How to rank the Denver RBs (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

I see a lot of people who are very down on the Denver RBs this season (and last season, too). They say that it's a situation that should be avoided at all costs, or other such things. I always contend that they really just don't understand that numbers that Denver's offense is going to put up this season... so here's a thread devoted to raising general opinion of the Denver RB situation.

Note: I am *NOT* discussing any of the specifics of Denver's RB situation, such as who will get carries or who will win the starting job or how carries will be split. There are lots of other threads out there about that already, and frankly, I'm getting sick of constantly repeating the same opinions. It's your job to read those threads and form some sort of opinion on how the carries will be split. This thread is just designed to help give you a realistic prediction system once you've got the carries distributed.

Alright, with that out of the way, let's get into some numbers.

[SIZE=11pt]Step #1- decide how large the RB pie will be.[/SIZE]

Denver's RBs over the past 4 seasons have combined to score 420.4 points (2002), 400.2 points (2003), 361.5 points (2004), and 442.3 points (2005). They have never ranked worse than 7th in the NFL in terms of RB production.

If you think that this season will be an AVERAGE season for them, then use the value 406.1 for total RB points (average of the output from their past 4 seasons). If you think that this will be a GREAT season for the Denver running game, then use the value 442.3 points. If you think that this will be a BAD season for the Denver running game, then use the value 361.5 points. This should give you a realistic starting point for your projections. I suppose if you want you could predict a "fall-off-the-map" type season or a record-setting type season, but statistically speaking, those are far more unlikely than any of the 3 given scenarios (Bad, Average, or Great season).

[SIZE=11pt]Step #2- decide how the RB pie will be divided.[/SIZE]

If you expect results similar to last season's, then predict 45.5% of the points for RB1, 34.1% of the points for RB2, and 18% of the points for the rest of the RBs (last year, mostly Dayne and Kyle Johnson). I'm not going to tell you who RB1 and RB2 are- that's for you to decide. If you think Bell will be the hoss, then predict the RB1 numbers for Tatum Bell. If you think it's Dayne, predict Dayne as the RB1.

Anyway, If you expect results more typical of the Shanahan heyday, then predict about 70% of the points for RB1 and 30% of the points for everyone else.

If you expect a 2-back equal-distribution model, then predict 40% for RB1, 40% for RB2, and 20% for everyone else.

If you predict an apocolyptic 3RB committee doomsday situation, then predict 30% of the points for RB1, 30% for RB2, 30% for RB3, and 10% for everyone else.

[SIZE=11pt]Step #3- combine steps #1 and #2 to get some numerical estimations for the Denver RBs[/SIZE]

Multiply the estimated Denver pie by what percentage of the pie each RB is projected to get. This'll give you a solid projection for how many points each RB will score this season.

As an example: If you predict Denver will return to a featured back scenario and will have a great rushing season, and that Cedric Cobbs will be the featured back, then take 442.3 points * .7 and you've got your prediction for Cobbs' rushing total this season (310 fantasy points).

Another example: If you predict total Denver doomsday- i.e. a Bad rushing season compounded by a 3-headed backfield- then take the 361.5 value and multiply it by 30% to get the rushing value of each of the 3 RBs in the committee (108.45).

You might want to run a couple of different projections with a little bit of a range to them (i.e. Denver will score between 400 and 440 points rushing, and the RB1 will get between 40% and 50% of the carries, for example). Run as many projections as you want and combine them all until you've painted a pretty accurate picture of Denver's rushing situation based on your projections.

[SIZE=11pt]Step #4- Compare your projections to historical averages.[/SIZE]

In 2005, it would have taken 144 points to be a top24 RB (solid starting RB). It would have taken 188 points to be a top12 RB (solid RB1). It would have taken 244 points to be a top6 RB (stud RB1).

In 2004, it would have taken 158 points to be a top24 RB (solid starting RB). It would have taken 198 points to be a top12 RB (solid RB1). It would have taken 258 points to be a top6 RB (stud RB1).

In 2003, it would have taken 142 points to be a top24 RB. It would have taken 208 points to be a top12 RB. It would have taken 269 points to be a top6 RB.

In 2002, it would have taken 149 points to be a top24 RB. It would have taken 219 points to be a top12 RB. It would have taken 269 points to be a top6 RB. As you can see, RB numbers have clearly been trending downwards for 3 straight years here.

