M. Turners ranking in Dodds FBG Sept 4th top 250 (1 Viewer)

[Micon]

Obviously Turner wont play much unless LT is hurt and LT is pretty durable, but Rbs do get hurt and miss games/seasons fairly often.

If LT goes down Turner would have virtually no competition for carrys or goal line carrys. He would instantly become a top 20 fantasy back with upside in the top 10. He has talent and has always produced when filling in for LT.

I would have to think that he has much more value than where Dodds has him ranked in the top 250. Especially if you own LT but even if you dont. He'll probably will be your 4-6 Rb so you are not counting on him anyway, so you mind as well have a guy with some potential rather than waste a roster spot on a scrub.

But in Dodds top 250, players like Alstott, T. Fisher, C. Perry, Davenport, and many crap Qbs,WRs,TEs that most people would never want to start even in 12-14 team leagues are ranked ahead of Turner. Guys that probably wont produce even if ther is an injury ahead of them. Also many defenses and kickers are ranked higher. In most leagues you can get decent Kickers oand Defenses on the waiver wire but I'll doubt you find a guy with Turners talent and potential at Rb on your waivers.

I just cant see an intelligent fantasy football player drafting a guy like Alstott or T. Fisher over M. Turner. I guess Dodds would do it though so maybe Im wrong.

Thoughts?

 

[a_f13nd]

Obviously Turner wont play much unless LT is hurt and LT is pretty durable, but Rbs do get hurt and miss games/seasons fairly often.If LT goes down Turner would have virtually no competition for carrys or goal line carrys. He would instantly become a top 20 fantasy back with upside in the top 10. He has talent and has always produced when filling in for LT.I would have to think that he has much more value than where Dodds has him ranked in the top 250. Especially if you own LT but even if you dont. He'll probably will be your 4-6 Rb so you are not counting on him anyway, so you mind as well have a guy with some potential rather than waste a roster spot on a scrub.But in Dodds top 250, players like Alstott, T. Fisher, C. Perry, Davenport, and many crap Qbs,WRs,TEs that most people would never want to start even in 12-14 team leagues are ranked ahead of Turner. Guys that probably wont produce even if ther is an injury ahead of them. Also many defenses and kickers are ranked higher. In most leagues you can get decent Kickers oand Defenses on the waiver wire but I'll doubt you find a guy with Turners talent and potential at Rb on your waivers.I just cant see an intelligent fantasy football player drafting a guy like Alstott or T. Fisher over M. Turner. I guess Dodds would do it though so maybe Im wrong.Thoughts?

Alstott and Perry play regularly and should be ahead of Turner. Alstott is a goalline vulture and Perry is a great passing option in a great offense.The point is that the rankings are projections, which can be changed based on injury factors. LT is entrenched as the back and will get all the carries and catches from the RB position except if SD has a runaway lead or if LT is injured.In the last few rounds of a draft, there's no reason not to take a shot at a guy like Turner or Mo Morris. But don't be shocked if they don't produce.Meanwhile, if you need a bye week plug-in, pick up Alstott or Perry, because they're as likely as any backup to grab a random TD for at least some points...

 

[Micon]

I think Perry is one of the better backup Rbs to have when healthly but his is on the PUP and out for atleast 6 weeks and who know after that.

I dont agree a player like Alstott should be taken ahead of Turner. Hes had 9 tds and 4 fantasy PPG in the last 2 years. Hes garbage. He has no trade value and never will. Turner is an injury or off duty police shooting away from being a possible stud.

There is no way in hell i would take a player like Alstott over Turner

 

[a_f13nd]

I think Perry is one of the better backup Rbs to have when healthly but his is on the PUP and out for atleast 6 weeks and who know after that. I dont agree a player like Alstott should be taken ahead of Turner. Hes had 9 tds and 4 fantasy PPG in the last 2 years. Hes garbage. He has no trade value and never will. Turner is an injury or off duty police shooting away from being a possible stud.There is no way in hell i would take a player like Alstott over Turner

You make good points, but I think you're missing mine. Main point is Turner gets 0 pts any week LT is in, which is every week for the purposes of projections. You don't project injuries, or at least, I don't believe Dodds does.

 

[Da Guru]

LT started to get dinged last season, a couple of chinks in the armour. This may be the year.

