How important is the points per game stat to you? (1 Viewer)

[The Moz]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

Many folks are down on Steven Jackson this year saying he gets hurt to much and just mayeb didn't look that great since his huge breakout year in 06.

If you look at PPG -- he finishes 2nd ( 06 ) , 7th ( 07 ) , and 2nd again in ( 08 - .012 ) - In 07 and 08 he spent - a month on the bench with injury or close to it. But when he played he really put points up.

Everyone is low on LT - or at least most folks -- PPR LT -- points per game -- 07 - #2 ( 3 if you count Ronnie brown playing 7 games ) and 08 - #6. - not really LT like but i am seeing LT falling to early 2nd round.

Adrian Peterson the consensus #1 -- finished 5th in 07 and 8th in 08. Not bad at all -- but he is the consensus #1 even in PPR right now.. he finished 8th last year when last season was a WEAK year for top end backs.

Westbrook - who even me i am skeered about his injuries and age - but the man has been #1 in 07 and #3 in 08 in Points per game and is late 1st round to early second.

F. Gore - right now being valued right about the same as Westbrook and LT last 2 seasons was #11 in 07 and #12 in 08

again though a lot can be shifted in terms of situation , age , and team around the player -- but if all things basically remain equal i view PPG-Started as the best indicator of a draft picks actual value.

just wondering what thoughts might be on this here.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Very important. I agree with most of your thoughts. PPG often steers you toward sleepers if you pay attention to it.

 

[golfguy]

you want to be careful here though, because i think you are using only the avg of the weeks he played, rather then tossing in 0 for the weeks he was hurt. if you do that to get a true avg. he number is far less.

sure he might put up good numbers, but his total points last yr weren't that great. and not too many teams can survive when their rb1 is our 4-6 weeks a season.

 

[The Moz]

you want to be careful here though, because i think you are using only the avg of the weeks he played, rather then tossing in 0 for the weeks he was hurt. if you do that to get a true avg. he number is far less. sure he might put up good numbers, but his total points last yr weren't that great. and not too many teams can survive when their rb1 is our 4-6 weeks a season.

I am doing that indeed -- but I disagree becasue if they are injured an don't play your not going to start them. I am not saying the PPG stat isn't flawed it is obviously - I just think it is a really good tool to use as a tie breaker as you can't predict injuries but it helps to predict what a player will do when / if he starts. Many other variables need to be taken into account but if all things are equal for the most part - PPG average gives a pretty accurate reading - or the most accurate you can really hope for. ( like going all in with QK spade suited and a flop of 10,J spade , K ) you can still be wrong but odds are youre in great shape.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

PPG vs Season totals

I agree, ppg is very important. It's only one part of the puzzle, but an important one.

Oh, and all RBs get hurt.

 

[golfguy]

I am doing that indeed -- but I disagree becasue if they are injured an don't play your not going to start them. I am not saying the PPG stat isn't flawed it is obviously - I just think it is a really good tool to use as a tie breaker as you can't predict injuries but it helps to predict what a player will do when / if he starts

good. however, in certain cases i would say you can look at certain positions, teams, etc and injury history and make some predictions about a player. it's nice to see what they do when they play, but if someone is close and hasn't been injured, and i would go with that person. just my 2 cents.

 

[Black]

PPG vs Season totals

I agree, ppg is very important. It's only one part of the puzzle, but an important one.

Oh, and all RBs get hurt.

This is very important b/c all players get hurt. The question is usually when is it 'clear' a player is hurt and not playing....then as long as you have depth, you can work around their 'out' games.There are certain players (or coaches) who really screw up the stats when you are not sure if a player will start. The DEN RB situation is a perfect example. Maybe Selvin or someone had great stats per game, but you were never sure WHAT game before kickoff. That does NOT help. I purposely avoid those situations.

Boldin has been hurt the last few seasons...he's out a few games, but when he's in, you know it and he's putting up points. Used to love grabbing him the last couple of seasons since his season totals were not top 5, but I think his per game stats were.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Many folks are down on Steven Jackson this year saying he gets hurt to much and just mayeb didn't look that great since his huge breakout year in 06.

If you look at PPG -- he finishes 2nd ( 06 ) , 7th ( 07 ) , and 2nd again in ( 08 - .012 ) - In 07 and 08 he spent - a month on the bench with injury or close to it. But when he played he really put points up.

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009. Jackson's situation in St. Louis stinks. He lost a declining, but quality, OT in Orlando Pace and Jason Smith may or may not play out to be an adequate replacement (remember Robert Gallery, another "can't miss" OT?). The rest of the line stinks. Jackson has trouble scoring in the red zone because the line is inadequate. He's had 5 rushing (+1 receiving) and 7 rushing (+1 receiving) TDs in the past 2 years - However, he only rushed in TDs on 4 Sundays last year (1 vs BUF, 3 vs DAL, and 1 vs SEA - the final 2 TDs vs ATL came in week 17, after most fantasy seasons were over).

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL.

Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs.

Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR).

Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide.

IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4.

And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

So, when it comes to PPG, I think you need to use it like any other tool in your analyst tool box - it is useful, but you have to put the PPG into context of the larger team environment and be honest about that team's offensive unit's prospects in the coming year - and a player's durability/desire to play through injury is part of that analysis, IMO. I see problems for Jackson on many levels during '09.

 

[The Moz]

Many folks are down on Steven Jackson this year saying he gets hurt to much and just mayeb didn't look that great since his huge breakout year in 06.

If you look at PPG -- he finishes 2nd ( 06 ) , 7th ( 07 ) , and 2nd again in ( 08 - .012 ) - In 07 and 08 he spent - a month on the bench with injury or close to it. But when he played he really put points up.

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009. Jackson's situation in St. Louis stinks. He lost a declining, but quality, OT in Orlando Pace and Jason Smith may or may not play out to be an adequate replacement (remember Robert Gallery, another "can't miss" OT?). The rest of the line stinks. Jackson has trouble scoring in the red zone because the line is inadequate. He's had 5 rushing (+1 receiving) and 7 rushing (+1 receiving) TDs in the past 2 years - However, he only rushed in TDs on 4 Sundays last year (1 vs BUF, 3 vs DAL, and 1 vs SEA - the final 2 TDs vs ATL came in week 17, after most fantasy seasons were over).

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL.

Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs.

Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR).

Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide.

IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4.