Anyway, once you've got historical comparisons in place, take your projected figure for the Denver RBs and see where they'd land in the historical spectrum. Congratulations, you now have a realistic projection for the Denver runningbacks.

A sample: Let's say that Denver's going to have an average rushing season (406 total points) with a true RBBC setup (40/40/20 fantasy point distribution). That projects out to 162.4 points for each of Denver's two RBBC members... which means that BOTH RBS SHOULD BE RANKED IN THE TOP 24. Since there are usually about 24 RBs selected in the first 3 rounds, if you truly believe that Denver will have an average rushing season running a true RBBC, then both Denver RBs should grade out as 3rd round selections.

Sample #2: Let's say that Denver's going to have an average rushing season (406 total points) with a RBBC setup similar to last season's (45/35/20 fantasy point distribution). That projects out to 182.7 points for RB1 and 142.1 points for RB2. That would have been good for the #13 overall and #25 overall finish last season. If you truly believe Denver will have an average rushing season running an RBBC similar to last year's, then Denver's RB1 (whoever you project it to be) should grade out as a very high second rounder, and Denver's RB2 (whoever you project it to be) should grade out as a 4th rounder. Even if you get the order wrong... well, the worst case scenario is you got a 4th round back with a 2nd round pick, and the best case scenario is you got a 2nd round back with a 4th round pick.

Just an effort to get a little bit more realism to the Denver projections.

 

[broncofan13000]

well thought out.

 

[caglassc]

Very nice - I remember your Denver RB threads from last season. Very intersting indeed.

 

[Bri]

I see a lot of people who are very down on the Denver RBs this season (and last season, too). They say that it's a situation that should be avoided at all costs, or other such things. I always contend that they really just don't understand that numbers that Denver's offense is going to put up this season... so here's a thread devoted to raising general opinion of the Denver RB situation.

Note: I am *NOT* discussing any of the specifics of Denver's RB situation, such as who will get carries or who will win the starting job or how carries will be split. There are lots of other threads out there about that already, and frankly, I'm getting sick of constantly repeating the same opinions. It's your job to read those threads and form some sort of opinion on how the carries will be split. This thread is just designed to help give you a realistic prediction system once you've got the carries distributed.

Alright, with that out of the way, let's get into some numbers.

[SIZE=11pt]Step #1- decide how large the RB pie will be.[/SIZE]

Denver's RBs over the past 4 seasons have combined to score 420.4 points (2002), 400.2 points (2003), 361.5 points (2004), and 442.3 points (2005). They have never ranked worse than 7th in the NFL in terms of RB production.

If you think that this season will be an AVERAGE season for them, then use the value 406.1 for total RB points (average of the output from their past 4 seasons). If you think that this will be a GREAT season for the Denver running game, then use the value 442.3 points. If you think that this will be a BAD season for the Denver running game, then use the value 361.5 points. This should give you a realistic starting point for your projections. I suppose if you want you could predict a "fall-off-the-map" type season or a record-setting type season, but statistically speaking, those are far more unlikely than any of the 3 given scenarios (Bad, Average, or Great season).

[SIZE=11pt]Step #2- decide how the RB pie will be divided.[/SIZE]

If you expect results similar to last season's, then predict 45.5% of the points for RB1, 34.1% of the points for RB2, and 18% of the points for the rest of the RBs (last year, mostly Dayne and Kyle Johnson). I'm not going to tell you who RB1 and RB2 are- that's for you to decide. If you think Bell will be the hoss, then predict the RB1 numbers for Tatum Bell. If you think it's Dayne, predict Dayne as the RB1.

Anyway, If you expect results more typical of the Shanahan heyday, then predict about 70% of the points for RB1 and 30% of the points for everyone else.

If you expect a 2-back equal-distribution model, then predict 40% for RB1, 40% for RB2, and 20% for everyone else.

If you predict an apocolyptic 3RB committee doomsday situation, then predict 30% of the points for RB1, 30% for RB2, 30% for RB3, and 10% for everyone else.

[SIZE=11pt]Step #3- combine steps #1 and #2 to get some numerical estimations for the Denver RBs[/SIZE]

Multiply the estimated Denver pie by what percentage of the pie each RB is projected to get. This'll give you a solid projection for how many points each RB will score this season.

As an example: If you predict Denver will return to a featured back scenario and will have a great rushing season, and that Cedric Cobbs will be the featured back, then take 442.3 points * .7 and you've got your prediction for Cobbs' rushing total this season (310 fantasy points).