 

[el-gato-grande]

I think Perry is one of the better backup Rbs to have when healthly but his is on the PUP and out for atleast 6 weeks and who know after that. I dont agree a player like Alstott should be taken ahead of Turner. Hes had 9 tds and 4 fantasy PPG in the last 2 years. Hes garbage. He has no trade value and never will. Turner is an injury or off duty police shooting away from being a possible stud.There is no way in hell i would take a player like Alstott over Turner

You make good points, but I think you're missing mine. Main point is Turner gets 0 pts any week LT is in, which is every week for the purposes of projections. You don't project injuries, or at least, I don't believe Dodds does.

I thought I read somewhere that the Chargers want Turner to play more and will look for opportunities to get him in the game. And that makes sense considering his talent level and the fact that he is chomping at the bit to play now. We won't see starter numbers but I bet you will see him score some points every game.

 

[David Dodds]

It kind of depends on why you might be drafting someone. After the Top 100-120 picks, you really should be drafting on need. If you need a boom/bust player that you are OK with him possibly never playing in your lineup, then Turner could be your man.

If your roster is set, sure I agree with ths swing for the fences. Turner would be Golden IF the starter in front of him went down to injury. Same with DeAngelo Williams, Laurence Maroney, Vernand Morency, Jerome Harrison, etc.

Turner is a guy that I personally think is VERY talented. But that said, he does not have much opportunity UNLESS LT gets hurt. I am projecting him for a much bigger role this year. But to exceed my current projections, LT is going to have to likely miss time.

 

[TinHat]

I'd rather have Turner over a WR/QB/TE that's at replacement level

 

[Micon]

It kind of depends on why you might be drafting someone. After the Top 100-120 picks, you really should be drafting on need. If you need a boom/bust player that you are OK with him possibly never playing in your lineup, then Turner could be your man.If your roster is set, sure I agree with ths swing for the fences. Turner would be Golden IF the starter in front of him went down to injury. Same with DeAngelo Williams, Laurence Maroney, Vernand Morency, Jerome Harrison, etc. Turner is a guy that I personally think is VERY talented. But that said, he does not have much opportunity UNLESS LT gets hurt. I am projecting him for a much bigger role this year. But to exceed my current projections, LT is going to have to likely miss time.

I get what you are saying about Alstott being projected to produce slightly more fantasy points that Turner, butIm talking about which player has more value to you fantasy football team and thus should be ranked higher than the other guy.Alstott has virtually no trade value, no upside value (even if caddy goes done he probably wont do much with pittman still there)I would say Turner has alot more value. Hes a great handcuff if you own LT. You could probably get something of value in a trade with an LT owner with a weak RB core, maybe a package deal to upgrade at another position. If LT goes down with Injury you would then immediately have a top 20 fantasy back with top 10 upside on your team. If you need a rb great then you can use him, if not you could probably trade him for a top WR or QB to a team huritng at RB.I just dont see any reason why you would have Alstott and other waiver wire equivalent scrubs ranked higher than Turner in your FBG top 250 rankings.I just know if im in the later rounds looking for my 5th or 6th RB, Im taking Turner over Alstott everytime.

 

[el-gato-grande]

If LT goes down with Injury you would then immediately have a top 20 fantasy back with top 10 upside on your team.

Try a top 10 back with top 5 upside. He is averaging more than 5.0 YPC as a backup. Very "Larry Johnson esque" numbers.

 

[Micon]

Dodds, I just dont believe that that there are any circumstances in which you personally would draft a guy like Alstott or A. Harris over Turner late in a standard draft. Yet you have them ranked 25-30 spots higher than Turner.

I believe there is a difference between projections and rankings of players especially later in the draft, as some players may have more value than their projections indicate due to various reasons. It seems you guys dont factor that in at all in your rankings and you just lazily rank the later round players by your projections, which I feel is wrong.

 

[bentley]

It kind of depends on why you might be drafting someone. After the Top 100-120 picks, you really should be drafting on need. If you need a boom/bust player that you are OK with him possibly never playing in your lineup, then Turner could be your man.If your roster is set, sure I agree with ths swing for the fences. Turner would be Golden IF the starter in front of him went down to injury. Same with DeAngelo Williams, Laurence Maroney, Vernand Morency, Jerome Harrison, etc. Turner is a guy that I personally think is VERY talented. But that said, he does not have much opportunity UNLESS LT gets hurt. I am projecting him for a much bigger role this year. But to exceed my current projections, LT is going to have to likely miss time.