And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

So, when it comes to PPG, I think you need to use it like any other tool in your analyst tool box - it is useful, but you have to put the PPG into context of the larger team environment and be honest about that team's offensive unit's prospects in the coming year - and a player's durability/desire to play through injury is part of that analysis, IMO. I see problems for Jackson on many levels during '09.

You present a great argument here. In non PPR I mght even be inclined to agree with you based on what you presented. In PPR I still beeive Jackson to be a top 5 back. based on the New OC in STL coming from Philly where they love to throw to the running back , Bulger loving to check down , and the fact they do not have a great wr corps would mean more of those check downs. Also what would make STL much worse this year than last season when Jackson finished the #2 rb in terms of points per game started in PPR? Coach? - I doubt the new coach is any worse ( more than likely better ) . Line? if anything the loss of Pace doesn't kill as he had declined anyway and the Line actually might be slightly better with the rookie ( thats very much debateable i admit ) Defense? - there defense couldn't get much worse. WR's ? Holt had an awful year as did Bulger - STL was terrible passing the ball. Play calling ? again the Eagles QB coach is adept to using the RB heavily in the passing game so I would be inclined to think that would make this situation better. JMO

 

[David Yudkin]

For those giving injured players zeroes for weeks they don't play, that's true but misleading in terms of your fantasy team. Unless you play in leagues where you can't substitute players, then you won't get a zero from that RB spot.

For example, say PLAYER X averages 20 fantasy ppg but only plays in 12 games. That would come to 240 fantasy points. Now consider the guy that would have to replace him (PLAYER Y) who averages 10 fantasy ppg. He would score 40 points. Combining the two, that would yield 280 fantasy points.

To me, the best way to calculate these things would be to consider expected scoring over baseline for that position or a VBD approach. For example, if Randy Moss scores 200 points but any bench player would score 100 points at WR, work off the +100 not the 200.

 

[golfguy]

For those giving injured players zeroes for weeks they don't play, that's true but misleading in terms of your fantasy team. Unless you play in leagues where you can't substitute players, then you won't get a zero from that RB spot.For example, say PLAYER X averages 20 fantasy ppg but only plays in 12 games. That would come to 240 fantasy points. Now consider the guy that would have to replace him (PLAYER Y) who averages 10 fantasy ppg. He would score 40 points. Combining the two, that would yield 280 fantasy point

well your now talking about total team points per game. and assuming you can get a rb to fill to get 10 points a game on the wire that could be hard to do.i am not against PPG, i think it is a great tool to use, i would just be cautious to people and players who have injuries that past couple of seasons.

 

[David Yudkin]

For those giving injured players zeroes for weeks they don't play, that's true but misleading in terms of your fantasy team. Unless you play in leagues where you can't substitute players, then you won't get a zero from that RB spot.For example, say PLAYER X averages 20 fantasy ppg but only plays in 12 games. That would come to 240 fantasy points. Now consider the guy that would have to replace him (PLAYER Y) who averages 10 fantasy ppg. He would score 40 points. Combining the two, that would yield 280 fantasy point

well your now talking about total team points per game. and assuming you can get a rb to fill to get 10 points a game on the wire that could be hard to do.i am not against PPG, i think it is a great tool to use, i would just be cautious to people and players who have injuries that past couple of seasons.

I'm not suggesting getting anyone off of the wire, only playing someone on your roster that otherwise would not be starting. The point was not the actual numbers I cited but suggesting a way to calculate the net value to your team.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

For those giving injured players zeroes for weeks they don't play, that's true but misleading in terms of your fantasy team. Unless you play in leagues where you can't substitute players, then you won't get a zero from that RB spot.For example, say PLAYER X averages 20 fantasy ppg but only plays in 12 games. That would come to 240 fantasy points. Now consider the guy that would have to replace him (PLAYER Y) who averages 10 fantasy ppg. He would score 40 points. Combining the two, that would yield 280 fantasy points.To me, the best way to calculate these things would be to consider expected scoring over baseline for that position or a VBD approach. For example, if Randy Moss scores 200 points but any bench player would score 100 points at WR, work off the +100 not the 200.

Good point. There is also a difference between being injured and nicked up. It seems like guys like Westbrook are continually battling to stay on the field. Perpetually listed as questionable, even though you don't get burned alot...it's maddening to have to keep yourself posted on every little tidbit of news.If you say to yourself, "I'll take Jackson's 12 games and fill in the other 4" so long as you make RB3 a drafting priority, you should be protected.

 

[switz]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.Put it this way... when a player routinely misses 4 games, and you look at his PPG, you are ranking him on about 20% more production than he will actually in all likelihood give you. So go ahead, project out the PPG, but then subtract 20% form it to give you a better idea of where that player belongs.The only way PPG is beneficial is for players that emerge into the starting lineup during the season, due to development, a starter getting injured, etc. Even then you have to be careful, especially when it was a backup who finally got a chance to start. IMO PPG is an inaccurate way to gauge a player, because it eliminates most of the negatives - i.e why he missed so many games.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.

I *** JUST *** went over this. You don't get a zero. You get a zero FROM JACKSON . . . but your team won't get a zero. So you get Jackson's score plus whoever you get from him as a fill in. Those two combined should have been still pretty decent scoring wise.Looking at Priest Holmes from a few years back, he scored 200 points (roughly) the first half of the year in 2004. Replacing him with ANYONE else on your roster would still have yielded decent total results. Even part timer Chester Taylor scored 65 points over the second half of the season. So Holmes + Taylot = 265 fantasy points. That year, that total would have ranked in the Top 5, so the concept that Holmes was a total bust wouldn't fly in my book. I agree that not having Holmes would have been a major blow, but factoring in the scoring from another back as a replacement still got that team above average RB scoring.

 

[switz]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.

I *** JUST *** went over this. You don't get a zero. You get a zero FROM JACKSON . . . but your team won't get a zero. So you get Jackson's score plus whoever you get from him as a fill in. Those two combined should have been still pretty decent scoring wise.

David, it helps if you read the WHOLE post....

And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.

 

[gianmarco]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.

I *** JUST *** went over this. You don't get a zero. You get a zero FROM JACKSON . . . but your team won't get a zero. So you get Jackson's score plus whoever you get from him as a fill in. Those two combined should have been still pretty decent scoring wise.

David, it helps if you read the WHOLE post....

And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.

It also helps if you don't contradict yourself. Just because you threw that one line in doesn't discount the fact that above that you said you get a ZERO.