Another example: If you predict total Denver doomsday- i.e. a Bad rushing season compounded by a 3-headed backfield- then take the 361.5 value and multiply it by 30% to get the rushing value of each of the 3 RBs in the committee (108.45).

You might want to run a couple of different projections with a little bit of a range to them (i.e. Denver will score between 400 and 440 points rushing, and the RB1 will get between 40% and 50% of the carries, for example). Run as many projections as you want and combine them all until you've painted a pretty accurate picture of Denver's rushing situation based on your projections.

[SIZE=11pt]Step #4- Compare your projections to historical averages.[/SIZE]

In 2005, it would have taken 144 points to be a top24 RB (solid starting RB). It would have taken 188 points to be a top12 RB (solid RB1). It would have taken 244 points to be a top6 RB (stud RB1).

In 2004, it would have taken 158 points to be a top24 RB (solid starting RB). It would have taken 198 points to be a top12 RB (solid RB1). It would have taken 258 points to be a top6 RB (stud RB1).

In 2003, it would have taken 142 points to be a top24 RB. It would have taken 208 points to be a top12 RB. It would have taken 269 points to be a top6 RB.

In 2002, it would have taken 149 points to be a top24 RB. It would have taken 219 points to be a top12 RB. It would have taken 269 points to be a top6 RB. As you can see, RB numbers have clearly been trending downwards for 3 straight years here.

Anyway, once you've got historical comparisons in place, take your projected figure for the Denver RBs and see where they'd land in the historical spectrum. Congratulations, you now have a realistic projection for the Denver runningbacks.

A sample: Let's say that Denver's going to have an average rushing season (406 total points) with a true RBBC setup (40/40/20 fantasy point distribution). That projects out to 162.4 points for each of Denver's two RBBC members... which means that BOTH RBS SHOULD BE RANKED IN THE TOP 24. Since there are usually about 24 RBs selected in the first 3 rounds, if you truly believe that Denver will have an average rushing season running a true RBBC, then both Denver RBs should grade out as 3rd round selections.

Sample #2: Let's say that Denver's going to have an average rushing season (406 total points) with a RBBC setup similar to last season's (45/35/20 fantasy point distribution). That projects out to 182.7 points for RB1 and 142.1 points for RB2. That would have been good for the #13 overall and #25 overall finish last season. If you truly believe Denver will have an average rushing season running an RBBC similar to last year's, then Denver's RB1 (whoever you project it to be) should grade out as a very high second rounder, and Denver's RB2 (whoever you project it to be) should grade out as a 4th rounder. Even if you get the order wrong... well, the worst case scenario is you got a 4th round back with a 2nd round pick, and the best case scenario is you got a 2nd round back with a 4th round pick.

Just an effort to get a little bit more realism to the Denver projections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a well thought out post and kudos to you on your effort. However I, personally, think it's foolish. If you admit that predictions in FF are "hit or miss" then you don't want to go making as many as you are. The more you make the more likely you'll be wrong.Analysis can be qualitative and doesn't need to be quantitative.

I know plenty of people that do these types of ranking breakdowns and love the kinda stuff you did here. I just don't believe in it. To each his own though

 

[10993]

The one problem with this is that even the projections ranking historically at #24 doesn't mean the guys should be ranked there. Lots of backs who should maybe be ranked ahead of them will get hurt over the course of the year, and if they don't get hurt, then they'll rise to #24. But because you don't know which of those guys will get hurt, you have to rank all those that you expect to do better ahead of them.

Another way of saying this: If I were doing projections, my RB 15 would likely have stats of the RB 10 at the end of last year. Because I know some guys ahead of him will get hurt, or miss games, etc...I know that they will drop down below that guy I ranked RB 15--unless he's one of the ones that gets hurt.

So even if you've got Tatum projected to reach stats of RB24, and he does in fact do that, a ranking of RB30-32 still makes sense for him.

I've actually got him projected to do a bit better than that, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[noneother]

mine is stay away from Denver Backs,

picked up Dayne and Braylon off the wiaver wire last year, packaged them with reggie brown and Deuce mccallister.. got me Edge...

 

[SSOG]

It is a well thought out post and kudos to you on your effort. However I, personally, think it's foolish. If you admit that predictions in FF are "hit or miss" then you don't want to go making as many as you are. The more you make the more likely you'll be wrong.

Analysis can be qualitative and doesn't need to be quantitative.

