much this season unless there are injuries. You can't always look at where a guy was drafted to determine what his chances of success are. Get over the fact that Mitchell was a 5th round pick, he was a steal. Kailee Wong VS Morlon Greenwood. Both Sharper and Foreman posted excellent tackle numbers in that defense. I project Wong higher based on history and what I think of the player more than what position he is PENCILED in at. Wong played MLB for the Vikings at one point putting up 84 and 83 solo tackles in consecutive years ('00 & '01). He was a pretty solid fantasy option at that point and is a good football player. Greenwood's career high is just 66 tackles and that came last year when the Dolphins were horrible. I simply am not at all impressed with the guy. Comparing him to Sharper? That's like calling a VW Beetle a Porsche. I also believe that Wong will be the passing down LB which will make all the difference in the world. Remember that Sharper and Foreman both made a lot of tackles but Sharper was so much better than Foreman because of all the big plays. Wong can rush the passer while Greenwood has 3 career sacks... Gibril Wilson VS Shaun Williams. Yes Williams will be the starter at SS and "should" be more productive, but the guys hasn't played a full season since '02 and only put up 66 tackles then because he played gimpy half the season. I believe he has lost a step. Wilson was nothing short of impressive in his short stint last season. My projections are based on the probability that Williams will not play a full schedule and even if he does I believe Wilson could be more productive. While SS generally produces more tackles this is not written in stone. There have been exceptions in the past. Guys I'll say again its only the end of May and this is the first run on the projections. As the season gets closer and I see that some of my expectations may not happen, there will be adjustments made and plenty of updates to come. As to the comment " If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly". I would put my projections up against anyone who is doing them at the same time. If you take my May projections to your draft in August.. well that might be a problem :P Those of you who keep calling these projections "rankings" need to take a look at the actual cheat sheet I made up. While I use the projections as a guideline, the cheat better represents the amount of confidence I have in some of the numbers as well as the level of consistency of the players. Hope this clarifies some of the issues for everyone. I make mistakes like everyone else but there is always reason behind everything I put out there. If you want to know more about my train of thought look for my "Eyes of the Guru" report that will be out later in the summer. I get pretty extensive in my positional breakdowns. Best of luck to everyone,Reb

 

Plundun

Footballguy
Nice reply Norton.I still feel Mitchell will be one you will have to downgrade. Other things that stick out:I notice that you do not buy into Lemar Marshall, who do you think will take over for Pierce? Also having Chillar above Tinoisamoa makes me think I've missed something about the Rams LB situation.

 

John Norton

Moderator
Nice reply Norton.

I still feel Mitchell will be one you will have to downgrade.

Other things that stick out:

I notice that you do not buy into Lemar Marshall, who do you think will take over for Pierce? Also having Chillar above Tinoisamoa makes me think I've missed something about the Rams LB situation.
Thanks Plundun,I'm not sure that the Skins will settle the MLB position completely before the season opens. Holdman was recently added but I don't see him as a full time guy, especially not in the middle where he has never played. I believe eventually the rookie McCune will earn that job though I don't think he will be there in September. Who ever ends up there will be a 2 down player as long as Arrington and Washington are healthy.

 