 

[Ace Matherton]

PPG is very important but the variance between the data points IMO is far more telling. PPG can not factor in missed games or poor games VS stellar games. Case in point, Lee Evans and Chad Johnson over the years both had good to great PPG stats but when you factor in the variance you find they have an amount of amazing games which dilute the average. You are left with 8-10 stinkers 2-3 whoppers and average for the rest. I stay way away from players who's averages are high but are inconsistant.

PPG to me are just one of many factors that go into my projections, but is no more important than any of the others i use. They all illustrate a picture to which I must make a decion about, the decision is where the errors happen.

 

[TheWick]

Many folks are down on Steven Jackson this year saying he gets hurt to much and just mayeb didn't look that great since his huge breakout year in 06.

If you look at PPG -- he finishes 2nd ( 06 ) , 7th ( 07 ) , and 2nd again in ( 08 - .012 ) - In 07 and 08 he spent - a month on the bench with injury or close to it. But when he played he really put points up.

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009. Jackson's situation in St. Louis stinks. He lost a declining, but quality, OT in Orlando Pace and Jason Smith may or may not play out to be an adequate replacement (remember Robert Gallery, another "can't miss" OT?). The rest of the line stinks. Jackson has trouble scoring in the red zone because the line is inadequate. He's had 5 rushing (+1 receiving) and 7 rushing (+1 receiving) TDs in the past 2 years - However, he only rushed in TDs on 4 Sundays last year (1 vs BUF, 3 vs DAL, and 1 vs SEA - the final 2 TDs vs ATL came in week 17, after most fantasy seasons were over).

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL.

Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs.

Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR).

Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide.

IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4.

And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

So, when it comes to PPG, I think you need to use it like any other tool in your analyst tool box - it is useful, but you have to put the PPG into context of the larger team environment and be honest about that team's offensive unit's prospects in the coming year - and a player's durability/desire to play through injury is part of that analysis, IMO. I see problems for Jackson on many levels during '09.

At this time last year would you have said these players were on teams with premier RB TD scoring units? Jackson will be the in the top 3 PPG in PPR leagues this year. What other RBs can you say that about?

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.Put it this way... when a player routinely misses 4 games, and you look at his PPG, you are ranking him on about 20% more production than he will actually in all likelihood give you. So go ahead, project out the PPG, but then subtract 20% form it to give you a better idea of where that player belongs.The only way PPG is beneficial is for players that emerge into the starting lineup during the season, due to development, a starter getting injured, etc. Even then you have to be careful, especially when it was a backup who finally got a chance to start. IMO PPG is an inaccurate way to gauge a player, because it eliminates most of the negatives - i.e why he missed so many games.

Which RBs are going to miss games and which ones are not?TIA

 

[Mark Wimer]

PPG is very important but the variance between the data points IMO is far more telling. PPG can not factor in missed games or poor games VS stellar games. Case in point, Lee Evans and Chad Johnson over the years both had good to great PPG stats but when you factor in the variance you find they have an amount of amazing games which dilute the average. You are left with 8-10 stinkers 2-3 whoppers and average for the rest. I stay way away from players who's averages are high but are inconsistant.

PPG to me are just one of many factors that go into my projections, but is no more important than any of the others i use. They all illustrate a picture to which I must make a decion about, the decision is where the errors happen.

I agree that variance is worth considering, but I tend to look more at touches (for RBs), passing attempts (by QBs) and receptions vs. targets (for WRs, TEs). If you go with just fantasy point variance, you'll overemphasize TD production (which is the hardest stat to project from year to year). Of course, you have to pay attention to YPC and YPR in this analysis (although in PPR leagues YPR is less important). That said, though, in head to head leagues I tend to try and draft players who get lots of touches/opportunities and who show little variance from week to week for my "core" positions (RB1, WR 1 and WR 2, QB1, TE 1 (depending on whether or not there is flex, if so then RB2 is also usually a "core" guy who I draft for consistency).

I like to go for "home run hitters" for RB2 (or flex RB 3 in flex leagues) QB2 (who I may start if a juicy matchup presents itself) and WR 3/4, as my approach is to try and set a solid base of FP each week and then hope my "boom or busters" go boom in any given week and put me well over the top in head to head leagues.

In other words, I want my RB 1, WR 1 and WR 2 and TE 1 to be essentially "no brainer" starts each week, with QB1 often in that category as well. Where you knock out the opposition is when you draft/acquire by waiver wire RB2/RB3 and WR3/4 who outperform their draft slot on the weeks that you choose to start them.

Hope that makes sense...

 

[Mark Wimer]

Many folks are down on Steven Jackson this year saying he gets hurt to much and just mayeb didn't look that great since his huge breakout year in 06.

If you look at PPG -- he finishes 2nd ( 06 ) , 7th ( 07 ) , and 2nd again in ( 08 - .012 ) - In 07 and 08 he spent - a month on the bench with injury or close to it. But when he played he really put points up.

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009. Jackson's situation in St. Louis stinks. He lost a declining, but quality, OT in Orlando Pace and Jason Smith may or may not play out to be an adequate replacement (remember Robert Gallery, another "can't miss" OT?). The rest of the line stinks. Jackson has trouble scoring in the red zone because the line is inadequate. He's had 5 rushing (+1 receiving) and 7 rushing (+1 receiving) TDs in the past 2 years - However, he only rushed in TDs on 4 Sundays last year (1 vs BUF, 3 vs DAL, and 1 vs SEA - the final 2 TDs vs ATL came in week 17, after most fantasy seasons were over).

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL.

Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs.

Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR).

Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide.

IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4.

And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

So, when it comes to PPG, I think you need to use it like any other tool in your analyst tool box - it is useful, but you have to put the PPG into context of the larger team environment and be honest about that team's offensive unit's prospects in the coming year - and a player's durability/desire to play through injury is part of that analysis, IMO. I see problems for Jackson on many levels during '09.

At this time last year would you have said these players were on teams with premier RB TD scoring units? Jackson will be the in the top 3 PPG in PPR leagues this year. What other RBs can you say that about?

Not really sure how May of 2008 is relevant to this discussion, but I'll recap my perspective at that time if you think it is worthwhile.In late May of last year I would not have put Turner in this class (premiere TD producing run units) due to the uncertainty over how Matt Ryan was going to perform. In late August of last year, I was more optimistic about all the Falcons' prospects.

