What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Justise Hairston (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of the posts in this thread really disgust me. This thread was about Hairston's chances of becoming a fantasy factor, and it should have stayed there. Instead, some have decided it is a good place to attack the OP on all kinds of side issues, and that's bull####.

 
Some of the posts in this thread really disgust me. This thread was about Hairston's chances of becoming a fantasy factor, and it should have stayed there. Instead, some have decided it is a good place to attack the OP on all kinds of side issues, and that's bull####.
:goodposting:
 
Some of the posts in this thread really disgust me. This thread was about Hairston's chances of becoming a fantasy factor, and it should have stayed there. Instead, some have decided it is a good place to attack the OP on all kinds of side issues, and that's bull####.
:goodposting:
Unfortunately this happens all the time. It only takes one person to send a good thread to hell.
 
Jeff Pasquino said:
ok...wait a second...i just looked at the rankings closer.....he jumped from not ranked to 32, above where you have kenny irons, craig davis and tony hunt really?? is this common practice for staffers withold rankings like that? should we be concerned with other rankings? edit to add.......chris smith has irons #10 rookie overall......if you have someone ranked ahead of a guy getting rankings that high, i think the subscribers should know about it
Excellent question, and absolutely deserves an answer.I did my rookie rankings last week IIRC, and I ranked whomever was loaded in the database at the time.Hairston wasn't in the database back then, and I had to go and put him in myself yesterday. Normally we have them all loaded, but this was an oversight. I wasn't the only staffer to overlook him apparently as no one else has him ranked.I slotted him at 32 or 33 based on where I'd put him and where I have been drafting him.I didn't note that he wasn't in the database at all - I thought he was just out of my Top 50.Based on looking at several RB situations for redraft and the next year or two and reading up on Hairston, I thought a bump up was in order. I took him over a few others on the list the other day, which prompted me to finally "push" him, and that's when I saw he wasn't loaded on the ranking lists.I've alerted the guys to add him all around the place if they so choose. Many won't have him at 33 and I understand that.I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic about his chances, and in some leagues with an emphasis on RB over WR he should be higher (such as the non-PPR FBG list).
Not to be a jerk, but this explanation seems a bit lame. How did you not notice he wasn't in the database if you were clearly aware of him, are high on him, and have been drafting him?How did you just sort of think he was outside of your top 50, when you have been drafting him higher than that, feel he is worth more than that, etc...Just seems a bit fishy to me, and I think it does make these rankings a bit suspect.ETA: The only logical explanations I can come up with is that you are now bumping his stock as a result of owning him in a large number of leagues. Or - didn't want to release your sleeper picks until after all of your drafts were complete. Nothing else makes a lot of sense. Especially not "Yeah, I didn't even notice that he wasn't even in there. I'm high enough on the guy to start threads about him, but it just kind of slipped by me. Good thing I didn't overlook him in all of my dynasty drafts though".
I ranked the rookies immediately after the NFL Draft (ok, a few days afterward) and hadn't touched them since. I went through the list of players that were drafted and told our main database person here to load several players. He said it was done, and then I went back and ranked every single player in the database at the time, roughly 110 players, and let the Top 50 fall where they may.What many do not realize is that the staff is immensely busy the first 1-2 weeks after the NFL Draft getting the site and the magazine up and running.I got all my lists and rankings done and then contributed to the site and magazine as much as possible.I've been rather inattentive in several drafts but managed to draft the rookies and keep pace where I could. After I drafted Hairston the second time, I did a little digging on him and liked what I saw. I took him for the third time in a recent draft I think on Sunday and went to look at the rankings on the rookies just to see where others had him - and that is when I noticed the discrepancy. I immediately let the staff know about it and went to fix the problem, and then rank him where I personally thought he should go.Note that no other staffer has him ranked or noticed he was missing.It is up to you to believe me or not. That's your choice. I've ranked every single possible list on this site as best as I can, and I even went out of my way to highlight someone I thought got overlooked. Rather than appreciate the effort, you choose to call it lame.So, believe what you will. This will be the end of my defending myself on a later round flier.
No, this I completely understand. But I think your analysis is now biased by the fact that you own him in so many leagues... Just my personal opinion, but any time some massively reshuffles their rankings after "doing some digging" on a guy they now have a lot of stock in, it becomes a little questionable.As for all of these people saying things about "attacking the messenger", people pay good money for this stuff and have the right to expect to get logical explanation behind the rankings AND reshuffling of said rankings. They have a right to know what would cause such a massive shift in a player's rankings. If anyone wants to throw out articles and rankings, post threads, etc without accountability for them... that's an issue... And Joe agrees, because all of these experts have been told that they are required to give the basis for their rankings if questioned on it. They can't just throw out 30 names and be done with it.Perhaps you accept the explanation as valid, and value the rankings accordingly. Perhaps you don't (like myself) and question the rankings as a result. That's up to you to decide, but there's nothing wrong with asking for an explanation and/or rejecting that explanation if you so choose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow did this thread get hijacked...