Donnybrook

Footballguy
Kailee Wong VS Morlon Greenwood. Both Sharper and Foreman posted excellent tackle numbers in that defense. I project Wong higher based on history and what I think of the player more than what position he is PENCILED in at. Wong played MLB for the Vikings at one point putting up 84 and 83 solo tackles in consecutive years ('00 & '01). He was a pretty solid fantasy option at that point and is a good football player. Greenwood's career high is just 66 tackles and that came last year when the Dolphins were horrible. I simply am not at all impressed with the guy. Comparing him to Sharper? That's like calling a VW Beetle a Porsche. I also believe that Wong will be the passing down LB which will make all the difference in the world. Remember that Sharper and Foreman both made a lot of tackles but Sharper was so much better than Foreman because of all the big plays. Wong can rush the passer while Greenwood has 3 career sacks... 
I honestly think your projections are sorely lacking in positional analysis. If you knew nothing else about him, you could look at John Thornton’s 69 solo tackles (including post season games) and 0 sacks from last year and conclude that he is “VW Beatle”. Of course, we all know that this is not the case. Suffice it to say that I think you are pre-judging Greenwood a little too harshly. I never got the impression that Rapture was comparing Greenwood to Sharper. He simple said that he believes that Greenwood was taking Sharper place in the defense. The tackles will have to be made whether they are behind the line of scrimmage or 5 yards down the field. Lucky for Greenwood he is not competing with Sharper for tackles. He will be competing with Wong and I believe he will get more than his share.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Norton

Moderator
Kailee Wong VS Morlon Greenwood. Both Sharper and Foreman posted excellent tackle numbers in that defense. I project Wong higher based on history and what I think of the player more than what position he is PENCILED in at. Wong played MLB for the Vikings at one point putting up 84 and 83 solo tackles in consecutive years ('00 & '01). He was a pretty solid fantasy option at that point and is a good football player. Greenwood's career high is just 66 tackles and that came last year when the Dolphins were horrible. I simply am not at all impressed with the guy. Comparing him to Sharper? That's like calling a VW Beetle a Porsche. I also believe that Wong will be the passing down LB which will make all the difference in the world. Remember that Sharper and Foreman both made a lot of tackles but Sharper was so much better than Foreman because of all the big plays. Wong can rush the passer while Greenwood has 3 career sacks... 
I honestly think your projections are sorely lacking in positional analysis. If you knew nothing else about him, you could look at John Thornton’s 69 solo tackles (including post season games) and 0 sacks from last year and conclude that he is “VW Beatle”. Of course, we all know that this is not the case. Suffice it to say that I think you are pre-judging Greenwood a little too harshly. I never got the impression that Rapture was comparing Greenwood to Sharper. He simple said that he believes that Greenwood was taking Sharper place in the defense. The tackles will have to be made whether they are behind the line of scrimmage or 5 yards down the field. Lucky for Greenwood he is not competing with Sharper for tackles. He will be competing with Wong and I believe he will get more than his share.
You may be correct there. I'll be the first to admit that playing in the shadow of Zach Thomas may have held Greenwood down (see Ed Hartwell), and that he may be better than I am giving him credit. All I am saying is that I am very confident that Wong can be productive as a tackler and he is much more proven as a pass rusher etc. I can easily see both of these guys in the 90 solo tackle range just based on the situation. I just feel Wong will be the guy who excels in fantasy terms because of play making ability and playing on passing downs. BTW Thornton went 37-20-3 last year but I get your point :loco:

 

RAPTURE

Footballguy
Donnybrook, I appreciate your help in justifying my analysis on Greenwood and Wong. I don't want to paste the link but Capers was quoted by saying the following, "considers Greenwood an every-down player and believes the linebacker will adapt well to a new system". If you want the link I will be gladly to provide the proof.As for Norton, I apologize for being so direct with my recent responses. I just don't want people to be misguided when it comes down to draft day. Greenwood is going to outscore Wong for the Texans. I believe Greenwood will be a solid top 15 LB and Wong somewhere in the low 30 range. I'll look over the rest of the rankings and provide my own analysis. Again, I apologize to everyone who may have taken my last comment or two....or three the wrong way. I hope you accept my apology! This is the best FF website on the Internet- BAR NONE!!RAPTURE

 

GI-Dawgs

Footballguy
First off, I agree with Rovers assessment of S. Williams and G. Wilson. I believe they should be flip-flopped in there respective rankings. Though, I would bet my Chrysler 300 that M. Greenwood outscores K. Wong this year. Beaumont is right about how Greenwood is taking over for J. Sharper's old position.