I know plenty of people that do these types of ranking breakdowns and love the kinda stuff you did here. I just don't believe in it. To each his own though

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand all about "qualitative" analysis, and do a lot of it, myself (I'll fudge players up or down a couple of spots because my gut feeling is they're misranked). With that said, I feel that even qualitative analysis should have SOME basis in actual quantitative analysis. If historically the 10 best RBs are more valuable than the 10 best WRs, then any good qualitative analysis will have a similar setup (i.e. somewhere between 8-12 RBs ranked before the top 10 WRs). If historically a system is going to produce somewhere between 300 and 400 points, then a good qualitative analysis will fit with those numbers (whether consciously or not).I also understand the concept of risk-adverse drafting. I have ranked people lower than my analysis would lead me to believe they deserve to be ranked because I feel like they have a better-than-usual chance of busting out... but still, 50% of draft picks wind up busting. That's just a simple fact of life. Does anyone really expect that both Ron Dayne *AND* Tatum Bell have that much better than a 50% chance of busting out entirely based on their projected draft positions? I don't. I believe their chance of busting is about as good as every other draft pick's, based on historical data. It's just that people are more AWARE of their chance of busting than that of other draft picks.

The one problem with this is that even the projections ranking historically at #24 doesn't mean the guys should be ranked there.  Lots of backs who should maybe be ranked ahead of them will get hurt over the course of the year, and if they don't get hurt, then they'll rise to #24.  But because you don't know which of those guys will get hurt, you have to rank all those that you expect to do better ahead of them.

Another way of saying this: If I were doing projections, my RB 15 would likely have stats of the RB 10 at the end of last year.  Because I know some guys ahead of him will get hurt, or miss games, etc...I know that they will drop down below that guy I ranked RB 15--unless he's one of the ones that gets hurt.

So even if you've got Tatum projected to reach stats of RB24, and he does in fact do that, a ranking of RB30-32 still makes sense for him.

I've actually got him projected to do a bit better than that, but that's neither here nor there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the thing about the Denver RBs, though. They're remarkably injury-independent.To wit: Let's say that every RB has a 50% chance of getting injured. You have both Dayne and Bell ranked as 3rd round backs (based on the average season and 40/40/20 projection). Let's compare the Dayne/Bell combo to an average pair of 3rd round backs.

Chances that both get injured: 25%. This is the same whether you have Dayne/Bell or 3rdRounder1 and 3rdRounder2.

Chances that one gets injured, but not the other: 50%. Again, this is the same either way.

Chances that neither gets injured: 25%. Again, this is the same either way.

So whether you draft Dayne/Bell or 3rdrounder1/3rdrounder2, if they neither get injured or both get injured, you're left in the same situation (with either 2 top-24 RBs or 0 top-24 RBs). HOWEVER, let's look at the 50% chance that one gets injured, but not the other. With two random 3rd rounders, if one gets injured, you're left with a top-24 back. With Dayne/Bell, if one gets injured, then the other's value SKYROCKETS, so you lose a top-24 back, but gain a top-10 (and possibly even top-5) back in exchange.

As you can see, an injury in the Denver backfield is just as likely to help you as it is to hurt you. That's why I have no problem ranking the two backs where the numbers say they'll finish- if they don't get injured, then you get a back that finishes exactly like projected, and if one gets injured, then you've got a back that does better and a back that does worse.

mine is stay away from Denver Backs,

picked up Dayne and Braylon off the wiaver wire last year, packaged them with  reggie brown and Deuce mccallister.. got me Edge...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, this is just the type of attitude that I'm trying to combat here. On the one hand, I don't care about your trade history. On the other hand, avoiding Denver Backs is not a good move. Even if you had to draft Bell in the 3rd and Anderson in the 6th last season... you would have wound up with a top-10 and a top-24 back. That's a *FANTASTIC* return on investment from a 3rd and 6th round pick.Now, if you like avoiding situations that consistantly provide value, then that's your own choice. I'm just trying to provide numbers to demonstrate how inadvisable such a stance really is.

It's like the value-based-drafting motto. If you avoid certain players or situations, then you are not doing VBD. All players can have value in the right circumstances... even Denver RBs. Looking at it statistically, though, Denver RBs are far more likely to have value than common wisdom states.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Nice thread SSOG.

Your work on the Denver evaluation was top notch last year. Glad to see you're at it again.

