LHUCKS' FBG Consensus Rankings Critique (1 Viewer)

[Marc Levin]

C) Last year the #4 RB was CuMar at 278, Rudi was #8 at 226...that's a 52 point difference...quite substantial IMHO.

2002, #4 Portis had 289 and #8 Henry had 2592000, #4 Anderson had 257 and #8 Ricky Watters 240Don't pull last year's example to dispute the point, as I can pull a TON more examples to SUPPORT the point. Regardless, last year did not fit in the historically typical category as there were less than 100 FF points difference between RB1 and RB8 (80, actually). Every other year in the last 5-7 years, there is a TREMENDOUS drop from RB1 to RB4, and there is a MUCH shallower drop from RB4 to RB8.In short, you need to get the top-3 RBs correct, and in order. You then need to guess most of the RBs who end RB4-RB8 - in ANY order. And you will have made accurate top-RB rankings.

 

[LHUCKS]

I don't buy your rationale for the McGahee "overrated" call.  You cite 3 factors:  durability (or lack thereof), inexperience, and risk.

Are we sure Lhucks rankings were's clipped from last year? I seem to recall these comments:1. Travis Rules, McGahee will be a bust

2. McGahee will never overcome that injury

3. McGahee can't take a pounding

4. McGahee will be limited in carries

5. McGahee is the ultimate risk

Why are we still hearing the same old song and dance since McGahee heard these comments and should have answered all of these criticisms already. Some don't learn, I am a proud Willis McGahee owner and have him ranked #2 overall, but #1 in yards hence my sig.

I have him ranked #8, which isn't a slight at all. As a matter of fact he's the highest ranked player on my list without a complete year under his belt. I just don't think he carries as little risk as the players ahead of him.

 

[Marc Levin]

when looking at the big picture I thing Arrington brings less risk with more ff point upside.

I realize I'm in the minority on this one, but my risk factor for Brown is very high.

I'm with you on this one . . . for 2005 anyway. By next year, Brown will be a top-10 fantasy back.I won't give a spoiler, but suffice it to say I see Brown and his 2.07 ADP as tremendously overvalued.

I like Arrington this year and see him as a good risk to evolve into a steady low-grade RB2, whihc is what you should hope for from an RB3, and which is actually above where he is being drafted (6.11, 35th RB at antsports). That is too low, and you should expect by the time training camp breaks that he'll cost a 3rd or 4th round pick.

So much of Brown's success depends on how effective that offense is going to be...I for one have no idea which makes me very weary of Ronnie in '05.

And so much of his ADP value depends on him being an effective RB2 from day one. And there is an excellent chance he is not the opening day starter and/or he is mnired in the early part of the year in a RBBC with Gordon. Let's not forget, this OL has no continuity and needs time to gel into an effective unit, if it ever gels. That means, you should have hope for Brown from about week 4/6 onward, but to count on him as your opening day RB2 - and mid-second round pick - is SUPER risky, IMO.In fact, I'd be willing to bet LHUCKS would even take Chris Brown ( ) over Ronnie Brown as his opening day RB2 starter (though he'd be puking at the thought of either of them).

Oh yeah:

 

[LHUCKS]

C) Last year the #4 RB was CuMar at 278, Rudi was #8 at 226...that's a 52 point difference...quite substantial IMHO. 

2002, #4 Portis had 289 and #8 Henry had 2592000, #4 Anderson had 257 and #8 Ricky Watters 240

Don't pull last year's example to dispute the point, as I can pull a TON more examples to SUPPORT the point.

Regardless, last year did not fit in the historically typical category as there were less than 100 FF points difference between RB1 and RB8 (80, actually). Every other year in the last 5-7 years, there is a TREMENDOUS drop from RB1 to RB4, and there is a MUCH shallower drop from RB4 to RB8.

In short, you need to get the top-3 RBs correct, and in order. You then need to guess most of the RBs who end RB4-RB8 - in ANY order. And you will have made accurate top-RB rankings.

I was pointing out that it is possible to have that kind of variance...which is what my projections pointed to again this year. I use historical stats as a guideline in some instances, but when getting into specific player projections and or tiering I don't put much stock into it. My analysis is much more detail oriented.

 

[LHUCKS]

when looking at the big picture I thing Arrington brings less risk with more ff point upside.

I realize I'm in the minority on this one, but my risk factor for Brown is very high.

I'm with you on this one . . . for 2005 anyway. By next year, Brown will be a top-10 fantasy back.I won't give a spoiler, but suffice it to say I see Brown and his 2.07 ADP as tremendously overvalued.

I like Arrington this year and see him as a good risk to evolve into a steady low-grade RB2, whihc is what you should hope for from an RB3, and which is actually above where he is being drafted (6.11, 35th RB at antsports). That is too low, and you should expect by the time training camp breaks that he'll cost a 3rd or 4th round pick.