I am really tempted to make my own IDP rankings for others who may not know what has gone down this offseason. If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly.

I would love to hear Norton's views on some of these topics.

RAPTURE
The SS / FS thing in New York is a bit deceiving. Did you know, of the final 7 games the FS out score the SS (in terms of tackles) in six of those? I agree with you on Greenwood, but could easily go the other way.

All in all I think he did good job. Not easy to do.

 

John Norton

Moderator
Nice reply Norton.

I still feel Mitchell will be one you will have to downgrade.

Other things that stick out:

I notice that you do not buy into Lemar Marshall, who do you think will take over for Pierce? Also having Chillar above Tinoisamoa makes me think I've missed something about the Rams LB situation.
You may have missed something there on Pisa. At this point he is listed as the backup to Dexter Coakley at WLB. I'm not a Coakley fan either and would not be a bit surprised to see Tino recapture that position but for now Chillar projects higher because he's a starter, even is it is on the strong side.
 

John Norton

Moderator
Donnybrook, I appreciate your help in justifying my analysis on Greenwood and Wong.

I don't want to paste the link but Capers was quoted by saying the following, "considers Greenwood an every-down player and believes the linebacker will adapt well to a new system". If you want the link I will be gladly to provide the proof.

As for Norton, I apologize for being so direct with my recent responses. I just don't want people to be misguided when it comes down to draft day.

Greenwood is going to outscore Wong for the Texans. I believe Greenwood will be a solid top 15 LB and Wong somewhere in the low 30 range. I'll look over the rest of the rankings and provide my own analysis.

Again, I apologize to everyone who may have taken my last comment or two....or three the wrong way. I hope you accept my apology! This is the best FF website on the Internet- BAR NONE!!

RAPTURE
thanks Rapture, I wasn't offended though. Its always good to get the opinions of other well informed football junkies. You may ultimately be right about the Wong/Greenwood thing. Only time will tell. Wouldn't it suck if we all liked the same players?? :yes:
 

Rovers

Footballguy
First off, I agree with Rovers assessment of S. Williams and G. Wilson.  I believe they should be flip-flopped in there respective rankings.  Though, I would bet my Chrysler 300 that M. Greenwood outscores K. Wong this year.  Beaumont is right about how Greenwood is taking over for J. Sharper's old position. 

I am really tempted to make my own IDP rankings for others who may not know what has gone down this offseason.  If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly.

I would love to hear Norton's views on some of these topics.

RAPTURE
The SS / FS thing in New York is a bit deceiving. Did you know, of the final 7 games the FS out score the SS (in terms of tackles) in six of those? I agree with you on Greenwood, but could easily go the other way.

All in all I think he did good job. Not easy to do.
The Giant D Backfield: Also remember that both Wilson and Williams weren't playing in those last seven games. That was a patchwork backfield led by none other than Brent Alexander. I find it hard to use that as a projection with the two starters back on the field. Wilson is faster than Williams, so I expect Wilson to get most of the coverage assignments. Mr. Norton, thanks for the responses. I would like to repeat one question though.... regarding Ruud outpointing Quarles in Tampa. Do you expect Ruud to win the starting job at some point during the season? Or is this projection based on Ruud getting some playing time on the outside? I mean, Vilma was a freakish thing last year, but he's an incredibly smart football player, and only started due to Cowart's injury. I can't see Gruden turning the job over to a rookie this year, at least not until the last few games of the regular season, once Tampa is out of contention.

 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
Nice reply Norton.

I still feel Mitchell will be one you will have to downgrade.