The Panthers' MO under John Fox has always been to pound the ball. Last year at this time, I expected Jonathan Stewart to have an even bigger role than he turned out to have at the goal line (though he DID punch in 10 rushing TDs), and was not as enthusiastic over DeAngelo Williams' prospects as I expected more of a 50-50 split in touches (with fewer goal line TDs for Williams). However, the Panthers' OL and rushing attack vastly outproduced their reasonable expectations during 2008, with 504 carries as a team. I think that's why most observers expect Williams to "come back to the pack" this year (currently he's the consensus #12 PPR back at FBG's) as much of his fantasy point overage was due to 18 rushing TDs (which, as I have indicated, is the hardest stat to predict/project) and the vast number of team carries while Jake Delhomme got his throwing arm back in shape after Tommy John surgery.

I disagree that Jackson will be a top 3 running back this season, unless you choose to ignore the high probability that he sits 3-4 games and focus solely on PPG (which, I have argued above, is a bad idea). I expect him to be on the cusp of RB1 numbers in PPR (ranked #12 on my PPR RB board), but his dreadful offensive unit will def keep him out of the top 5, IMO, and his basement is much lower than his ceiling, IMO. The guy routinely misses 25% of the NFL season. Worse, his offensive unit got worse during the offseason IMO.

I'd much rather have Adrian Peterson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Maurice Jones Drew, Steve Slaton, Brian Westbrook, Frank Gore, or any of the other 11 guys I have ranked ahead of Steven Jackson (PPR) this year. I was serious when I said I think the 09 Rams will rival the 08 Lions for worst team of the last 5 years or so.

 

[Mark Wimer]

IMO this is the stat I look at more than any other. PPG over a multi year time span when gaging value of veterans. Age is thrown in as well as schedule , Offense and situation ( can be huge if there are major team changes ) overall but IMO the tie breaker is always PPG.

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.Put it this way... when a player routinely misses 4 games, and you look at his PPG, you are ranking him on about 20% more production than he will actually in all likelihood give you. So go ahead, project out the PPG, but then subtract 20% form it to give you a better idea of where that player belongs.The only way PPG is beneficial is for players that emerge into the starting lineup during the season, due to development, a starter getting injured, etc. Even then you have to be careful, especially when it was a backup who finally got a chance to start. IMO PPG is an inaccurate way to gauge a player, because it eliminates most of the negatives - i.e why he missed so many games.

Which RBs are going to miss games and which ones are not?TIA

I'd be shocked to see Barry Sanders in any games at all; ditto for Emmitt Smith or Earl Campbell. Among current NFL players, the players with the most probability to miss games (or significant parts of several games) due to injury/other reasons this season are, off the top of my head, Marshawn Lynch (3 game suspension), Cadillac Williams (probably PUP to start the season due to his most recent patellar knee tendon injury - I'd be surprised to see him play much during 2009), Laurence Maroney (low pain threshold, injury prone), Steven Jackson (injury prone), Joseph Addai (low pain threshold, injury prone), Willis McGahee (chronic knee problems, becoming chronic ankle problems as he tries to compensate for his bad knees), Brian Westbrook (chronic knee problems, although recent apparently successful scoping of his worst knee may provide him relief), Brandon Jacobs (punishing running style/lots of contact tends to have 2-4 games on the sidelines due to bruised ribs/swollen knees whatever). You're welcome.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL. Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs. Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR). Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide. IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4. And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

At this time last year, Carolina, Atlanta, New York (Jets), and Chicago were not considered among that group either, and they all ended up being great spots for a RB that churned out top 5 finishers.Things change fast in the NFL, and often for no visible reason. Bad teams become good, and good teams become bad in the course of one offseason even if no major changes are made.Jackson played on one of the worst offenses I've ever seen last year. They barely ever got into the redzone. They often couldn't sustain a drive beyond three plays before having to punt or turning the ball over. They had a defense that made them abandon the run game by halftime of most games, and they were digging up 3rd string offensive linemen to try and replace all their injuries. Yet still, in spite of the worst situation imaginable, he was on pace to put up over 2000 yards and double digit TDs. Yeah I know, but he got hurt so he didn't put that up, but the fact that his PPG numbers were that high given that horrible situation is remarkable.What happens to Matt Forte if the Chicago offense or defense becomes awful next year? What happens to Adrian Peterson if that pro bowl left side of their line drops with injuries in week 2? What happens with DeAngelo Williams if suddenly Carolina's offensive line plays more like it the three years prior to last rather than last? Who knows. But what happens to Jackson if the StL offense ends up being one of the worst in NFL history? The guy still finishes top 5 in PPG.Imagine what Jackson would do if St Louis were even MEDIOCRE next year. Well, we know what he would do, as we saw it in 2006. Now you may say it's unlikely that they'll be anything worse than awful next year, but people were saying the same about Atlanta last year. Heck, you said you think StL will be the Detroit of this year. From a fantasy standpoint, last year's Detroit team would be a huge upgrade from last year's St. Louis team.Steven Jackson has, far and away, the highest floor of anyone in the top 10 because we've seen that week to week if he's playing he's a top 5-10 guy no matter HOW bad the offense is. There are very, very few RBs you can say that about and pretty much none that have proved it the same way Jackson has.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think PPG is a horrible way to gauge players. It creates an illusion that a player performed better than he actually did.Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.IMO PPG is an inaccurate way to gauge a player, because it eliminates most of the negatives - i.e why he missed so many games.

What a joke. The difference between SJax and a #3 (30th RB) is 6 ppg. SJax(at #3) was roughly 15 ppg and the #30 (an average #3) was roughly 9 ppg. That's a 40% reduction, nowhere near your 75% reduction. Unless you're a complete idiot, you won't be starting SJax during the weeks he's injured. In addition, there weren't any RBs who averaged 20 ppg (FBG scoring) and a RB scoring 5 ppg would be a #6. Complete BS answer.