So much of Brown's success depends on how effective that offense is going to be...I for one have no idea which makes me very weary of Ronnie in '05.

And so much of his ADP value depends on him being an effective RB2 from day one. And there is an excellent chance he is not the opening day starter and/or he is mnired in the early part of the year in a RBBC with Gordon. Let's not forget, this OL has no continuity and needs time to gel into an effective unit, if it ever gels. That means, you should have hope for Brown from about week 4/6 onward, but to count on him as your opening day RB2 - and mid-second round pick - is SUPER risky, IMO.In fact, I'd be willing to bet LHUCKS would even take Chris Brown ( ) over Ronnie Brown as his opening day RB2 starter (though he'd be puking at the thought of either of them).

Oh yeah:

Yes sir indeed, Chrissy is ahead of Mr. Brown by a good margin.When are we going to have a Chris Brown thread? I'm shocked we haven't had one. It's like he's a part of every thread now I guess since he's continually referenced

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Tiki has missed only 2 games and that was back in 2001. So, he has defied the odds, the statistics, like a craps player on a two day roll.

It is a mistake (known as the gambler's fallacy) to expect a craps player to roll worse than average in the future just because he's rolled better than average in the past, since there's no correlation between past rolls and future rolls.It is a bigger mistake to expect a player to have a greater-than-average chance of injury in the future just because he's had fewer-than-average injuries in the past, since there is a correlation between past injuries and future injures, and the correlation is positive (although small).

 

[LHUCKS]

Tiki has missed only 2 games and that was back in 2001. So, he has defied the odds, the statistics, like a craps player on a two day roll.

It is a mistake (known as the gambler's fallacy) to expect a craps player to roll worse than average in the future just because he's rolled better than average in the past, since there's no correlation between past rolls and future rolls.It is a bigger mistake to expect a player to have a greater-than-average chance of injury in the future just because he's had fewer-than-average injuries in the past, since there is a correlation between past injuries and future injures, and the correlation is positive (although small).

very, very Like Craps, FF is a game of percentages...it's not who is always right, it's who is most often right.

 

[Marc Levin]

I use historical stats as a guideline in some instances, but when getting into specific player projections and or tiering I don't put much stock into it. My analysis is much more detail oriented.

??I do projections and let them go from there with no thought about historical data, but historical data is MUCH more than a guideline for predicting what the actual EOY numbers will be. Can't use it to plug specific players' names in there or to make projections - but you can generally tell what this year's EOY variance between players will look like at certain levels - ESPECIALLY WR 4 down to WR20, for example.

The reason historical variances are not useful in making projections is that historical variances are pure numbers with no thoughts to what names are there, or what special circumstances (such as CuMar leading the league in rushing after age 30, and Priest going bye-bye) occur to each player - heck, Mike Anderson has one appearance at RB4 and no other appearances anywhere - historical data is not a predictor of projections, but it is an excellent predictor of how the EOY numbers will actually look come January 2006.

My point is that it is much less important to nail the #4-#8 RBs in order than it is to nail which RBs finish 1-3, and in order. Do your projections as you wish, but it is unlikley this year wil be radically different historically - in all likelihood, WHOever you end up projecting at RB4, with whatever numbers, will probably have numbers much closer to whoever ends up at RB8 than whoever ends up at RB1 - assuming you correctly guess who is RB4. therefore, as I said, it is quibbling over very little - in any year including last year, at most 3 FF points a game - to debate who ends up RB4-8. However, the RB1, whoever it is, consistently outscores the RB4 by something like 4-6 FF points a game - and, consequently, outscores the RB8 by somewhere in the neighbnorhood of 6-10 FF points a game.

The more important debate is who are the #1, #2 and #3 backs - not who is #4 and who is #5.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The more important debate is who are the #1, #2 and #3 backs - not who is #4 and who is #5.

I guess that depends on your draft position.

 

[Mike Anderson]

We turned in new ranking within the past couple of days. In those, I moved Barber up to #5. While researching for another project, I found that I was too low on Barber. Here is the 100 word blurb I turned in on him:

Quietly, Tiki Barber was the 2nd highest scoring fantasy RB in the league in 2004. Ball control HC Tom Coughlin’s teams have averaged just fewer than 450 carries a year in his 9 seasons. In his first season with Coughlin, Barber set career highs in carries, rushing yards, TDs, and yards from scrimmage. There is every expectation that after 9 straight years, Coughlin is not going to change his entire offensive philosophy, and will continue pound the ball with Barber again this season. Fantasy Owners overlooking this, as witnessed by his low 2.07 average draft position, while Barber is drafted by more astute Owners, will be left behind as he has another top 5 RB fantasy performance.

I also went back and looked, and I expressed alot of these same thoughts when I did the High side on the Barber Face Off last season.He is just such an unsexy and old (I am completely Dynasty oriented, and look through those glasses first) player, that he is very easy to over look. I did.