Other things that stick out:

I notice that you do not buy into Lemar Marshall, who do you think will take over for Pierce? Also having Chillar above Tinoisamoa makes me think I've missed something about the Rams LB situation.
You may have missed something there on Pisa. At this point he is listed as the backup to Dexter Coakley at WLB. I'm not a Coakley fan either and would not be a bit surprised to see Tino recapture that position but for now Chillar projects higher because he's a starter, even is it is on the strong side.
John,you may have missed this tidbit from The Sporting News last week (5/15):

LB Dexter Coakley's career has taken quite a turn since he was cut by the Cowboys because he didn't fit the 3-4 front Bill Parcells plans to use. The Rams long have been enamored of Coakley, and they signed him quickly, giving him $4 million this year. Why give a 32-year old linebacker that kind of money? The Rams believe Coakley can give their defense the character and leadership it has been missing. It didn't take long for Coakley to bring together the Rams' defenders. Rams coach Mike Martz subsequently named Coakley one of his captains. The Rams are lining up the 5-10 Coakley on the strong side. Coakley always has been a weakside linebacker, and it will be interesting to see how he handles covering much larger tight ends. . . .
I think Pino is the starting WLB and Chillar will be a backup, FWIW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John 14:6

Jesus is Lord!
I sure hope they are right about Vilma!  :P
Me too, and Courtney Watson at 22 :excited: Any chance there will be future projections that divide DLs and DBs into DEs, DTs, CBs, and Ss? And would this be available in the draft dominator?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

GI-Dawgs

Footballguy
First off, I agree with Rovers assessment of S. Williams and G. Wilson.  I believe they should be flip-flopped in there respective rankings.  Though, I would bet my Chrysler 300 that M. Greenwood outscores K. Wong this year.  Beaumont is right about how Greenwood is taking over for J. Sharper's old position. 

I am really tempted to make my own IDP rankings for others who may not know what has gone down this offseason.  If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly.

I would love to hear Norton's views on some of these topics.

RAPTURE
The SS / FS thing in New York is a bit deceiving. Did you know, of the final 7 games the FS out score the SS (in terms of tackles) in six of those? I agree with you on Greenwood, but could easily go the other way.

All in all I think he did good job. Not easy to do.
The Giant D Backfield: Also remember that both Wilson and Williams weren't playing in those last seven games. That was a patchwork backfield led by none other than Brent Alexander. I find it hard to use that as a projection with the two starters back on the field.
I understand Wilson and Williams were not playing in the last seven games thats why I used those games as a reference. I read somewhere and can't remember the source, actually may have been a Giant homer on this board, stating the Giants want their S's to be interchanglable, I'm guessing to help in disguising coverages. This is what I mean when I say NY Giant SS/FS is a bit deceiving. I just thought the tackle thing was strange. The previous 10 games the SS (mainly Wilson) out tackled the FS every game but 1 and they tied that game.

You would think Alexander (who was switched to SS) would have out performed Cousins and Burns consistenly.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
Nice reply Norton.

I still feel Mitchell will be one you will have to downgrade.

Other things that stick out:

I notice that you do not buy into Lemar Marshall, who do you think will take over for Pierce? Also having Chillar above Tinoisamoa makes me think I've missed something about the Rams LB situation.
You may have missed something there on Pisa. At this point he is listed as the backup to Dexter Coakley at WLB. I'm not a Coakley fan either and would not be a bit surprised to see Tino recapture that position but for now Chillar projects higher because he's a starter, even is it is on the strong side.
John,you may have missed this tidbit from The Sporting News last week (5/15):

LB Dexter Coakley's career has taken quite a turn since he was cut by the Cowboys because he didn't fit the 3-4 front Bill Parcells plans to use. The Rams long have been enamored of Coakley, and they signed him quickly, giving him $4 million this year. Why give a 32-year old linebacker that kind of money? The Rams believe Coakley can give their defense the character and leadership it has been missing. It didn't take long for Coakley to bring together the Rams' defenders. Rams coach Mike Martz subsequently named Coakley one of his captains. The Rams are lining up the 5-10 Coakley on the strong side. Coakley always has been a weakside linebacker, and it will be interesting to see how he handles covering much larger tight ends. . . .
I think Pino is the starting WLB and Chillar will be a backup, FWIW.
tino had a very good rookie year... arguably best for a LB outside of nick barnett (boss bailey & lance briggs were solid, too & with last season no doubt briggs has overtaken tino & bailey in rankings & projections).last season he separated his shoulder in first game & thereafter about eight times! the dude is a warrior & played through the pain... but even though he led the rams in solos, he didn't seem the same. 5-0 supposedly had the problem surgically corrected... if it holds up, i could easily see him outscoring coakley from WLB... probably not claiborne if he can play close to a full slate of games.