 

[TheWick]

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL. Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs. Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR). Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide. IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4. And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

At this time last year, Carolina, Atlanta, New York (Jets), and Chicago were not considered among that group either, and they all ended up being great spots for a RB that churned out top 5 finishers.Things change fast in the NFL, and often for no visible reason. Bad teams become good, and good teams become bad in the course of one offseason even if no major changes are made.Jackson played on one of the worst offenses I've ever seen last year. They barely ever got into the redzone. They often couldn't sustain a drive beyond three plays before having to punt or turning the ball over. They had a defense that made them abandon the run game by halftime of most games, and they were digging up 3rd string offensive linemen to try and replace all their injuries. Yet still, in spite of the worst situation imaginable, he was on pace to put up over 2000 yards and double digit TDs. Yeah I know, but he got hurt so he didn't put that up, but the fact that his PPG numbers were that high given that horrible situation is remarkable.What happens to Matt Forte if the Chicago offense or defense becomes awful next year? What happens to Adrian Peterson if that pro bowl left side of their line drops with injuries in week 2? What happens with DeAngelo Williams if suddenly Carolina's offensive line plays more like it the three years prior to last rather than last? Who knows. But what happens to Jackson if the StL offense ends up being one of the worst in NFL history? The guy still finishes top 5 in PPG.Imagine what Jackson would do if St Louis were even MEDIOCRE next year. Well, we know what he would do, as we saw it in 2006. Now you may say it's unlikely that they'll be anything worse than awful next year, but people were saying the same about Atlanta last year. Heck, you said you think StL will be the Detroit of this year. From a fantasy standpoint, last year's Detroit team would be a huge upgrade from last year's St. Louis team.Steven Jackson has, far and away, the highest floor of anyone in the top 10 because we've seen that week to week if he's playing he's a top 5-10 guy no matter HOW bad the offense is. There are very, very few RBs you can say that about and pretty much none that have proved it the same way Jackson has.

That was my point about bringing up May of 2008 and Wimer's thoughts about RB at that time.The disparity in talent among on these teams is not nearly as large as we like to think it is. The Rams offensive line will be better this year and I don't see how their defense isn't atleast less predictable with Spagnuolo in town. He is going to get the ball a TON and if he plays more than 75% of the games (and is there for the end of the year) he is worth a top 3 selection in my mind...just make sure you have some depth to cover his possible injuries....just like any other back.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

 

[puckalicious]

Many folks are down on Steven Jackson this year saying he gets hurt to much and just mayeb didn't look that great since his huge breakout year in 06.

If you look at PPG -- he finishes 2nd ( 06 ) , 7th ( 07 ) , and 2nd again in ( 08 - .012 ) - In 07 and 08 he spent - a month on the bench with injury or close to it. But when he played he really put points up.

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009. Jackson's situation in St. Louis stinks. He lost a declining, but quality, OT in Orlando Pace and Jason Smith may or may not play out to be an adequate replacement (remember Robert Gallery, another "can't miss" OT?). The rest of the line stinks. Jackson has trouble scoring in the red zone because the line is inadequate. He's had 5 rushing (+1 receiving) and 7 rushing (+1 receiving) TDs in the past 2 years - However, he only rushed in TDs on 4 Sundays last year (1 vs BUF, 3 vs DAL, and 1 vs SEA - the final 2 TDs vs ATL came in week 17, after most fantasy seasons were over).

Now, we all know that TDs are the most unpredictable part of fantasy projections, as there is simply a good bit of luck involved with actually hitting pay dirt. That said, though, it is clear that Steven Jackson and his OL are not one of the premiere TD producing units in the NFL.

Adrian Peterson is on one of those premiere units. LaDainian Tomlinson is on one of those units. Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew (without Fred Taylor in '09), DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart - they are all on one of those units that tend to produce lots of rushing TDs.

Steven Jackson is not in this class due to his supporting cast. Again, Jackson is not among this group. I fail to see why anyone has Jackson in the top 10 among running backs (PPR or non-PPR).

Speaking of supporting cast, how much faith does anyone have in the WR lineup of Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, and Laurent Robinson? I think that teams will routinely stick 7-8 in the box and stuff Jackson like a wet Kleenex as they have little to fear from the WRs or the "power rushing" attack that the STL OL is likely to provide.

IMO, the Rams are this year's Lions. Lucky to win 4.

And IMO Steven Jackson will drag down the fantasy owners who invest in him as their #1 RB.

So, when it comes to PPG, I think you need to use it like any other tool in your analyst tool box - it is useful, but you have to put the PPG into context of the larger team environment and be honest about that team's offensive unit's prospects in the coming year - and a player's durability/desire to play through injury is part of that analysis, IMO. I see problems for Jackson on many levels during '09.

At this time last year would you have said these players were on teams with premier RB TD scoring units? Jackson will be the in the top 3 PPG in PPR leagues this year. What other RBs can you say that about?

Not really sure how May of 2008 is relevant to this discussion, but I'll recap my perspective at that time if you think it is worthwhile.In late May of last year I would not have put Turner in this class (premiere TD producing run units) due to the uncertainty over how Matt Ryan was going to perform. In late August of last year, I was more optimistic about all the Falcons' prospects.

The Panthers' MO under John Fox has always been to pound the ball. Last year at this time, I expected Jonathan Stewart to have an even bigger role than he turned out to have at the goal line (though he DID punch in 10 rushing TDs), and was not as enthusiastic over DeAngelo Williams' prospects as I expected more of a 50-50 split in touches (with fewer goal line TDs for Williams). However, the Panthers' OL and rushing attack vastly outproduced their reasonable expectations during 2008, with 504 carries as a team. I think that's why most observers expect Williams to "come back to the pack" this year (currently he's the consensus #12 PPR back at FBG's) as much of his fantasy point overage was due to 18 rushing TDs (which, as I have indicated, is the hardest stat to predict/project) and the vast number of team carries while Jake Delhomme got his throwing arm back in shape after Tommy John surgery.

I disagree that Jackson will be a top 3 running back this season, unless you choose to ignore the high probability that he sits 3-4 games and focus solely on PPG (which, I have argued above, is a bad idea). I expect him to be on the cusp of RB1 numbers in PPR (ranked #12 on my PPR RB board), but his dreadful offensive unit will def keep him out of the top 5, IMO, and his basement is much lower than his ceiling, IMO. The guy routinely misses 25% of the NFL season. Worse, his offensive unit got worse during the offseason IMO.

I'd much rather have Adrian Peterson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Maurice Jones Drew, Steve Slaton, Brian Westbrook, Frank Gore, or any of the other 11 guys I have ranked ahead of Steven Jackson (PPR) this year. I was serious when I said I think the 09 Rams will rival the 08 Lions for worst team of the last 5 years or so.

What are the Rams going to lose 17 games this season? Isn't it impossible to be worse than the 2008 Lions? Last year you could argue that the Rams were worse than the Lions and if not for a few cases of good luck/bad luck their records could have been switched. I don't see either team being as bad in 2009, and I fully expect SJax to put up more fantasy points in total, and in PPG.

 

[Dave Larkin]

To me, it's really important. One department one of my teams suffered in last season was a lack of consistent production, especially from the WR position. So I would prefer a less flashy more productive player, even if it's only 5 points a week, over a guy who could boom one week and then give you a big fat bagel the next.