 

[LHUCKS]

I use historical stats as a guideline in some instances, but when getting into specific player projections and or tiering I don't put much stock into it.  My analysis is much more detail oriented.

??I do projections and let them go from there with no thought about historical data, but historical data is MUCH more than a guideline for predicting what the actual EOY numbers will be. Can't use it to plug specific players' names in there or to make projections - but you can generally tell what this year's EOY variance between players will look like at certain levels - ESPECIALLY WR 4 down to WR20, for example.

The reason historical variances are not useful in making projections is that historical variances are pure numbers with no thoughts to what names are there, or what special circumstances (such as CuMar leading the league in rushing after age 30, and Priest going bye-bye) occur to each player - heck, Mike Anderson has one appearance at RB4 and no other appearances anywhere - historical data is not a predictor of projections, but it is an excellent predictor of how the EOY numbers will actually look come January 2006.

My point is that it is much less important to nail the #4-#8 RBs in order than it is to nail which RBs finish 1-3, and in order. Do your projections as you wish, but it is unlikley this year wil be radically different historically - in all likelihood, WHOever you end up projecting at RB4, with whatever numbers, will probably have numbers much closer to whoever ends up at RB8 than whoever ends up at RB1 - assuming you correctly guess who is RB4. therefore, as I said, it is quibbling over very little - in any year including last year, at most 3 FF points a game - to debate who ends up RB4-8. However, the RB1, whoever it is, consistently outscores the RB4 by something like 4-6 FF points a game - and, consequently, outscores the RB8 by somewhere in the neighbnorhood of 6-10 FF points a game.

The more important debate is who are the #1, #2 and #3 backs - not who is #4 and who is #5.

I most disagree with this statement

therefore, as I said, it is quibbling over very little - in any year including last year, at most 3 FF points a game - to debate who ends up RB4-8.

I guess I consider 3 points a game to be somewhat significant, it just so happens that my #4 vs. #8 is more like 4 points this year...which coincidentally is about the same as '04's EOY difference.Yes, when looking at EOY rankings those are the differences, but if you look at preseason rankings the differences are obviously much more substantial. I'm not sure how significant the EOY numbers are in the grand scheme of things...other than to provide a general guideline on what one might expect.

 

[LHUCKS]

We turned in new ranking within the past couple of days. In those, I moved Barber up to #5.

While researching for another project, I found that I was too low on Barber.

Here is the 100 word blurb I turned in on him:

Quietly, Tiki Barber was the 2nd highest scoring fantasy RB in the league in 2004.  Ball control HC Tom Coughlin’s teams have averaged just fewer than 450 carries a year in his 9 seasons.  In his first season with Coughlin, Barber set career highs in carries, rushing yards, TDs, and yards from scrimmage.  There is every expectation that after 9 straight years, Coughlin is not going to change his entire offensive philosophy, and will continue pound the ball with Barber again this season.  Fantasy Owners overlooking this, as witnessed by his low 2.07 average draft position, while Barber is drafted by more astute Owners, will be left behind as he has another top 5 RB fantasy performance.

I also went back and looked, and I expressed alot of these same thoughts when I did the High side on the Barber Face Off last season.He is just such an unsexy and old (I am completely Dynasty oriented, and look through those glasses first) player, that he is very easy to over look. I did.

 

[Noahs Troopers]

Even though I disagreed with the McGahee ranking, I should not forget to say I enjoyed the post, props LHUCKS for taking the time.

 

[LHUCKS]

Even though I disagreed with the McGahee ranking, I should not forget to say I enjoyed the post, props LHUCKS for taking the time.

Gracias.

 

[Marc Levin]

The more important debate is who are the #1, #2 and #3 backs - not who is #4 and who is #5.

I guess that depends on your draft position.

Well, unless I am drafting 1-3, my research indicates it does not matter much whether you have the RB4, RB5 or RB6 (edit - or RB7 or RB8).Quibble over whether RB4 should be McG, Portis, Deuce, KJones, Priest, or AGreen all we want - but if we are right that the top-3 RBs are gone, and we are right that the two RBs we are debating at RB4 and RB5 end anywhere in the RB4-RB8 range, it doesn't matter which one we each pick at 1.04 and 1.05

 

[IndyHavoc]

Ronnie Brown was not the NCAA yardage leader last year, and Ronnie Brown isn't in a proven offensive system unlike Brown's rookie coach environment. Also, Ronnie Brown has no idea what it's like to take 280 carries. Arrington is clearly the safer back in year one. It would be foolish to argue over talent, but when looking at the big picture I thing Arrington brings less risk with more ff point upside.

I realize I'm in the minority on this one, but my risk factor for Brown is very high.