tino has tremendous measurables... his 10 yard split, cone drill & shuttle times were comparable to the top DEFENSIVE BACKS in the draft. some scouts thought he looked dominant & one of the best players at the senior bowl. just mentioning this because i think he could be a good one, if healthy.

 

Donnybrook

Footballguy
Kailee Wong VS Morlon Greenwood. Both Sharper and Foreman posted excellent tackle numbers in that defense. I project Wong higher based on history and what I think of the player more than what position he is PENCILED in at. Wong played MLB for the Vikings at one point putting up 84 and 83 solo tackles in consecutive years ('00 & '01). He was a pretty solid fantasy option at that point and is a good football player. Greenwood's career high is just 66 tackles and that came last year when the Dolphins were horrible. I simply am not at all impressed with the guy. Comparing him to Sharper? That's like calling a VW Beetle a Porsche. I also believe that Wong will be the passing down LB which will make all the difference in the world. Remember that Sharper and Foreman both made a lot of tackles but Sharper was so much better than Foreman because of all the big plays. Wong can rush the passer while Greenwood has 3 career sacks... 
I honestly think your projections are sorely lacking in positional analysis. If you knew nothing else about him, you could look at John Thornton’s 69 solo tackles (including post season games) and 0 sacks from last year and conclude that he is “VW Beatle”. Of course, we all know that this is not the case. Suffice it to say that I think you are pre-judging Greenwood a little too harshly. I never got the impression that Rapture was comparing Greenwood to Sharper. He simple said that he believes that Greenwood was taking Sharper place in the defense. The tackles will have to be made whether they are behind the line of scrimmage or 5 yards down the field. Lucky for Greenwood he is not competing with Sharper for tackles. He will be competing with Wong and I believe he will get more than his share.
You may be correct there. I'll be the first to admit that playing in the shadow of Zach Thomas may have held Greenwood down (see Ed Hartwell), and that he may be better than I am giving him credit. All I am saying is that I am very confident that Wong can be productive as a tackler and he is much more proven as a pass rusher etc. I can easily see both of these guys in the 90 solo tackle range just based on the situation. I just feel Wong will be the guy who excels in fantasy terms because of play making ability and playing on passing downs. BTW Thornton went 37-20-3 last year but I get your point :loco:
Thanks for the response and I do appreciate the projections even if I come across as being overly judgmental. I can see your side of the argument and although we still disagree at least I understand where you’re coming from. And you’re right; it would definitely suck if we all liked the same players.
 

John Norton

Moderator
Nice reply Norton.

I still feel Mitchell will be one you will have to downgrade.

Other things that stick out:

I notice that you do not buy into Lemar Marshall, who do you think will take over for Pierce? Also having Chillar above Tinoisamoa makes me think I've missed something about the Rams LB situation.
You may have missed something there on Pisa. At this point he is listed as the backup to Dexter Coakley at WLB. I'm not a Coakley fan either and would not be a bit surprised to see Tino recapture that position but for now Chillar projects higher because he's a starter, even is it is on the strong side.
John,you may have missed this tidbit from The Sporting News last week (5/15):