 

[Mark Wimer]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

 

[David Yudkin]

Most of the top all-time leading RBs played in 90-95% of the games they could have played in. Jackson has played in 86% (69 of 80 games). I don't see him as being a huge injury risk, maybe only slighty above average.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Most of the top all-time leading RBs played in 90-95% of the games they could have played in. Jackson has played in 86% (69 of 80 games). I don't see him as being a huge injury risk, maybe only slighty above average.

However, he has missed 4 games per year over the past 2 years, which is a big red flag in my book. Usually, guys who are missing 4 or more games per season have a hard time playing a full slate in the subsequent years.I am also disturbed in Jackson's case because last year he started having problems with other parts of his body as he over-compensated for his bad thigh (bad thigh discussed in this ESPN article).

Jackson maintains that his injuries are "freak" occurences, but I see a pattern of nagging injury that makes me very leary of Jackson - he just can't seem to handle a full 16 game slate. And the OL in STL is far from a proven commodity - as I have written elsewhere, Jason Smith may be the next Orlando Pace or he may be the next Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich and we have no way to know which it'll be. I don't think the OL is proven to be upgraded as of May 2008, at all. That makes Jackson's red zone prospects very questionable, IMO.

My .02.

 

[David Yudkin]

Most of the top all-time leading RBs played in 90-95% of the games they could have played in. Jackson has played in 86% (69 of 80 games). I don't see him as being a huge injury risk, maybe only slighty above average.

However, he has missed 4 games per year over the past 2 years, which is a big red flag in my book. Usually, guys who are missing 4 or more games per season have a hard time playing a full slate in the subsequent years.I am also disturbed in Jackson's case because last year he started having problems with other parts of his body as he over-compensated for his bad thigh (bad thigh discussed in this ESPN article).

Jackson maintains that his injuries are "freak" occurences, but I see a pattern of nagging injury that makes me very leary of Jackson - he just can't seem to handle a full 16 game slate. And the OL in STL is far from a proven commodity - as I have written elsewhere, Jason Smith may be the next Orlando Pace or he may be the next Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich and we have no way to know which it'll be. I don't think the OL is proven to be upgraded as of May 2008, at all. That makes Jackson's red zone prospects very questionable, IMO.

My .02.

I would project him to miss two games. My bigger concern for him is that I don't see the Rams being dramatically better and their OL is still suspect (at least to me). Although I can't think of any RB that missed 4 games or more two years in a row who went on to shine after that.

 

[rzrback77]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

I haven't looked this up, but it seems a little unfair to compare anyone to the gold standard fot consistency. That's similar to comparing all major league baseball players to Cal Ripken. They will all come up short in that comparison.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And the OL in STL is far from a proven commodity - as I have written elsewhere, Jason Smith may be the next Orlando Pace or he may be the next Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich and we have no way to know which it'll be.

But that's just the point. The o-line already DID suck and he was still a top 5 guy in points per game. Even if Jason Smith is the next Robert Gallery, it's fine because we've already seen (twice) Jackson be a top 5 PPG guy with an offensive line built from practice squad players.But then, what if Jason Smith ISN'T the next Robert Gallery?The guy's floor is a top 5 PPG player when healthy, no matter HOW bad the team around him is. He's proven that, which is more than you can say for any other player in the league.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

This does the complete opposite of making the point you wanted to make.Emmitt Smith played only 2 complete seasons in his first 6 years.

By your own logic, it would make him more likely to miss time every season from there on out. But he was so healthy from there on out that you're actually using him as an example of the opposite. By your logic, at this point in Emmitt Smith's career he was "injury prone", yet now you're using him as an example of someone that was not.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)

Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

I've just flipped eight coins three times. One of them came up heads all three times. Is it a 'heads-prone' coin?

 

[rzrback77]

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)

Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

I've just flipped eight coins three times. One of them came up heads all three times. Is it a 'heads-prone' coin?

Just curious about the above edited quote. All of the text that you quoted came from Mark Wimer, but your post appears to contribute that text to me. I am definitely not a fan of multiple quoting, but that one was a misquote.

 

[gianmarco]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

This does the complete OPPOSITE of making the point you wanted to make.Emmitt Smith played only 2 complete seasons in his first 6 years.

By your own logic, it would make him more likely to miss time every season from there on out. But he was so healthy from there on out that you're actually using him as an example of the opposite.

In addition to this, SJax has finished no lower than 14th in each of the last 4 yrs. That's despite 4 missed games in each of the last 2 yrs. Of course, the time he did play a complete season, he finished 3rd. What does that tell us?

Well, if you want to go just by what he's done over the last 4 yrs:

--He's a lock to finish top 15 even on the worst offense and missing up to 4 games/year

--When you factor ANY fill-in RB for his missed games, he easily moves into RB1 range

--He finished 3rd overall in the year he played all 16 games so we know the ceiling he's capable of

--Despite playing in 15+ games every year, MJD only has finishes of 8th, 13th, 9th. Likewise, other "top 10" RBs who consistently perform every year don't necessarily finish top 5 every year. A high ranking doesn't necessarily mean you expect a player to finish at that spot or higher. It just means you expect him to perform at or close to that level and/or not fall too far below it.

In other words, even if he misses time, SJax really hasn't "failed". In PPR, he's been even better. I'll take a guy like him any day of the week when he has the upside he's shown, gets elite PPG, and still essentially finishes as a RB1 even missing 1/4 of a season. Especially at the slight discount he's now going.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Just curious about the above edited quote. All of the text that you quoted came from Mark Wimer, but your post appears to contribute that text to me. I am definitely not a fan of multiple quoting, but that one was a misquote.

Sorry... I try not to do really long quotes and deleted the wrong bits.Just to make it more explicit... there's no evidence that players injured in season X are more likely to be injured in seasons X+1 and X+2. There's virtually no difference in the 2nd and 3rd year rate of injury between players with an injury and those who were healthy in 'year one.'

 

[The Moz]

when it comes to Jackson and if you factor in starting say Pittman those games he was out -- sjax becomes a top 8-10 pick. On the worst offense in football.

 

[H8fulHuck]

when it comes to Jackson and if you factor in starting say Pittman those games he was out -- sjax becomes a top 8-10 pick. On the worst offense in football.

Some people just don't want to see reason. Let them avoid Sjax. I think part of it is people like getting the sexy new toy. Think about all those years Westy would fall. I grinned like a cheshire cat while others kept avoiding him. Guys like LT and SJax may present good value this year.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Most of the top all-time leading RBs played in 90-95% of the games they could have played in. Jackson has played in 86% (69 of 80 games). I don't see him as being a huge injury risk, maybe only slighty above average.