 

[Pots]

Only problem is, this is only a perfect approach to a Total Points league. When you have weekly lineups, and you're not sure if Dayne or Bell will start (or some new guy) then you're risking a Boom or Bust on your RB slot.

 

[Buttmonkey]

Nice post, but how does this get me by the Mike Shanahan double-talk of who's starting and sitting. Thanks and I'll hang up and listen

 

[Tommy Collins]

Very good stuff here, well thought out, very appreciated! I usually tend to stay away from the Denver RBBC approach but this may make me take a chance this season.

 

[noneother]

i don't mean to put you down. I agree the DENVER RB is a top 5 RB and MUCH better odds on than an Arizona RB..

It's just that to pots argument I have to take 3 slots to have a shot at the Denver RB, when in Zona WE KNOW who the RB is week in, week out...

I just put trade details in to show how valued an AZ rb is currently... 2 possible RBs and 2 #1 WRs...

part of a dynasty is using the extra slots to find emerging talent, personlly i'd rather not use three slots to find the 1 denver rb.. altho, due to that trade, i now have those slots available

 

[Bri]

It is a well thought out post and kudos to you on your effort. However I, personally, think it's foolish. If you admit that predictions in FF are "hit or miss" then you don't want to go making as many as you are. The more you make the more likely you'll be wrong.

Analysis can be qualitative and doesn't need to be quantitative.

I know plenty of people that do these types of ranking breakdowns and love the kinda stuff you did here. I just don't believe in it. To each his own though

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand all about "qualitative" analysis, and do a lot of it, myself (I'll fudge players up or down a couple of spots because my gut feeling is they're misranked). With that said, I feel that even qualitative analysis should have SOME basis in actual quantitative analysis. If historically the 10 best RBs are more valuable than the 10 best WRs, then any good qualitative analysis will have a similar setup (i.e. somewhere between 8-12 RBs ranked before the top 10 WRs). If historically a system is going to produce somewhere between 300 and 400 points, then a good qualitative analysis will fit with those numbers (whether consciously or not).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

still think you're overthinkingI said before we disagree and that's cool. I only say the overthinkin' bit because I'm guilty of it at times and it's usually helpful when someone gives me a heads up so....

 

[10993]

Nice post, but how does this get me by the Mike Shanahan double-talk of who's starting and sitting.  Thanks and I'll hang up and listen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a pretty good point here. Unless you're starting something like 4 RB, and can afford to start at least 2 Denver RB a night (sometimes even that is not enough), it's very difficult to know who to go with.

 

[JAA]

One of the best posts ever

 

[P Boy]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season? Just through in the adjustments in player & coach movement that affects the team & you've got a solid system for projections for all players, actually. I like using a 3 year window rather than 4, BTW, since NFL teams seem to run in 3 year cycles.

 

[JAA]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes ... and there are 48765418743 posts in the pool already on it right?

 

[Pots]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes ... and there are 48765418743 posts in the pool already on it right?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he used pretty colours and big letters and good formatting so it MUST be better.

 

[Keepers]

Great post SSOG, you convinced me to trade for Tatum Bell as at worst he should be able to serve as a #3 RB even if he splits carries with Dayne but since it is a 14 team league, may even be able to get #2 numbers out of him.

 

[moleculo]

I broke it down similarly, but instead of looking at fantasy points, I look at overall stats. I see Denver evolving into a pass first offense - Shannahan is nothing if he is not ever-evolving. That said, I see Denver having a run/pass ratio of about 49% - much lower than the past couple of years, but not as low as Shhannahan had from 1999-2002. This ratio is still higher than the NFL average as well.

That being said, here are my projections for Denvers offense:

                         attempts          yards      TD's            rec         rec yards  rec TDDayne, Ron               174.3         731.9       3.3            6.0           38.2          0.0Bell, Tatum                212.0        1059.8      9.1           19.6         195.8         0.0
edit to add: I have Bell @ RB19 and Dayne @ RB39.

 

[JAA]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes ... and there are 48765418743 posts in the pool already on it right?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he used pretty colours and big letters and good formatting so it MUST be better.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look forward to you showing the numerous posts in the Shark Pool that are as complete as this one on projecting RB success.

 

[Pots]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes ... and there are 48765418743 posts in the pool already on it right?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he used pretty colours and big letters and good formatting so it MUST be better.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look forward to you showing the numerous posts in the Shark Pool that are as complete as this one on projecting RB success.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just explaining a simple concept as detailed as he can. I commend the guy taking the time to make sure no one misunderstands the concept, but it's no different than the current method most projectionists use on every other player for years now. I'm not knocking him as I'm sure some people didn't know this. But it's nothing new either.