LB Dexter Coakley's career has taken quite a turn since he was cut by the Cowboys because he didn't fit the 3-4 front Bill Parcells plans to use. The Rams long have been enamored of Coakley, and they signed him quickly, giving him $4 million this year. Why give a 32-year old linebacker that kind of money? The Rams believe Coakley can give their defense the character and leadership it has been missing. It didn't take long for Coakley to bring together the Rams' defenders. Rams coach Mike Martz subsequently named Coakley one of his captains. The Rams are lining up the 5-10 Coakley on the strong side. Coakley always has been a weakside linebacker, and it will be interesting to see how he handles covering much larger tight ends. . . .
I think Pino is the starting WLB and Chillar will be a backup, FWIW.
I did miss that comment. If indeed that is the case there will be some adjustments to make on the next update. FWIW I really like Tino as a player. I am just not sold on the Rams decision making. Their LB position was like a game of musical chairs last year as they constantly moved guys from one position to another as well as in and out of the lineup. IMO we would all be smart to avoid that whole mess until very late on draft day.
 

John Norton

Moderator
First off, I agree with Rovers assessment of S. Williams and G. Wilson.  I believe they should be flip-flopped in there respective rankings.  Though, I would bet my Chrysler 300 that M. Greenwood outscores K. Wong this year.  Beaumont is right about how Greenwood is taking over for J. Sharper's old position. 

I am really tempted to make my own IDP rankings for others who may not know what has gone down this offseason.  If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly.

I would love to hear Norton's views on some of these topics.

RAPTURE
The SS / FS thing in New York is a bit deceiving. Did you know, of the final 7 games the FS out score the SS (in terms of tackles) in six of those? I agree with you on Greenwood, but could easily go the other way.

All in all I think he did good job. Not easy to do.
The Giant D Backfield: Also remember that both Wilson and Williams weren't playing in those last seven games. That was a patchwork backfield led by none other than Brent Alexander. I find it hard to use that as a projection with the two starters back on the field. Wilson is faster than Williams, so I expect Wilson to get most of the coverage assignments. Mr. Norton, thanks for the responses. I would like to repeat one question though.... regarding Ruud outpointing Quarles in Tampa. Do you expect Ruud to win the starting job at some point during the season? Or is this projection based on Ruud getting some playing time on the outside? I mean, Vilma was a freakish thing last year, but he's an incredibly smart football player, and only started due to Cowart's injury. I can't see Gruden turning the job over to a rookie this year, at least not until the last few games of the regular season, once Tampa is out of contention.
I believe that Ruud will see some time on running downs early in the season as Quarles is not a very physical player. The Bucks had previously used Nate Webster in those situations and missed him greatly last season. I believe that Ruud could very well emerge as a starter by mid season, especially if the team struggles early. Gruden has never been afraid to start a rookie and though inexperienced, Ruud is a far more talented player than Quarles or Gooch IMO. Tampa was 19th against the run last season and they won't get any better with the same players on the field, just ask the Chiefs. Ruud is the future of the MLB position there and they will want to get him as much experience as possible this season. There is also the possibility that one of the MLBs will move outside. Jeff Gooch is a career backup for a good reason. Gruden likes to get production out of his early draft picks right away so I see Ruud having a significant role somewhere.

 

Callas Disregard

Footballguy
First off, I agree with Rovers assessment of S. Williams and G. Wilson. I believe they should be flip-flopped in there respective rankings. Though, I would bet my Chrysler 300 that M. Greenwood outscores K. Wong this year. Beaumont is right about how Greenwood is taking over for J. Sharper's old position.

I am really tempted to make my own IDP rankings for others who may not know what has gone down this offseason. If someone took this cheatsheet with them come draft day, it would be deadly.

I would love to hear Norton's views on some of these topics.

RAPTURE
The SS / FS thing in New York is a bit deceiving. Did you know, of the final 7 games the FS out score the SS (in terms of tackles) in six of those? I agree with you on Greenwood, but could easily go the other way.