I get what you are saying about Alstott being projected to produce slightly more fantasy points that Turner, butIm talking about which player has more value to you fantasy football team and thus should be ranked higher than the other guy.Alstott has virtually no trade value, no upside value (even if caddy goes done he probably wont do much with pittman still there)I would say Turner has alot more value. Hes a great handcuff if you own LT. You could probably get something of value in a trade with an LT owner with a weak RB core, maybe a package deal to upgrade at another position. If LT goes down with Injury you would then immediately have a top 20 fantasy back with top 10 upside on your team. If you need a rb great then you can use him, if not you could probably trade him for a top WR or QB to a team huritng at RB.I just dont see any reason why you would have Alstott and other waiver wire equivalent scrubs ranked higher than Turner in your FBG top 250 rankings.I just know if im in the later rounds looking for my 5th or 6th RB, Im taking Turner over Alstott everytime.

You're missing the point, Ace. His projections are based on how many points he thinks they're going to score, not where you should draft them.

 

[Micon]

It kind of depends on why you might be drafting someone. After the Top 100-120 picks, you really should be drafting on need. If you need a boom/bust player that you are OK with him possibly never playing in your lineup, then Turner could be your man.If your roster is set, sure I agree with ths swing for the fences. Turner would be Golden IF the starter in front of him went down to injury. Same with DeAngelo Williams, Laurence Maroney, Vernand Morency, Jerome Harrison, etc. Turner is a guy that I personally think is VERY talented. But that said, he does not have much opportunity UNLESS LT gets hurt. I am projecting him for a much bigger role this year. But to exceed my current projections, LT is going to have to likely miss time.

I get what you are saying about Alstott being projected to produce slightly more fantasy points that Turner, butIm talking about which player has more value to you fantasy football team and thus should be ranked higher than the other guy.Alstott has virtually no trade value, no upside value (even if caddy goes done he probably wont do much with pittman still there)I would say Turner has alot more value. Hes a great handcuff if you own LT. You could probably get something of value in a trade with an LT owner with a weak RB core, maybe a package deal to upgrade at another position. If LT goes down with Injury you would then immediately have a top 20 fantasy back with top 10 upside on your team. If you need a rb great then you can use him, if not you could probably trade him for a top WR or QB to a team huritng at RB.I just dont see any reason why you would have Alstott and other waiver wire equivalent scrubs ranked higher than Turner in your FBG top 250 rankings.I just know if im in the later rounds looking for my 5th or 6th RB, Im taking Turner over Alstott everytime.

You're missing the point, Ace. His projections are based on how many points he thinks they're going to score, not where you should draft them.

I think you are missing my point. His rankings ARE telling you where to draft players and are based solely on his projections. Which is ridiculous when drafting players that project to have very few stats

 

[bentley]

It kind of depends on why you might be drafting someone. After the Top 100-120 picks, you really should be drafting on need. If you need a boom/bust player that you are OK with him possibly never playing in your lineup, then Turner could be your man.If your roster is set, sure I agree with ths swing for the fences. Turner would be Golden IF the starter in front of him went down to injury. Same with DeAngelo Williams, Laurence Maroney, Vernand Morency, Jerome Harrison, etc. Turner is a guy that I personally think is VERY talented. But that said, he does not have much opportunity UNLESS LT gets hurt. I am projecting him for a much bigger role this year. But to exceed my current projections, LT is going to have to likely miss time.

I get what you are saying about Alstott being projected to produce slightly more fantasy points that Turner, butIm talking about which player has more value to you fantasy football team and thus should be ranked higher than the other guy.Alstott has virtually no trade value, no upside value (even if caddy goes done he probably wont do much with pittman still there)I would say Turner has alot more value. Hes a great handcuff if you own LT. You could probably get something of value in a trade with an LT owner with a weak RB core, maybe a package deal to upgrade at another position. If LT goes down with Injury you would then immediately have a top 20 fantasy back with top 10 upside on your team. If you need a rb great then you can use him, if not you could probably trade him for a top WR or QB to a team huritng at RB.I just dont see any reason why you would have Alstott and other waiver wire equivalent scrubs ranked higher than Turner in your FBG top 250 rankings.I just know if im in the later rounds looking for my 5th or 6th RB, Im taking Turner over Alstott everytime.