 

[jkruppe]

The value in drafting the Denver RB's lies in how much you can get back in a trade from the other Denver RB owners in your league.

 

[JAA]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes ... and there are 48765418743 posts in the pool already on it right?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he used pretty colours and big letters and good formatting so it MUST be better.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look forward to you showing the numerous posts in the Shark Pool that are as complete as this one on projecting RB success.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just explaining a simple concept as detailed as he can. I commend the guy taking the time to make sure no one misunderstands the concept, but it's no different than the current method most projectionists use on every other player for years now. I'm not knocking him as I'm sure some people didn't know this. But it's nothing new either.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fantasy Football isnt new. Projections arent new. Opinions are like ... well, not new.Since nothing is new, why are you at this site?

 

[jkruppe]

And don't forget to add Mike Bell to your projections.

 

[SSOG]

Only problem is, this is only a perfect approach to a Total Points league. When you have weekly lineups, and you're not sure if Dayne or Bell will start (or some new guy) then you're risking a Boom or Bust on your RB slot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no excess boom or bust risk with Denver. See my next post and I'll give you some numbers.As for not knowing who is going to start from week to week... well, see my next point.

Nice post, but how does this get me by the Mike Shanahan double-talk of who's starting and sitting.  Thanks and I'll hang up and listen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's very easy. There is no Mike Shanahan double-talk of who's starting and who's sitting.Week 1: Anderson is starting. Result, Anderson starts (and gets injured).

Week 2: Anderson is starting, but we'll limit his carries since he's hurt. Result, Anderson starts (and gets limited carries). Dayne shines in reserve role.

Week 3: Yes, Dayne did good, but Anderson is still our starting RB. Result, Anderson remains starting RB.

Week 8: Yes, Bell has been LIGHTS OUT the past 4 games or so (averaging something like 9 yards per carry), but Anderson is still our starting back. Result, Anderson remains the starting RB for the rest of the season.

Week 17: We've clinched, so Anderson is going to sit and Bell will get some reps. Result, Anderson sat and Bell got some reps.

Aside from one week (against Baltimore), Shanahan couldn't have been any clearer at all about who the starting RB was, who was going to get the lion's share of the carries. He said all season long that Anderson was the starter, that Bell would never get more than limited carries, and that Dayne only got carries when Anderson was hurt. This whole idea that Shanahan dances around the subject of who will start and who will get the carries is nothing more than a myth that dates back to Terrell Davis' failed comebacks in 2001 (where I am convinced he was only cryptic because he didn't really know where Terrell Davis was, from an injury standpoint).

Basically, here's how you ensure that you start the back that will be getting the most carries in Denver. You read the articles and find out who Shanahan says will be starting... and then you start that back. Easy, huh?

i don't mean to put you down.  I agree the DENVER RB is a top 5 RB and MUCH better odds on than an Arizona RB.. 

It's just that to pots argument  I have to take 3 slots to have a shot at the Denver RB, when in Zona WE KNOW who the RB is week in, week out...

I just put trade details in to show how valued an AZ rb is currently...  2 possible RBs and 2 #1 WRs...

part of a dynasty is using the extra slots to find emerging talent, personlly i'd rather not use three slots to find the 1 denver rb..  altho, due to that trade, i now have those slots available

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dynasty is a completely different animal. I *DO NOT* recommend drafting Denver backs in dynasty leagues, unless you can get them really cheap. You have to assume that they only have a 2-year shelf life, tops, before they get cut, traded, or injured. It's sort of like defensive players in Indy- Dungy's convinced he can do well with cheap parts, so he's constantly showing players the door once they get ready for their big payday.

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season? Just through in the adjustments in player & coach movement that affects the team & you've got a solid system for projections for all players, actually. I like using a 3 year window rather than 4, BTW, since NFL teams seem to run in 3 year cycles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it *is* a pretty standard way to do some projections. I only posted it to raise some awareness, because I see a lot of people who seem to be basing decisions on Denver RBs on something other than actual predictions or numbers. They're going with their "guts"... and frankly, people have proven time and again that when it comes to projecting Denver RBs, their guts suck.

The value in drafting the Denver RB's lies in how much you can get back in a trade from the other Denver RB owners in your league.