All in all I think he did good job. Not easy to do.
The Giant D Backfield: Also remember that both Wilson and Williams weren't playing in those last seven games. That was a patchwork backfield led by none other than Brent Alexander. I find it hard to use that as a projection with the two starters back on the field. Wilson is faster than Williams, so I expect Wilson to get most of the coverage assignments. Mr. Norton, thanks for the responses. I would like to repeat one question though.... regarding Ruud outpointing Quarles in Tampa. Do you expect Ruud to win the starting job at some point during the season? Or is this projection based on Ruud getting some playing time on the outside? I mean, Vilma was a freakish thing last year, but he's an incredibly smart football player, and only started due to Cowart's injury. I can't see Gruden turning the job over to a rookie this year, at least not until the last few games of the regular season, once Tampa is out of contention.
I believe that Ruud will see some time on running downs early in the season as Quarles is not a very physical player. The Bucks had previously used Nate Webster in those situations and missed him greatly last season. I believe that Ruud could very well emerge as a starter by mid season, especially if the team struggles early. Gruden has never been afraid to start a rookie and though inexperienced, Ruud is a far more talented player than Quarles or Gooch IMO. Tampa was 19th against the run last season and they won't get any better with the same players on the field, just ask the Chiefs. Ruud is the future of the MLB position there and they will want to get him as much experience as possible this season. There is also the possibility that one of the MLBs will move outside. Jeff Gooch is a career backup for a good reason. Gruden likes to get production out of his early draft picks right away so I see Ruud having a significant role somewhere.
In 2003, Webster was used early in the season because Quarles broke his arm in preseason and missed the first several weeks. As soon as Quarles was healthy, he retook MLB and Webster disappeared. And Quarles' numbers in a short season projected very well over 16 games. Since his move to MLB about 3 years ago, Quarles when healthy has been one of the most underrated fantasy LBs in the league.The conventional wisdom on Ruud seems to be that he will in fact get a great deal of playing time in 2005, but that playing time will come at SLB, not MLB. Quarles is still an experienced field general, and they don't want to force Ruud to run the show too quickly. 2006 is a different matter, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that Quarles isn't safe for 2005.

 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
In 2003, Webster was used early in the season because Quarles broke his arm in preseason and missed the first several weeks. As soon as Quarles was healthy, he retook MLB and Webster disappeared. And Quarles' numbers in a short season projected very well over 16 games. Since his move to MLB about 3 years ago, Quarles when healthy has been one of the most underrated fantasy LBs in the league.The conventional wisdom on Ruud seems to be that he will in fact get a great deal of playing time in 2005, but that playing time will come at SLB, not MLB. Quarles is still an experienced field general, and they don't want to force Ruud to run the show too quickly. 2006 is a different matter, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that Quarles isn't safe for 2005.
I agree with this based on all the current information available to us. I think Ruud beats out Nece for the starting SLB job this year and is eventually transitioned into the MLB, perhaps as early as 2006.But, it wouldn't shock me if they turned to Ruud at MLB a bit earlier, as John expects. Quarles puts up good numbers and is a reliable veteran (especially in coverage), but he's undersized and struggles defending the run. They already got him to take a $1.5 million pay cut, so that should keep his roster spot safe for this year. But, we could have a Cowart/Vilma type of situation in Tampa this year where the young guy takes over sooner than expected.As for the Rams, I agree it's best not to draft those LBs too highly. But, guys like Pino and Claiborne could be great value picks later on as I think they have the talent to be wildly successful if they can stay healthy.
 

Rovers

Footballguy
In 2003, Webster was used early in the season because Quarles broke his arm in preseason and missed the first several weeks.  As soon as Quarles was healthy, he retook MLB and Webster disappeared.  And Quarles' numbers in a short season projected very well over 16 games.  Since his move to MLB about 3 years ago, Quarles when healthy has been one of the most underrated fantasy LBs in the league.