However, he has missed 4 games per year over the past 2 years, which is a big red flag in my book. Usually, guys who are missing 4 or more games per season have a hard time playing a full slate in the subsequent years.I am also disturbed in Jackson's case because last year he started having problems with other parts of his body as he over-compensated for his bad thigh (bad thigh discussed in this ESPN article).

Jackson maintains that his injuries are "freak" occurences, but I see a pattern of nagging injury that makes me very leary of Jackson - he just can't seem to handle a full 16 game slate. And the OL in STL is far from a proven commodity - as I have written elsewhere, Jason Smith may be the next Orlando Pace or he may be the next Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich and we have no way to know which it'll be. I don't think the OL is proven to be upgraded as of May 2008, at all. That makes Jackson's red zone prospects very questionable, IMO.

My .02.

I would project him to miss two games. My bigger concern for him is that I don't see the Rams being dramatically better and their OL is still suspect (at least to me). Although I can't think of any RB that missed 4 games or more two years in a row who went on to shine after that.

Westbrook was close. He played 13 and 12 games, respectively, in 2004 and 2005 and has followed that up with three great seasons (and none of them were complete seasons either). Wimer has him rated 4th for RB and he's never played a full 16 game season in his entire career.Jacobs has played in 13 and 11 games in the last two seasons. Wimer has him ranked 9th this year (S. Jackson 17th) so Wimer must not think that Jacobs is "injury prone".

Larry Johnson has played in 8 and 12 games the last two seasons. Wimer has him at 12 for RB so he is seemingly projecting a nice rebound season this year.

Ronnie Brown played in 13 and 7 games in 2006 and 2007 and came back last season to score 10 TDs. That may not be considered shining but pretty good regardless.

I know LJ is the only one of these four that technically falls into missing four or more games two straight seasons but the other examples were pretty close and I thought would be applicable to the discussion.

 

[The Moz]

Most of the top all-time leading RBs played in 90-95% of the games they could have played in. Jackson has played in 86% (69 of 80 games). I don't see him as being a huge injury risk, maybe only slighty above average.

However, he has missed 4 games per year over the past 2 years, which is a big red flag in my book. Usually, guys who are missing 4 or more games per season have a hard time playing a full slate in the subsequent years.I am also disturbed in Jackson's case because last year he started having problems with other parts of his body as he over-compensated for his bad thigh (bad thigh discussed in this ESPN article).

Jackson maintains that his injuries are "freak" occurences, but I see a pattern of nagging injury that makes me very leary of Jackson - he just can't seem to handle a full 16 game slate. And the OL in STL is far from a proven commodity - as I have written elsewhere, Jason Smith may be the next Orlando Pace or he may be the next Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich and we have no way to know which it'll be. I don't think the OL is proven to be upgraded as of May 2008, at all. That makes Jackson's red zone prospects very questionable, IMO.

My .02.

I would project him to miss two games. My bigger concern for him is that I don't see the Rams being dramatically better and their OL is still suspect (at least to me). Although I can't think of any RB that missed 4 games or more two years in a row who went on to shine after that.

Westbrook was close. He played 13 and 12 games, respectively, in 2004 and 2005 and has followed that up with three great seasons (and none of them were complete seasons either). Wimer has him rated 4th for RB and he's never played a full 16 game season in his entire career.Jacobs has played in 13 and 11 games in the last two seasons. Wimer has him ranked 9th this year (S. Jackson 17th) so Wimer must not think that Jacobs is "injury prone".

Larry Johnson has played in 8 and 12 games the last two seasons. Wimer has him at 12 for RB so he is seemingly projecting a nice rebound season this year.

Ronnie Brown played in 13 and 7 games in 2006 and 2007 and came back last season to score 10 TDs. That may not be considered shining but pretty good regardless.

I know LJ is the only one of these four that technically falls into missing four or more games two straight seasons but the other examples were pretty close and I thought would be applicable to the discussion.

maybe sjax kicked wimmer's dog?

 

[Mark Wimer]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

This does the complete opposite of making the point you wanted to make.Emmitt Smith played only 2 complete seasons in his first 6 years.

By your own logic, it would make him more likely to miss time every season from there on out. But he was so healthy from there on out that you're actually using him as an example of the opposite. By your logic, at this point in Emmitt Smith's career he was "injury prone", yet now you're using him as an example of someone that was not.

It all depends on the lense you wish to use. Draft Steven Jackson if you are passionately sure he'll succeed. I'm sure he won't be a reliable RB1 and I have no desire to take the risk on him.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I am one of the folks down on Jackson, and here's my take on that front: if your #1 fantasy back routinely misses 4 of 16 fantasy season games, you are going to be hurting. And given the recent history of Jackson, that's what his owners can expect in 2009.

Based on what? How does what happened the last few years impact the coming year? No one's ever produced a shred of evidence to support 'injury prone,' but it's said all the time.

Steven Jackson career history. 1 complete season in 5 years. 20% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 of 5 years (60% of the time)Emmitt Smith's career history. 8 complete seasons in 15 years - 53% of the time. Missed more than 1 game 3 times in 15 years (20% of the time).

One of these is injury prone, and one of these is not. There's just one of many, many anecdotal pieces of evidence showing that some players are "injury prone" and some are not. Jackson is, Smith was not.

This does the complete opposite of making the point you wanted to make.Emmitt Smith played only 2 complete seasons in his first 6 years.

By your own logic, it would make him more likely to miss time every season from there on out. But he was so healthy from there on out that you're actually using him as an example of the opposite. By your logic, at this point in Emmitt Smith's career he was "injury prone", yet now you're using him as an example of someone that was not.

It all depends on the lense you wish to use. :shrug

What the heck does that mean?Is that just some fancy way of diverting attention from the fact that you just got caught with your top example of a non injury prone guy missing just as much time as Sjax did at the beginning of his career?

 

[Mark Wimer]

What the heck does that mean?Is that just some fancy way of diverting attention from the fact that you just got caught with your top example of a non injury prone guy missing just as much time as Sjax did at the beginning of his career?