If you're in the minority, then I'm in there also. Have the rooks (for redraft) Williams, Arrington, Benson, Brown. To me, there's just NO guarantee or comfort having big expectations for ANY RB in Miami. Tough division, tough schedule, rookie coach, still porous line...no thanks. 2 or 3 years from now, sure, he might be a STUD...this year, I'll pass.

 

[LHUCKS]

Ronnie Brown was not the NCAA yardage leader last year, and Ronnie Brown isn't in a proven offensive system unlike Brown's rookie coach environment.  Also, Ronnie Brown has no idea what it's like to take 280 carries.  Arrington is clearly the safer back in year one.  It would be foolish to argue over talent, but when looking at the big picture I thing Arrington brings less risk with more ff point upside.

I realize I'm in the minority on this one, but my risk factor for Brown is very high.

If you're in the minority, then I'm in there also. Have the rooks (for redraft) Williams, Arrington, Benson, Brown. To me, there's just NO guarantee or comfort having big expectations for ANY RB in Miami. Tough division, tough schedule, rookie coach, still porous line...no thanks. 2 or 3 years from now, sure, he might be a STUD...this year, I'll pass.

And you bring up a good point, I eyeballed SOS for these rankings...I've always relied on Gray's SOS work to fine tune my rankings.

Like FBG this is a first cut so we could see some movement based on the SOS numbers alone if it is convincing enough.

Anybody else notice Green Bay's schedule...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Quibble over whether RB4 should be McG, Portis, Deuce, KJones, Priest, or AGreen all we want - but if we are right that the top-3 RBs are gone, and we are right that the two RBs we are debating at RB4 and RB5 end anywhere in the RB4-RB8 range, it doesn't matter which one we each pick at 1.04 and 1.05

Those ifs make the rest of the sentence irrelevant to fantasy owners in an actual draft.Here are last year's consensus top 10 RB rankings:

1. Tomlinson

2. Holmes

3. McAllister

4. Ahman Green

5. S.Alexander

6. Portis

7. E.James

8. J.Lewis

9. F.Taylor

10. Barlow

If you had the fourth pick last year, I'd say it was pretty important to get the right answer to "Green or Alexander?"

 

[Mike Anderson]

While I have seen the light on Tiki, I'm standing fast on Droughns, and totally disagree with you on the Suggs ranking.Suggs has only been able to play in 17 out of 34 games in his career, to say he is injury prone is an understatement.Droughns is the more powerful runner, and should enjoy the short yardage between the tackles work as Suggs is better suited outside the tackles.Droughns finished last season with 1,240 rushing yards and 8 TDs. Although you site a 4.5 yards per carry in the last 3 games of the season. Included in that is a 38 carry run fest against Miami. His average for the season was 3.7It is my belief that Droughns will carry the load for Cleveland, take all of the goal line opportunities, while Suggs will be more of a change of pace back.If Suggs were ready and most importantly able to carry the load, Droughns would have never been brought in. My #46 ranking of Suggs is solid.

 

[LHUCKS]

Quibble over whether RB4 should be McG, Portis, Deuce, KJones, Priest, or AGreen all we want - but if we are right that the top-3 RBs are gone, and we are right that the two RBs we are debating at RB4 and RB5 end anywhere in the RB4-RB8 range, it doesn't matter which one we each pick at 1.04 and 1.05

Those ifs make the rest of the sentence irrelevant to fantasy owners in an actual draft.Here are last year's consensus top 10 RB rankings:

1. Tomlinson

2. Holmes

3. McAllister

4. Ahman Green

5. S.Alexander

6. Portis

7. E.James

8. J.Lewis

9. F.Taylor

10. Barlow

If you had the fourth pick last year, I'd say it was pretty important to get the right answer to "Green or Alexander?"

To me this is the correct perspective...looking at preseason rankings vs. EOY differences.

 

[Marc Levin]

I most disagree with this statement

therefore, as I said, it is quibbling over very little - in any year including last year, at most 3 FF points a game - to debate who ends up RB4-8.

I guess I consider 3 points a game to be somewhat significant, it just so happens that my #4 vs. #8 is more like 4 points this year...which coincidentally is about the same as '04's EOY difference.Yes, when looking at EOY rankings those are the differences, but if you look at preseason rankings the differences are obviously much more substantial. I'm not sure how significant the EOY numbers are in the grand scheme of things...other than to provide a general guideline on what one might expect.

That "general guideline" on what to expect is THE thing that matters, LHUCKS - look, half your projections are going to be wrong. That is all there is to it. It is highly unusual for anyone to be accurate on projections much more than half the time. Therefore, those EOY number ARE what matters more than your analysis that "this year is different." Your projections have a MUCH greater chance of error than historical data.Second, that 3pt/game betwen 4 and 8 is a HIGH end - it equates to 48 points, which is a high end difference bwteen RB4 and RB8 over the years. I showed you examples where the difference was between 10 and 30 points, which is less than 1.8 points per game and is NOT significant when discussing the RBs ranked 4-8.