I'm going to address one point and let the rest of the stuff just go at this point - there's really no reason to continue some of this dialogue...

Here are the RBs in my Top 50 that are below Hairston, without revealing all the subscriber info:



Kenny Irons, CIN - This one was close, but I personally like Rudy a lot and I think he is the guy in Cincy for 3 more years or longer. Even if you like Irons, I don't know if he gets the # of touches it warrants to be of any value. This ranking (they are close) is debatable and subject to change (well, I guess they all are) come August.

Tony Hunt, PHI - I think he's C-Buck 2. I don't understand why the Eagles have him. Hunt doesn't offer much more than a healthy Buckhalter does, so if they do believe in C-Buck (whom they re-signed, IIRC) then I don't see him getting much playing time. Westbrook is the Eagles offense and a lot of it keys off of him. C-Buck is the CoP and I don't think he gets unseated. With 2 guys firmly in front of Hunt I don't see it. I also want to see if / when / ever Reid commits to running the game with any kind of a power back, which would increase Hunt's value - but after 8 seasons I don't hold much hope for it.

Garrett Wolfe, CHI - Cedrick Benson and Adrian Peterson, and now Devin Hester as RB. Wolfe on Day 1 seemed like a stretch. I don't know what they see, and I don't know how he ever finds time on the field. I think it might be a "what if Benson bombs" insurance type of pick, or maybe they were tired after a long Draft Day 1.



Thomas Clayton, SF - Frank Gore, Maurice Hicks, Michael Robinson all ahead of him. Again, they really REALLY like Gore, and as long as he holds up, there's not enough room to give him playing time aside from possibly special teams. Nice sleeper if Gore gets hurt and they take a committee approach, but I don't see the opportunity for Clayton. He does have some character uestions too.



Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG - Right thought, not the right guy IMHO. Really thought the G-men would take Booker in Round 2 as their CoP / 3rd down guy. Bradshaw may look good now, but again, he has two RBs in front of him in Rube and Brandon Jacobs (whom some are saying is FASTER THAN TIKI?). Could be a talent, but another RB logjam. Only real upside is if Jacobs bombs and/or he emerges to fill the 2006 Tiki role - which was NOT fantasy gold last year due to GL thievery by Jacobs. Bradshaw could contribute and does have value as a deep sleeper. I will admit I didn't see much of Marshall, so I could be missing on this guy completely.



DeShawn Wynn, GB - Florida wasn't really known for their running attack, and I really believe that his style of running benefitted from their spread offense. I don't know if he's going to translate well to the NFL unless he had gone to Pittsburgh and they played a spread formation (GB may use him like this, who knows) but between his questions of talent, injury history, and coming in behind Brandon Jackson (whom I really like) I don't know how much he'll contribute.

Selvin Young, DEN - Has a good chance to make team RB DENVER, but behind Travis Henry and Mike Bell. Good situation (great if no Henry), but he wasn't considered a Top 10 RB coming into the draft (but then again neither was Hairston). I'd have him higher in a better situation. I also can't stand the Denver RB situations in past years and guys like Shanahan keep me up at night with WDIS nightmares.

Jason Snelling, ATL - Fullback. Full. Back.

Kolby Smith, KC - Well, if you think I didn't like Young behind Henry, how do you think I like Smith behind Larry Johnson? KC's run game is heading downhill (read - the O-line is aging), but a plus to Smith's situation is Herm Edwards, who never met a run play he didn't like. I think Smith is a good backup kind of guy (who couldn't beat out Michael Bush mind you, but did well when he went down).

So, some of the guys after Hairston have good skill but bad situations. Some have good situations, but I don't like their skills. Of all the RBs I have after a Top 30 list, I like Hairston's combination the best. You don't have to agree or disagree, but those are my thoughts.

For the record and for full disclosure, I don't pretend to be a college football expert. Far from it. With all my other commitments, I cannot spend the amount of time that others like Bloom and Lammey (and Andy Dufresne and Chaos Commish for that matter - ConstruxBoy too it seems - many on this site) and I really depend on a lot of good info from here and other places to formulate my opinions. I wish I could watch every game, but that's not where I'm at in life. So, read the rankings and ask questions as you like - as you can see I'll lay out my thoughts and opinions as time permits (this took a while to write) - so ok, I'm done now.