You're missing the point, Ace. His projections are based on how many points he thinks they're going to score, not where you should draft them.

I think you are missing my point. His rankings ARE telling you where to draft players and are based solely on his projections. Which is ridiculous when drafting players that project to have very few stats

Please explain to me how his rankings accomplish this. Sounds like you just want to be able to pick the next name off the list.

 

[Micon]

I am just saying that Dodds top 250 FBG ranking advises you where to draft players. But it ranks players solely on the projections that Dodds has and does not take into account any other variables about the players, their potential, or other situations that may arise.

So Dodds is stating that if a player is projected to get a few more fantasy points than another player then you should draft that player higher. This doesnt always make sense when ranking backups and later round picks.

Say a novice player using Dodds' cheatsheet draft LT in round 1 of a standard league. Round 14 comes around and they player is looking for a 5th RB. Alstott and M. Turner are availabe. Going by Dodds cheatsheet the novice will jump all over Alstott thinking he got the better player. But obviously Turner would have been the better pick.

 

[bentley]

I am just saying that Dodds top 250 FBG ranking advises you where to draft players. But it ranks players solely on the projections that Dodds has and does not take into account any other variables about the players, their potential, or other situations that may arise.So Dodds is stating that if a player is projected to get a few more fantasy points than another player then you should draft that player higher. This doesnt always make sense when ranking backups and later round picks.Say a novice player using Dodds' cheatsheet draft LT in round 1 of a standard league. Round 14 comes around and they player is looking for a 5th RB. Alstott and M. Turner are availabe. Going by Dodds cheatsheet the novice will jump all over Alstott thinking he got the better player. But obviously Turner would have been the better pick.

The novice would do that because the novice is using the tool incorrectly and not thinking. I'm pretty sure everyone around here has been pretty clear that what's sold is information, not something to blindly follow.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I think the right way to look at Michael Turner is on a probability adjusted basis.

I haven't done a lot of work on the numbers, but here is a quick and dirty analysis.

I think the base case has to be that Turner does essentially what he did last year, which is about what Dodd's forecast reflects. Turner produced a grand total of 52 fantasy points last year, for an average of 3.25/ppg. Dodds has him producing ~57 points this year, or 3.6/ppg.

The modest upside scenario would go something like this: LT misses 5 games and Turner plays in his place, generating 75% of the production LT would (LT is a ~20 ppg player) which works out to 15 ppg for Turner, or a total of 75 total points.

The big upside case is that Turner ends up playing most of the season, because LT sustains a major injury. Assuming the same 75% production (or 15 ppg) for Turner and assuming that "most of the season" means 12 games, then Turner generates a total of 180 points.

The downside case for Turner is that he gets hurt, whether a major injury or just being dinged up, and he only plays half of the games Dodds is projecting. That works out to about 29 total points.

So, we have the following cases:

Base case: 57 points

Modest upside: 75 points

Big upside: 180 points

Downside: 29 points

Now, all that remains to be done is to put probabilities on these outcomes. Here is how I would arbitrarily assign them.

Base = 60%

Modest upside = 20%

Big upside = 10%

Downside = 10%

Multiplying the probabilities through goes like this:

(57*0.60)+(75*0.20)+(180*0.10)+(29*0.10)=70.10

Based on this probability weighted projection, Michael Turner would move from being the #58 RB to being the #48 RB.

Now, my numbers were just based on some quick and dirty analysis and obviously there are an infinite number of potential outcomes. But I think this is a very valid framework for thinking about the value of a guy like Turner.