It means that I think you are a Steven Jackson fan and that whatever analysis I present, you will find a way to poke holes in it. I'm fine with that. That's what fantasy football is all about. Some of us desperately want to draft Steven Jackson as our RB1, and some of us think it is a bad idea. You go ahead and spend a top 10 pick on him in all your leagues, Good Luck With That. I think it is a bad idea. I think that Steven Jackson will once again underperform his ridiculously high ADP. I think that the Rams' offense as a whole is a travesty. I think that the OL may be worse this year than last, depending on how "NFL ready" Jason Smith is. I think that Marc Bulger may get spammed sheltering behind that pathetic line (he was QB22 in 2007 and QB27 during 2008, largely due to extremely poor line play), that Bulger's inexperienced corps of wide receivers will fail to produce, and that defensive coordinators opposing the Rams will routinely put 7-8 in the box and shut down the one legit weapon that the Rams DO have, Steven Jackson. If you can't see that Steven Jackson is likely to be priority #1 for every defense that he faces, and that the rest of the Rams' offense is not likely going to take that intense pressure off of Jackson, then I don't know what else to say. This offensive unit is likely to produce the same, or fewer, red zone opportunities to Jackson this year than they did in '07 or '08.LB's are going to be headhunting Jackson all year long. I have no faith that the rest of the Rams' offense will be able to offer a credible enough threat to keep Jackson from getting routinely gang-tackled/spammed. It is a grim picture, folks. He'll be a marked man from preseason game 1, and come regular season I wouldn't be surprised to see his YPC go below 4.0.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

What the heck does that mean?Is that just some fancy way of diverting attention from the fact that you just got caught with your top example of a non injury prone guy missing just as much time as Sjax did at the beginning of his career?

It means that I think you are a Steven Jackson fan and that whatever analysis I present, you will find a way to poke holes in it. I'm fine with that. That's what fantasy football is all about. Some of us desperately want to draft Steven Jackson as our RB1, and some of us think it is a bad idea. You go ahead and spend a top 10 pick on him in all your leagues, Good Luck With That. I think it is a bad idea. I think that Steven Jackson will once again underperform his ridiculously high ADP. I think that the Rams' offense as a whole is a travesty. I think that the OL may be worse this year than last, depending on how "NFL ready" Jason Smith is. I think that Marc Bulger may get spammed sheltering behind that pathetic line (he was QB22 in 2007 and QB27 during 2008, largely due to extremely poor line play), that Bulger's inexperienced corps of wide receivers will fail to produce, and that defensive coordinators opposing the Rams will routinely put 7-8 in the box and shut down the one legit weapon that the Rams DO have, Steven Jackson. If you can't see that Steven Jackson is likely to be priority #1 for every defense that he faces, and that the rest of the Rams' offense is not likely going to take that intense pressure off of Jackson, then I don't know what else to say. This offensive unit is likely to produce the same, or fewer, red zone opportunities to Jackson this year than they did in '07 or '08.LB's are going to be headhunting Jackson all year long. I have no faith that the rest of the Rams' offense will be able to offer a credible enough threat to keep Jackson from getting routinely gang-tackled/spammed. It is a grim picture, folks. He'll be a marked man from preseason game 1, and come regular season I wouldn't be surprised to see his YPC go below 4.0.

Ok, than were would you rank Mr.Jackson in a PPR League. Heck what's your top 12 RB's look like. Mark and Mark only please.Thanks

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

What the heck does that mean?Is that just some fancy way of diverting attention from the fact that you just got caught with your top example of a non injury prone guy missing just as much time as Sjax did at the beginning of his career?

It means that I think you are a Steven Jackson fan and that whatever analysis I present, you will find a way to poke holes in it. I'm fine with that. That's what fantasy football is all about. Some of us desperately want to draft Steven Jackson as our RB1, and some of us think it is a bad idea. You go ahead and spend a top 10 pick on him in all your leagues, Good Luck With That. I think it is a bad idea. I think that Steven Jackson will once again underperform his ridiculously high ADP. I think that the Rams' offense as a whole is a travesty. I think that the OL may be worse this year than last, depending on how "NFL ready" Jason Smith is. I think that Marc Bulger may get spammed sheltering behind that pathetic line (he was QB22 in 2007 and QB27 during 2008, largely due to extremely poor line play), that Bulger's inexperienced corps of wide receivers will fail to produce, and that defensive coordinators opposing the Rams will routinely put 7-8 in the box and shut down the one legit weapon that the Rams DO have, Steven Jackson. If you can't see that Steven Jackson is likely to be priority #1 for every defense that he faces, and that the rest of the Rams' offense is not likely going to take that intense pressure off of Jackson, then I don't know what else to say. This offensive unit is likely to produce the same, or fewer, red zone opportunities to Jackson this year than they did in '07 or '08.LB's are going to be headhunting Jackson all year long. I have no faith that the rest of the Rams' offense will be able to offer a credible enough threat to keep Jackson from getting routinely gang-tackled/spammed. It is a grim picture, folks. He'll be a marked man from preseason game 1, and come regular season I wouldn't be surprised to see his YPC go below 4.0.

Ok, than were would you rank Mr.Jackson in a PPR League. Heck what's your top 12 RB's look like. Mark and Mark only please.Thanks

I'm no Alfredo Einstener but I'll go ahead and guess his top 12 rb in ppr will look pretty similar to this1 RB Adrian Peterson, MIN 3 2 RB LaDainian Tomlinson, SD 3 RB Maurice Jones-Drew, JAX 4 RB Brian Westbrook, PHI 5 RB Steve Slaton, HOU 6 RB Frank Gore, SF 7 RB Reggie Bush, NO 8 RB Michael Turner, ATL 9 RB DeAngelo Williams, CAR 10 RB Matt Forte, CHI 11 RB Clinton Portis, WAS 12 RB Steven Jackson, STL

 

[switz]

[

Let's take your example of Steven Jackson... sure his PPG is pretty good, but for two seasons in a row he has missed 4 games. That's ZERO points for you. By focusing on PPG though you likely delude yourself into drafting a BUST.

I *** JUST *** went over this. You don't get a zero. You get a zero FROM JACKSON . . . but your team won't get a zero. So you get Jackson's score plus whoever you get from him as a fill in. Those two combined should have been still pretty decent scoring wise.

David, it helps if you read the WHOLE post....

And even if you consider that you would have a number 3 RB in there (or #4 based on your league's rules) what's their average? When you are looking at your first round RB who you expect 20 points per game from, and you end up with a #3 or #4 RB putting up 5 points... that's a 75% dropoff in production for that position.

It also helps if you don't contradict yourself. Just because you threw that one line in doesn't discount the fact that above that you said you get a ZERO.

It's called context. For the player you get ZERO when he is out. In the slot in your lineup, you might get some points form a vastly inferior producer. Bottom line is, you still get zero from the player you drafted to fill that spot.