Now - note, I am NOT saying ignore your projections in favor of historical data, I AM saying that realize your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG and that whoever someone else has at #4 is not necessarily "wrong" just because you have them at RB8. Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order from 4-8 are not an accurate assessment of where they will fall EOY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

 

[wannabee]

Marc, are you saying his projections will be wrong?

 

[Marc Levin]

Quibble over whether RB4 should be McG, Portis, Deuce, KJones, Priest, or AGreen all we want - but if we are right that the top-3 RBs are gone, and we are right that the two RBs we are debating at RB4 and RB5 end anywhere in the RB4-RB8 range, it doesn't matter which one we each pick at 1.04 and 1.05

Those ifs make the rest of the sentence irrelevant to fantasy owners in an actual draft.Here are last year's consensus top 10 RB rankings:

1. Tomlinson

2. Holmes

3. McAllister

4. Ahman Green

5. S.Alexander

6. Portis

7. E.James

8. J.Lewis

9. F.Taylor

10. Barlow

If you had the fourth pick last year, I'd say it was pretty important to get the right answer to "Green or Alexander?"

Not really, Maurille b/c it still necessitates getting it right on the actual players - according to your analysis and based on the above, there was no advantage to drafting #2 or #3.

 

[Marc Levin]

Quibble over whether RB4 should be McG, Portis, Deuce, KJones, Priest, or AGreen all we want - but if we are right that the top-3 RBs are gone, and we are right that the two RBs we are debating at RB4 and RB5 end anywhere in the RB4-RB8 range, it doesn't matter which one we each pick at 1.04 and 1.05

Those ifs make the rest of the sentence irrelevant to fantasy owners in an actual draft.Here are last year's consensus top 10 RB rankings:

1. Tomlinson

2. Holmes

3. McAllister

4. Ahman Green

5. S.Alexander

6. Portis

7. E.James

8. J.Lewis

9. F.Taylor

10. Barlow

If you had the fourth pick last year, I'd say it was pretty important to get the right answer to "Green or Alexander?"

Not really, Maurille b/c it still necessitates getting it right on the actual players - according to your analysis and based on the above, there was no advantage to drafting #2 or #3.

P.S. - and we are talking about two different issues here - whether it matters getting the #4 RB and #5 RB correct in order or whether it matters getting the right players selected. LHUCKS and I have been discussing #1, while your point above relates to #2 - which I agree with.

 

[LHUCKS]

While I have seen the light on Tiki, I'm standing fast on Droughns, and totally disagree with you on the Suggs ranking.

Suggs has only been able to play in 17 out of 34 games in his career, to say he is injury prone is an understatement.

Droughns is the more powerful runner, and should enjoy the short yardage between the tackles work as Suggs is better suited outside the tackles.

Droughns finished last season with 1,240 rushing yards and 8 TDs. 

Although you site a 4.5 yards per carry in the last 3 games of the season.  Included in that is a 38 carry run fest against Miami.  His average for the season was 3.7

It is my belief that Droughns will carry the load for Cleveland, take all of the goal line opportunities, while Suggs will be more of a change of pace back.

If Suggs were ready and most importantly able to carry the load, Droughns would have never been brought in.  My #46 ranking of Suggs is solid.

Points well taken Mike...and to be quite honest Suggs is probably my biggest leap of faith.A) No question that Suggs' injury history is the biggest factor. I completely agree. But Suggs did muster 199 carries despite splitting some time and Droughns hasn't exactly been Mr. Iron Man throughout his career.

B) I have a hard time reconciling why Droughns has never shown anything in the NFL until last year.

C) I believe Suggs is a decent between the tackles runner.

D) Although Suggs' average for the season was a 3.7(not shabby for Cleveland), his best YPC came when he was given a heavy workload, which I believe to be very encouraging. Especially given how pathetic the Browns were last season.

E) Right now Suggs is the #1 Guy and Droughns is losing favor by the day...although it is early.

When I watch both of these runners I just see more pure instinct and ability in Suggs. Combine that with Droughns' holdout and I like the situation for Suggs.

This is a one side of the fence or the other type of argument...so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Marc Levin]

Marc, are you saying his projections will be wrong?

No.

 

[LHUCKS]

Now - note, I am NOT saying ignore your projections in favor of historical data, I AM saying that realize your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG an dthat whoever sonmeone else has at #4 is not necessarily "wrong" just because you have them at RB8. Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order fomr 4-8 arenot an accurate assessment of wher ethey will fall EOPY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

I agree with all of that...we're on the same page.

 

[Rovers]

Tiki has missed only 2 games and that was back in 2001. So, he has defied the odds, the statistics, like a craps player on a two day roll.