<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whew yeah, I sure am glad I drafted Mike Anderson late last season. I managed to turn around and trade him for Andre Johnson!

And don't forget to add Mike Bell to your projections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why, because he's a warm body?Denver has shown, historically, that aside from a few carries for the fullback, they're not going to use more than 2 RBs (outside of injury) on a regular basis. If you think Bell is going to be one of those 2, that's one thing... but if you think that Denver's going to start dividing the carries 5 ways now that they have another warm body on their roster, then that's another thing entirely. There's a nice long list of Denver RBs that no one has ever heard of. Mike Bell might be the next Reuben Droughns... but then again, he might be the next Ahmaad Galloway, too.

 

[SSOG]

Okay, I re-checked the numbers, and here's what I have to say to everyone who thinks that Denver is a boom-or-bust RB situation, even when it's running an RBBC.

(Top 22 RBs) - (games scoring fewer than 10 fantasy points)

Shaun Alexander - 2

Larry Johnson - 4

LaDainian Tomlinson - 4

Tiki Barber - 2

Edgerrin James - 1

Clinton Portis - 3

Rudi Johnson - 8

LaMont Jordan - 4

Thomas Jones - 5

Mike Anderson - 5

Steven Jackson - 6

Warrick Dunn - 5

Willis McGahee - 8

Willie Parker - 8

Reuben Droughns - 9

Corey Dillon - 7

Dominick Davis - 6

Brian Westbrook - 8

Caddilac Williams - 9

Chris Brown - 10

Julius Jones - 11

Tatum Bell - 12

As you can see, Denver's RBs weren't really any more "Boom or Bust" than any other RBs ranked around them. If people are scared away from the Denver RB situation because they're afraid of starting an RB and getting a goose egg, then they should REALLY be staying away from Rudi Johnson, because he's much more likely to lay an egg than whoever's starting in Denver.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good thread, SSOG.

Yes, it is a pretty standard way to do projections, but most people haven't done their projections yet and are ranking a bit from the hip (or the gut, or wherever). I'm halfway through the AFC, myself.

But a lot of people currently doing their rankings from the hip seem to be a bit off in the sense that they are ranking the Denver RBs as a group a bit too low -- i.e., lower than their projections are likely to dictate once they are finished.

It's not unhelpful to point this out.

I do agree, however, that when a team has more than one RB who could become the featured runner, that entire group of RBs should be discounted a bit. A fantasy player is only worth points when his owner starts him. With someone like Tomlinson, you just start him every week and get whatever points he puts up every week. But when there's a question about whether a guy will be his team's featured runner, a fantasy owner may lack the confidence to keep him in his lineup . . . and then even when he goes off for 30 points, they're not worth anything.

Willie Parker was a decent example of this last year. Some of his biggest games came when he was likely on his fantasy team's bench before the RB roles in PIT had been well defined. In situations like that, a player's actual fantasy value is less than his end-of-year stats would have you believe.

 

[SSOG]

I do agree, however, that when a team has more than one RB who could become the featured runner, that entire group of RBs should be discounted a bit. A fantasy player is only worth points when his owner starts him. With someone like Tomlinson, you just start him every week and get whatever points he puts up every week. But when there's a question about whether a guy will be his team's featured runner, a fantasy owner may lack the confidence to keep him in his lineup . . . and then even when he goes off for 30 points, they're not worth anything.

Willie Parker was a decent example of this last year. Some of his biggest games came when he was likely on his fantasy team's bench before the RB roles in PIT had been well defined. In situations like that, a player's actual fantasy value is less than his end-of-year stats would have you believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To this, I don't know what to stay, other than to stand behind my contention that, from week to week, there is little actual uncertainty about who will be getting the carries in Denver. If you draft Ron Dayne and he's named the starter, there's no question (in my mind at least) of "should I leave him on the bench, or should I start him". As evidenced by Anderson's 5 <10 point weeks... the starter in Denver is a fantasy starter. You're right, with Tomlinson or Alexander there's NO uncertainty... which is why Tomlinson and Alexander are both top-5 picks. It's no fair comparing any RB, even a Clinton Portis stud-type, to the heavy-hitters like Johnson, Alexander, or Tomlinson, any more than it's fair to compare a great WR1 (say Joe Horn) to Randy Moss (back when Randy Moss was a "sure thing"). I'll agree that Denver backs aren't "sure things"... which is why I don't advocate drafting them in the first round. Compared to other second round players, though, I think they're pretty close.Now, there is a risk of drafting Dayne expecting him to win the starting job, and then discovering that he doesn't. How much of a risk that is will depend on your projections (I've got him down as a 70% shot to be the featured RB at the moment). Absolutely, though... you should adjust him downward based on the level of risk you feel there is in the Denver situation. Personally, I believe that risk is entirely mitigated by 2 factors. First, even if he winds up as the RB2 instead of the RB1, his production will still likely match or exceed his draft position (RB2 in Denver is still a top-30 back, which means 4th or 5th round pick... which is where the Denver RBs seem to be going at the moment, anyway). Second, if he DOES wind up as an RB1, there's far less chance of him being a complete bust (Kevin Jones/Willis McGahee style) in Denver than there is for any other RB in any other system, in my mind. You might not know who the starter will be in Denver, but you know he'll be productive. You might know who the starter will be in Buffalo, but you don't know whether he'll be productive. It's not like one uncertainty is any greater of a risk than the other.