The conventional wisdom on Ruud seems to be that he will in fact get a great deal of playing time in 2005, but that playing time will come at SLB, not MLB.  Quarles is still an experienced field general, and they don't want to force Ruud to run the show too quickly.  2006 is a different matter, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that Quarles isn't safe for 2005.
I agree with this based on all the current information available to us. I think Ruud beats out Nece for the starting SLB job this year and is eventually transitioned into the MLB, perhaps as early as 2006.But, it wouldn't shock me if they turned to Ruud at MLB a bit earlier, as John expects. Quarles puts up good numbers and is a reliable veteran (especially in coverage), but he's undersized and struggles defending the run. They already got him to take a $1.5 million pay cut, so that should keep his roster spot safe for this year. But, we could have a Cowart/Vilma type of situation in Tampa this year where the young guy takes over sooner than expected.

As for the Rams, I agree it's best not to draft those LBs too highly. But, guys like Pino and Claiborne could be great value picks later on as I think they have the talent to be wildly successful if they can stay healthy.
OK, this is the impression I had, that Ruud would see some time, perhaps even start at SLB, but that Quarles was pretty solid for keeping the MLB job until Ruud gets acclimated to the speed of the pro game. I think it's very hard for any rookie to start at MLB in his first year. It took extenuating cicumstances for Vilma to start last year. First, the coaches raved about how smart he was and how he never repeated a mistake in preseason. Then, Cowart got hurt. The Jets had no intention of using a rookie at MLB, but were forced to. Vilma is freakish, both mentally and speed wise. I don't think Ruud is in Vilma's class. I'm not saying he won't be a very good MLB, but that is a very tough position for any rookie to play. Off the top of my head, I can't remember a rookie who started there other than Vilma. Didn't even Urlacher start his first year on the outside? In any case, I have Quarles projected quite a bit higher. Maybe I am biased, as I have him on two teams! :yes:

 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
Urlacher began his rookie year on the outside, but was quickly moved to MLB. The change may have even happened as early as the preseason, but I can't remember exactly.I think all of these guys started games at MLB as a rookie:Zach ThomasNick BarnettKeith BrookingCourtney WatsonNapoleon HarrisAl WilsonLandon JohnsonRay Lewis

 

Bruce Henderson

Footballguy
Any chance there will be future projections that divide DLs and DBs into DEs, DTs, CBs, and Ss? And would this be available in the draft dominator?
On the projections setup page, it shows their actual position ... but the player pool still uses the three standard tabs: DL, DB and LB.
 

John 14:6

Jesus is Lord!
Any chance there will be future projections that divide DLs and DBs into DEs, DTs, CBs, and Ss?  And would this be available in the draft dominator?
On the projections setup page, it shows their actual position ... but the player pool still uses the three standard tabs: DL, DB and LB.
OK, so it'll only calculate players' values based on those three positions :(
 

John Norton

Moderator
Urlacher began his rookie year on the outside, but was quickly moved to MLB. The change may have even happened as early as the preseason, but I can't remember exactly.

I think all of these guys started games at MLB as a rookie:

Zach Thomas

Nick Barnett

Keith Brooking

Courtney Watson

Napoleon Harris

Al Wilson

Landon Johnson

Ray Lewis
It's not all that rare for a rookie to start in the middle though there are a lot of instances where teams break the young guys in on the strong side simply because the position is generally less mentally demanding and more physically. Its a good place for a young guy to get his welcome to the NFL... Actually Urlacher moved inside in like week 4 or so of his rookie season, right after a lot of owners gave up on him and let him go that year ( I was able to snatch him off waivers in one dynasty league even). I could easily see Ruud moving outside and earning a starting job in camp but I believe he will still play in the middle in short yardage situations (as Webster did). As with any rookies, everything will depend on how quickly he picks things up. I agree he isn't in the same class as Vilma. If he doesn't move outside I doubt he will completely displace Quarles unless/until the Bucks are out of the hunt. With Gold gone, Quarles is all but certain to play in the nickel packages. Its noteworthy that Quarles will be 34 in September. That's old in NFL terms, especially for a linebacker.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top