Another consideration is looking at what kind of starter Turner might be for the duration of an LT injury. Based on my 75% production assumption, the implied 15 ppg production for Turner would land him at #5 on the RB list, in terms of points per game. So for the duration of the LT injury, Turner could represent a high quality #1 running back. Maybe this potential alone merits a higher value than my probability adjusted projection did, I guess it depends on your perspective.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

It kind of depends on why you might be drafting someone. After the Top 100-120 picks, you really should be drafting on need. If you need a boom/bust player that you are OK with him possibly never playing in your lineup, then Turner could be your man.If your roster is set, sure I agree with ths swing for the fences. Turner would be Golden IF the starter in front of him went down to injury. Same with DeAngelo Williams, Laurence Maroney, Vernand Morency, Jerome Harrison, etc. Turner is a guy that I personally think is VERY talented. But that said, he does not have much opportunity UNLESS LT gets hurt. I am projecting him for a much bigger role this year. But to exceed my current projections, LT is going to have to likely miss time.

I get what you are saying about Alstott being projected to produce slightly more fantasy points that Turner, butIm talking about which player has more value to you fantasy football team and thus should be ranked higher than the other guy.Alstott has virtually no trade value, no upside value (even if caddy goes done he probably wont do much with pittman still there)I would say Turner has alot more value. Hes a great handcuff if you own LT. You could probably get something of value in a trade with an LT owner with a weak RB core, maybe a package deal to upgrade at another position. If LT goes down with Injury you would then immediately have a top 20 fantasy back with top 10 upside on your team. If you need a rb great then you can use him, if not you could probably trade him for a top WR or QB to a team huritng at RB.I just dont see any reason why you would have Alstott and other waiver wire equivalent scrubs ranked higher than Turner in your FBG top 250 rankings.I just know if im in the later rounds looking for my 5th or 6th RB, Im taking Turner over Alstott everytime.

You're missing the point, Ace. His projections are based on how many points he thinks they're going to score, not where you should draft them.

I think you are missing my point. His rankings ARE telling you where to draft players and are based solely on his projections. Which is ridiculous when drafting players that project to have very few stats

Do you run your team or does Dodds? I own Turner the Burner in many leagues because I watch him play and like his potential if he got the shot. Lots of miles on the Ladain Train, and he's a guy that could win you a league in a whirlwind, ala Mike Anderson, Dominc Rhodes, Portis, LJ, as backs who came on to light it up.Dodds rankings are right though. We're not all in 10 or even 12 team leagues. 18, 20, 22 team leagues and up, Allstott actually becomes an important player each week given his goaline vulture status. Smaller leagues, you can gamble with the upside picks late, and Turner is probably the best example of that this year.

 

[TinHat]

I think the right way to look at Michael Turner is on a probability adjusted basis.I haven't done a lot of work on the numbers, but here is a quick and dirty analysis.I think the base case has to be that Turner does essentially what he did last year, which is about what Dodd's forecast reflects. Turner produced a grand total of 52 fantasy points last year, for an average of 3.25/ppg. Dodds has him producing ~57 points this year, or 3.6/ppg.The modest upside scenario would go something like this: LT misses 5 games and Turner plays in his place, generating 75% of the production LT would (LT is a ~20 ppg player) which works out to 15 ppg for Turner, or a total of 75 total points.The big upside case is that Turner ends up playing most of the season, because LT sustains a major injury. Assuming the same 75% production (or 15 ppg) for Turner and assuming that "most of the season" means 12 games, then Turner generates a total of 180 points.The downside case for Turner is that he gets hurt, whether a major injury or just being dinged up, and he only plays half of the games Dodds is projecting. That works out to about 29 total points.So, we have the following cases:Base case: 57 pointsModest upside: 75 pointsBig upside: 180 pointsDownside: 29 pointsNow, all that remains to be done is to put probabilities on these outcomes. Here is how I would arbitrarily assign them.Base = 60%Modest upside = 20%Big upside = 10%Downside = 10%Multiplying the probabilities through goes like this:(57*0.60)+(75*0.20)+(180*0.10)+(29*0.10)=70.10Based on this probability weighted projection, Michael Turner would move from being the #58 RB to being the #48 RB.Now, my numbers were just based on some quick and dirty analysis and obviously there are an infinite number of potential outcomes. But I think this is a very valid framework for thinking about the value of a guy like Turner.Another consideration is looking at what kind of starter Turner might be for the duration of an LT injury. Based on my 75% production assumption, the implied 15 ppg production for Turner would land him at #5 on the RB list, in terms of points per game. So for the duration of the LT injury, Turner could represent a high quality #1 running back. Maybe this potential alone merits a higher value than my probability adjusted projection did, I guess it depends on your perspective.

shhhh