It is a mistake (known as the gambler's fallacy) to expect a craps player to roll worse than average in the future just because he's rolled better than average in the past, since there's no correlation between past rolls and future rolls.It is a bigger mistake to expect a player to have a greater-than-average chance of injury in the future just because he's had fewer-than-average injuries in the past, since there is a correlation between past injuries and future injures, and the correlation is positive (although small).

One can spin numbers more easilly than anything else. You prefer to look at the odds of rolling a seven on any given roll. I ask how many sevens in a row can be rolled? That is what I think yer missing here, but, is the glass half full, or half empty? Depends on how you want to look at it.

 

[goonsquad]

If you had the fourth pick last year, I'd say it was pretty important to get the right answer to "Green or Alexander?"

I had the 4th pick last year. I chose Green over Alexander. Didn't work out too well for me.

 

[cstu]

I think the rankings are close, mostly only a spot or two off what I think the rankings should be. However, here are the ones I think are off by more than 3 spots (Jordan was the only one I considered more than 10 spots off):Underrated – Martin, Jordan*, Staley, Barlow Overrated – McGahee, Green, Jackson, C. Brown

 

[BigTex]

Does anyone give Jones an upgrade due to more involvement in the passing game with the absense of Richie Anderson?

JJ's problem last year wasn't Anderson it was inexperience. If anyone downgrade him because of the signing of Thomas havn't been paying attention and will be making a BIG mistake.

 

[bostonfred]

Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order from 4-8 are not an accurate assessment of where they will fall EOY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

I disagree. Sure, that's how you project some players, but with a guy like Priest, who you personally have 9th, I doubt you're confident at all that he will be the 9th best RB. I think most people look at him as a justified gamble. It's the fact that you know your projections are going to be wrong that makes an expected value approach the best play. I think all of us look at a player's upside, and at least consider their downside, when drafting them. The trick is to figure out about how likely you think each is and draft accordingly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order from 4-8 are not an accurate assessment of where they will fall EOY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

I disagree. Sure, that's how you project some players, but with a guy like Priest, who you personally have 9th, I doubt you're confident at all that he will be the 9th best RB.

Similarly, I have Tomlinson ranked #1, but I think he's a big underdog to finish as the #1 RB. (Even though he's an underdog to the field, however, I think he's a favorite over any other particular RB, which is why I have him ranked #1.)

 

[LHUCKS]

Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order from 4-8 are not an accurate assessment of where they will fall EOY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

I disagree. Sure, that's how you project some players, but with a guy like Priest, who you personally have 9th, I doubt you're confident at all that he will be the 9th best RB.

Similarly, I have Tomlinson ranked #1, but I think he's a big underdog to finish as the #1 RB. (Even though he's an underdog to the field, however, I think he's a favorite over any other particular RB, which is why I have him ranked #1.)

 

[Marc Levin]

Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order from 4-8 are not an accurate assessment of where they will fall EOY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

I disagree. Sure, that's how you project some players, but with a guy like Priest, who you personally have 9th, I doubt you're confident at all that he will be the 9th best RB. I think most people look at him as a justified gamble. It's the fact that you know your projections are going to be wrong that makes an expected value approach the best play. I think all of us look at a player's upside, and at least consider their downside, when drafting them. The trick is to figure out about how likely you think each is and draft accordingly.

I see what you are saying, and it makes a lot of sense, and it actually fits in with what I do with my rankings right now. I also don't see how your point disagrees with the point I made in my statement. The statement was premised on the fact that EOY RBs 4-8 (or 9 since you included Priest) - historically - have a much shallower drop-off than the drops from RB1 to RB4 - and there is historically only about 1.7-3 points/game difference between RB8 and RB4 - as LHUCKS said, it is worth worrying about 3 points, but that is the high end - less than 2 points a game betwen RB8 and RB4 is not significant. Note, these are final, already happened, EOY numbers.What LHUCKS and I discussed was that if we both are guessing the same backs to end RB4 to RB8 - in any order, but the same backs - there is little point in us quibbling on the order that those RB4-RB8 backs actually land if we are in agreement on which backs will be there.

Now, on your comment above (which I think is very observant, BTW), right now, this early in the season, my rankings are not based on projections, they are based on feelings. I admittedly won't have a good database of projections until sometime next month. So right now, my rankings are based on feelings more than projections.

But, I actually do (currently) see Priest at nine and i expect when I do my projections, they will come close to placing him there. I expect him to be ninth based on a shortened season, but only for a few games. That's why LJ found his way into my top-50 RBs. Just like Faulk a couple of years ago, I am going to project Priest to miss two or three games. I don't do that very often with players and I usually just project them to a 16 game season, - with the injury risk players, I divide by 16, and then mutiply by the number of games I think the player wil be able to play.

With Priest specifically, even if he doesn't miss a couple of games, I could see this being the year the coaches steal his helmet to keep him on the sideline b/c of nagging injuries, which will reduce all the garbage numbers he usually gets as a Vermeil 25 touches a game back.