Statistically speaking, looking back at historical averages, once you get outside of the first two rounds, about half of all draft picks wind up being complete disappointments... whether they're Denver RBs or not.

 

[Pots]

One of the best posts ever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this a normal way of projecting all RBs for the coming season?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes ... and there are 48765418743 posts in the pool already on it right?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he used pretty colours and big letters and good formatting so it MUST be better.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look forward to you showing the numerous posts in the Shark Pool that are as complete as this one on projecting RB success.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just explaining a simple concept as detailed as he can. I commend the guy taking the time to make sure no one misunderstands the concept, but it's no different than the current method most projectionists use on every other player for years now. I'm not knocking him as I'm sure some people didn't know this. But it's nothing new either.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fantasy Football isnt new. Projections arent new. Opinions are like ... well, not new.Since nothing is new, why are you at this site?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because a lot of FBG 'sharks' have a collective mindset. And some of that mindset is in some of the teams that are in my leagues. Understanding your enemy is a big step to vanquishing them. I just with I had Reggie Bush so that I could trade his butt right now for 10x of what he'll be worth once the kool aid wears off.

 

[jurb26]

I agree with the statment that this really isn't new. It's a great outline for how to do your projections for any RB, but I don't think it's going to help the people who are wondering what to do about the Den RB situation. I for one am wondering about it and I can't say this thread as shed any light on my situation. People know that Den will run the ball well. Unless they have never played FF before in their life or lived under a rock, this is common knowledge. What they don't know is who it will be as the main ball carrier or what that distribution will be. With out that info, knowing how to project RBs is rather useless IMO. I mean sure I could guess at it just so I can say that I have it done... but what is really the point of that? Really the only thing that will give FFers confidence on how to rank the Den RBs is time. Time to see how things are shaking out and who is likely to get the carries and how many. The fact that nodoby knows or feels very confident in who is getting the carries is why Den RBs are low on rankings now, not because people have suddenly forgot that Den runs the ball well. The uncertainty drops the group, not the lack of great situation. Plus, it's not like we have a shortage of Den fans continually telling us how great their running game is....

 

[JAA]

I agree with the statment that this really isn't new.  It's a great outline for how to do your projections for any RB, but I don't think it's going to help the people who are wondering what to do about the Den RB situation.  I for one am wondering about it and I can't say this thread as shed any light on my situation.  People know that Den will run the ball well.  Unless they have never played FF before in their life or lived under a rock, this is common knowledge.  What they don't know is who it will be as the main ball carrier or what that distribution will be.  With out that info, knowing how to project RBs is rather useless IMO.  I mean sure I could guess at it just so I can say that I have it done... but what is really the point of that?  Really the only thing that will give FFers confidence on how to rank the Den RBs is time.  Time to see how things are shaking out and who is likely to get the carries and how many.  The fact that nodoby knows or feels very confident in who is getting the carries is why Den RBs are low on rankings now, not because people have suddenly forgot that Den runs the ball well.  The uncertainty drops the group, not the lack of great situation.  Plus, it's not like we have a shortage of Den fans continually telling us how great their running game is....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Im not saying this is ground breaking material, but it does shed light as to where in the rankings Den RBs should be given standard distributionof scoring. It shows that chances are the FBGs rankings are wrong this year, and also last year. The Den RBs, even if in RBBC, put up big numbers. Finding the one with the majority of the touches is going to be the hard thing.