 
As ageneral rule I try to ignore anything that Jeff Pasquino says about Dynasty Running Backs. :thumbup:
As ageneral rule I try to ignore anything that Jeff Pasquino says. :thumbdown:
fixed...
It's comments like these two that detract immensely from the Shark Pool in general.Personally I can take it - I get grief for putting out my thoughts all the time and that's to be expected. Not everyone will like what I have to say, but I'll still say it anyway.The bigger concern for me is anyone attacking anyone else's thoughts and causing them not to want to put their ideas out there for the masses. That's the biggest plus of the Shark Pool. Guys can come in here (and even a few ladies) and express themselves.Anyone attacking another's point of view should get reported and we'll deal with it accordingly. I don't want anyone here to think they can't put their thoughts out there to possibly help someone else.
hey jeff...you want to be someone around here it is pretty obvious...unfortunately, you make wild ### guesses at stuff and post in every thread in hopes of being noticed...i don't need a pm from you telling me "not tolerated" and having you report stuff (guessing, based on my pm box) to know who is legit and who isn't...you are a wannabe, just look at you idp rankings where you come in and try to show your stuff....posting like mad in the shark pool, throwing out a bunch of off the wall rankings in hopes that one hits and then cowering when they don't isn't something anyone here is looking for...i come here for solid analysis of real life opportunity for players...
Hi. 2 things if you'd like to keep posting here.#1. Don't be a tool to other members like you're doing above.#2. That includes staff members.Thanks. I know this kind of restriction is way more than lots of boards have. This board is not for everyone. But it's just how we're trying to operate.If you've got a disagreement with another poster's projections or opinion, state your own opinion and back it up with support for why you feel differently.TIA.J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow did this thread get hijacked...

I'm going to address one point and let the rest of the stuff just go at this point - there's really no reason to continue some of this dialogue...

Here are the RBs in my Top 50 that are below Hairston, without revealing all the subscriber info:
I thought the subscriber info was free now.
 


Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG - Right thought, not the right guy IMHO. Really thought the G-men would take Booker in Round 2 as their CoP / 3rd down guy. Bradshaw may look good now, but again, he has two RBs in front of him in Rube and Brandon Jacobs (whom some are saying is FASTER THAN TIKI?).
some = Giants OC Kevin Gilbridelink

"I think this guy can [run the stretch], he's faster, he's faster than Tiki," Gilbride said. It was his ability to cut back that made Tiki special. That's what I don't know [with Jacobs]. But we're definitely going to have those plays. At this point it still will be a core play, a base play, for us.

"Will it be as good a play? That remains to be seen."

Yet Gilbride says when Jacobs gets to the edge and finds someone not quite in the right position to defend, that's when he can just bowl over defenders. "And that gets you going," he said of the physical accomplishment.
 
As ageneral rule I try to ignore anything that Jeff Pasquino says about Dynasty Running Backs. :goodposting:
As ageneral rule I try to ignore anything that Jeff Pasquino says. :confused:
fixed...
It's comments like these two that detract immensely from the Shark Pool in general.Personally I can take it - I get grief for putting out my thoughts all the time and that's to be expected. Not everyone will like what I have to say, but I'll still say it anyway.The bigger concern for me is anyone attacking anyone else's thoughts and causing them not to want to put their ideas out there for the masses. That's the biggest plus of the Shark Pool. Guys can come in here (and even a few ladies) and express themselves.Anyone attacking another's point of view should get reported and we'll deal with it accordingly. I don't want anyone here to think they can't put their thoughts out there to possibly help someone else.
hey jeff...you want to be someone around here it is pretty obvious...unfortunately, you make wild ### guesses at stuff and post in every thread in hopes of being noticed...i don't need a pm from you telling me "not tolerated" and having you report stuff (guessing, based on my pm box) to know who is legit and who isn't...you are a wannabe, just look at you idp rankings where you come in and try to show your stuff....posting like mad in the shark pool, throwing out a bunch of off the wall rankings in hopes that one hits and then cowering when they don't isn't something anyone here is looking for...i come here for solid analysis of real life opportunity for players...
Hi. 2 things if you'd like to keep posting here.#1. Don't be a tool to other members like you're doing above.#2. That includes staff members.Thanks. I know this kind of restriction is way more than lots of boards have. This board is not for everyone. But it's just how we're trying to operate.If you've got a disagreement with another poster's projections or opinion, state your own opinion and back it up with support for why you feel differently.TIA.J
Hey Joe,I hope the tool comment wasn't directed at me. I made a comment and it sort of down spiraled from there with the other guy. :confused: As far as my initial comment I tried to explain it in my last post. In no way have I made any sort of personal attack. Never meant to hijack any thread. I've been coming here for years. To get back to the topic and this goes with my original idea, I would bet 100 - 1 odds that Hairston would be more likely to be cut then he will to make the probowl, there for I think it is very off to recomend him over more "legit" players. Mr. Pasquino seems to do this sort of thing from time to time, and my comment was aimed at being more like a buyer beware or take it with a grain of salt. I may be wrong, but to ME Justise Hairston = practice squad or special teams player at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top