Chris Brown would be in my top-12 backs if I had ANY confidence in him playing 16 games. As it stands, I anticipate 2-4 missed games for him, and closer to 4 when you count how many gametime minutes he misses heading to the locker room for treatment. (that one was just for you LHUCKS )

There are very few players I will project for injury - but you are right, Priest would be my RB3 if I thought he was going to play 16 games, and he'd be way lower and LJ higher if I thought he'd miss significant time.

 

[LHUCKS]

Chris Brown would be in my top-12 backs if I had ANY confidence in him playing 16 games. As it stands, I anticipate 2-4 missed games for him, and closer to 4 when you count how many gametime minutes he misses heading to the locker room for treatment. (that one was just for you LHUCKS )

Welcome to the dark side Levin :vadervoice:

 

[Marc Levin]

Your projections ARE GOING TO BE WRONG. Your RBs in order from 4-8 are not an accurate assessment of where they will fall EOY - they ARE an accurate assessment of your confidence in each of them landing between 4-8 at year's end.

I disagree. Sure, that's how you project some players, but with a guy like Priest, who you personally have 9th, I doubt you're confident at all that he will be the 9th best RB.

Similarly, I have Tomlinson ranked #1, but I think he's a big underdog to finish as the #1 RB. (Even though he's an underdog to the field, however, I think he's a favorite over any other particular RB, which is why I have him ranked #1.)

Nice logical tounge twisting - as usual. "He's a big underdog to finish #1" he's also "the favorite over any other paticular RB" Sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't.I think this is the exact reason I decided to place Alexander at #1 - he was the only back in the league I felt approached LT as a favorite to finish #1 - and I really didn't want to be yet one more person projecting LT #1. I ranked SA over LT 1-2, but I really don't know that I'd actually draft SA over LT if I was sitting in the eagles perch.

 

[Marc Levin]

Chris Brown would be in my top-12 backs if I had ANY confidence in him playing 16 games. As it stands, I anticipate 2-4 missed games for him, and closer to 4 when you count how many gametime minutes he misses heading to the locker room for treatment. (that one was just for you LHUCKS )

Welcome to the dark side Levin :vadervoice:

I am still Yoda. I love Brown's play - you don't. If your main problem with Brown was the injury history, we'd be in agreement. Your problem is that last year, when we were discussing Brown in the preseason, you came in with statements disputing his talent to be a strting RB, and that he was a locker room cancer.

As it stands, I readily acknowledge that Brown is one of the biggest injury risks at RB (right next to Taylor)

 

[LHUCKS]

Chris Brown would be in my top-12 backs if I had ANY confidence in him playing 16 games. As it stands, I anticipate 2-4 missed games for him, and closer to 4 when you count how many gametime minutes he misses heading to the locker room for treatment. (that one was just for you LHUCKS )

Welcome to the dark side Levin :vadervoice:

I am still Yoda. I love Brown's play - you don't. If your main problem with Brown was the injury history, we'd be in agreement. Your problem is that last year, when we were discussing Brown in the preseason, you came in with statements disputing his talent to be a strting RB, and that he was a locker room cancer.

As it stands, I readily acknowledge that Brown is one of the biggest injury risks at RB (right next to Taylor)

Well, I had many problems with Brown last year outside of his talent. And I still believe his talent is overrated as he's horrendous in short yardage situations. He is a better slasher than I realized, but I suspect his two minutes of fame will be over before most expect.

 

[Marc Levin]

Well, I had many problems with Brown last year outside of his talent. And I still believe his talent is overrated as he's horrendous in short yardage situations. He is a better slasher than I realized, but I suspect his two minutes of fame will be over before most expect.

horrendous in short yardage situations

Brown's stats on 0-3 yards to go for the first down on either 3rd or 4th:26 rushes 86 yards 3.31 YPR 10 first downs 2 TDs

That was 20th in the league for all RBs who had at least 25 rushes in such situations.

Brown didn't have even 10 rush attempts inside the 5 last year, so it is unfair to call him horrendous on his limited touhces down there, but here are his numbers:

7 rushes 6 yards 0.86 YPR 2 TDs 2 FDs

Not much statistical support for "horrendous" in short yardage - while I agree he was not overly impressive, he was average in short yardage situations.

 

[LHUCKS]

Brown didn't have even 10 rush attempts inside the 5 last year, so it is unfair to call him horrendous on his limited touhces down there...

There's a reason for this. Brown is not a good short yardage runner even if the stats show he was average...trust me.

 

[Marc Levin]

Brown didn't have even 10 rush attempts inside the 5 last year, so it is unfair to call him horrendous on his limited touhces down there...

There's a reason for this. Brown is not a good short yardage runner even if the stats show he was average...trust me.

I watched him his entire CU career, and quite a few times last year - in short, I have seen a LOT of Chris Brown's gametime rushes on both college and pro level. LHUCKS, you are wrong. Trust me.

 

[LHUCKS]

Brown didn't have even 10 rush attempts inside the 5 last year, so it is unfair to call him horrendous on his limited touhces down there...

There's a reason for this. Brown is not a good short yardage runner even if the stats show he was average...trust me.

I watched him his entire CU career, and quite a few times last year - in short, I have seen a LOT of Chris Brown's gametime rushes on both college and pro level. LHUCKS, you are wrong. Trust me.

This is a poll.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I disagree with you in regards to McGahee although there is a chance he's overrated heading into the season. What scares me slightly is that Losman is unproven at QB and if he's a flop, defenses will stack 8 in the box.However, I don't think he's going to be horrible and I like the addition of Evans along side Moulds which should keep defenses honost. When I saw McGahee last year, he looked special. On top of that, he gets chances at the goaline. He's one of those guys who can get 4 td's in a game because the coaching philosophy is to pound the ball in once at the goaline where other teams try more Tom Foolery.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

The difference between my 4 and 8 is far from minimal.

My tiers are:

1-3

4-7

8-14

Who are these top three backs?

Actually it's more likeLT

Alexander

Edge

I put 1-3 in the original post for simplification. I should have been more detailed. I knew somebody would call me out on that after I posted it. LT is definitely his own tier.

Actually, the only guy who deserves his own Tier is Priest.After missing 6 games last year, he still has the highest point total over the last 3 years.

 

[Marc Levin]

The difference between my 4 and 8 is far from minimal.

My tiers are:

1-3

4-7

8-14

Who are these top three backs?

Actually it's more likeLT

Alexander

Edge

I put 1-3 in the original post for simplification. I should have been more detailed. I knew somebody would call me out on that after I posted it. LT is definitely his own tier.

Actually, the only guy who deserves his own Tier is Priest.After missing 6 games last year, he still has the highest point total over the last 3 years.

IIRC, he was at 25+ FF points/game - which is simply insane.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

The difference between my 4 and 8 is far from minimal.

My tiers are:

1-3

4-7

8-14

Who are these top three backs?

Actually it's more likeLT

Alexander

Edge

I put 1-3 in the original post for simplification. I should have been more detailed. I knew somebody would call me out on that after I posted it. LT is definitely his own tier.

Actually, the only guy who deserves his own Tier is Priest.After missing 6 games last year, he still has the highest point total over the last 3 years.

IIRC, he was at 25+ FF points/game - which is simply insane.

And somehow, he'll be value this year.

 

[SilentReader]

The more important debate is who are the #1, #2 and #3 backs - not who is #4 and who is #5.

don't know if this has been mentioned yet or not,but the reason why the debate is in 4-8 and not 1-3 is because it seems like everyone (myself included) pretty much agrees on LT,alexander and edge there,while no one seems to have the same rankings for 4-8.

 

[Marc Levin]

The more important debate is who are the #1, #2 and #3 backs - not who is #4 and who is #5.

don't know if this has been mentioned yet or not,but the reason why the debate is in 4-8 and not 1-3 is because it seems like everyone (myself included) pretty much agrees on LT,alexander and edge there,while no one seems to have the same rankings for 4-8.

Right - got that - the debate on who should be considered a RB 4-8 is important - the debate on whether a specific players is 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8, IMO, is nowhere near as important.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think you are making this more difficult, perhaps on purpose, when you don't include your complete rankings.

I don't include my complete rankings for several reasons, one of which is that in my money leagues everybody knows I camp out here. All my buddies use this site now and some check out the board quite frequently. I'll send my excel file for you if you PM me your email address.

that's not true

...exhibit A.But you're right...edited to say "a lot" instead of "all".

LHucks - First let me say that I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there for all of us to criticize. That is far better than just doing the criticizing. However, let me retort.

Tiki Barber - People make the mistake of looking only at last years numbers and adjusting. You need to look at some trends and past years while taking injuries into account as well as present factors. Including last year, Tiki averaged about 13.6 points a game. Pretty good. Last year he averaged 18.4 points per game (no reception points) which of course pulled up the average which was 12 going into last year. LHucks you had Tiki ranked over 20 in 2004, so why such a high ranking in 05? Last year uephoria. I think Tiki will perform about to his average this year which should give him draft position of about 10 overall. Dynasty and keeper leagues should draft him lower.

Lee Suggs - Could not disagree with you more regarding Suggs vision. I think he has very poor vision and is mediocre at best. Droughans is the same.

Lamont Jordan - Why does this guy get no love? He an experience Ronnie Brown, big fast, and strong who can catch. He probbaly has better cutting then Brown, but less vision. There is no reason to think he isn't a top 15 guy under any scenario and I would put money he finishes in the top 10.