New Expert rankings Posted (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

If you look at his numbers by quarter, his targets stay relatively constant, but his y/r goes from 11.25 to 14.93 to 17.47 all the way up to 18.8 in the 4th quarter and overtime. Shows that he was making his biggest plays when they mattered most.

While I admire you using the amazing new book, here's my question for you:How does that matter whatsoever for his fantasy value in 2004? It might make Muhammed a more clutch player, or a better player. But I don't think that means he's more likely to do well in 2004. One could just as easily spin it to say Muhammed can't dominate for whole games anymore, so he only gives it his all when the game is on the line. In that case, there's no reason to upgrade him based on that information.Players are streaky, we know that. I've yet to see anyone conclusively convince me that a strong second half by a 33 year old veteran (with a new QB) means he's going to have a strong N+1 year.You guys DO remember all the talk about how much Burress exploded with Maddox in at QB, and that's why he was going to be better than Ward right

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.

Bass,No one is betting you because no one disagrees. While Muhammad isn't in any of our top 40, I'm sure he's in all of our top 60...so we're in agreement. While no Denver RB is currently projected to finish in the top 25, I nor most FBGs disagree with the notion that one WILL, it's just a matter of figuring out who...so again, we're in agreement. And although I don't have Delhomme finishing in the top 18, at 20, with a whopping 7 points separating my QB18 from Delhomme, that's hardly a bet I would endure without you giving me some rock solid odds.

I'd agree and Bass N Bew, I'd be willing to compromise. I say Mushin. M. doesn't get into the top 45. You make the bet, that's fair. If he's any good he'll finish in the top 45 wr's in the NFL.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

If you look at his numbers by quarter, his targets stay relatively constant, but his y/r goes from 11.25 to 14.93 to 17.47 all the way up to 18.8 in the 4th quarter and overtime. Shows that he was making his biggest plays when they mattered most.

While I admire you using the amazing new book, here's my question for you:How does that matter whatsoever for his fantasy value in 2004? It might make Muhammed a more clutch player, or a better player. But I don't think that means he's more likely to do well in 2004. One could just as easily spin it to say Muhammed can't dominate for whole games anymore, so he only gives it his all when the game is on the line. In that case, there's no reason to upgrade him based on that information.Players are streaky, we know that. I've yet to see anyone conclusively convince me that a strong second half by a 33 year old veteran (with a new QB) means he's going to have a strong N+1 year.You guys DO remember all the talk about how much Burress exploded with Maddox in at QB, and that's why he was going to be better than Ward right

####, I just typed out a long response, then my browser refreshed and it got erased. anyway, I'll try to sum up quickly#1 Muhammad is 31 years old, not 33. For a possible comparison player, check out McCardell's numbers from 2002 to 2003. He went from being ranked the 45th fantasy WR to #10 in his 2nd year in Tampa with Brad Johnson and Gruden as coach. His y/r jumped by 3 full yards and he was 33 years old at the time.#2 I'm not sure what the significance of the data by quarters is. I just thought it was an interesting trend.One way to interpret it might be that the Panthers opened up games rather conservatively and allowed their running game and defense to do most of the work. Then, as the games progressed, Delhomme and the offense appeared more willing to take chances downfield and take advantage of defenses stacking up to stop Stephen Davis. Muhammad proved last year that he is perfectly capable of taking advantage of those situations and beating single coverage.What was most interesting to me was the huge difference in the 2 key 2nd half stats (i.e., conversion % and y/r). Clearly, something was different either (a) with Muhammad's play, or (b) with the quality of passes from Delhomme, or © the quality of playcalling. Whatever it was, they found something that worked and it got them all the way to the Super Bowl. I don't see them just phasing out Muhammad now that he's proven an integral part of the offense.If you think that he can maintain that 65% conversion percentage, then even if you give him 100 targets or so again this year, he'll wind up with about 65 catches, which is pretty solid for a WR and could get him near 1000 yards if he's able to maintain his y/r from last year. If you believe last year was a statisical anomaly and that he'll regress towards the mean in terms of his completion % and y/r, then obviously he'll need more targets to make an impact.However, expecting some improvement from a 31 year old former Pro Bowl WR in a contract year, who played with 2 of the worst QBs in the league in 2001 and 2002 but finally has a legit NFL starting QB to throw to him and an established quality WR opposite him, does not sound all that far fetched to me. Some may expect Delhomme to regress after his dream season, but I think he could also improve in his 2nd year as a starter.I don't think Muhammad at 31 is ready for the ol' glue factory just yet. He showed last year he still has some fight left in him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You make some good points Aaron. Perhaps I'm short changing Muhammed.Here's a stat I bet you don't know (thanks to Doug Drinen for point this out to me)Of all the players who finished second on their team in receiving yards, no player caught as high a percentage of their teams yards as Muhsin Muhammed. He caught over 25% of the Panther's passing yards. By definition, this means the Panthers were the only team where they had more than one player catch over 25% of their passing yards.What does that mean for him in 2004? I'm not too sure. It's certainly possible that he starts taking some of Smith's numbers. Or that the pie in general increases. I'm going to have to take awhile to ponder what I think about that.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I just want to to say thanks for putting us in 20 percent as I for one take some time to write and predict on various positions as well as some others. Pretty Cool in my opinion.

 

[Floyd The Barber]

Mark Wimer wrote:

St. Louis was 28th in the NFL in rushing attempts in 2003 (411 as a team) -- they were 32nd in attempts in 2002, with a mere 343, so that low ranking in attempts is not an aberration, its a statement of this team's playcalling under Martz -- and 30th in rushing yardage in 2003, with 1496 yards, + STL. RB's had only 15 rushing scores last season: 10 to Faulk, 1 to Gordon, 4 to Harris. (only 1 receiving TD to a Ram back last year, BTW) Assuming Arlen Harris sees some more goal line action in 2004 (reasonable IMO), then Faulk with 8-9 leaves 2-3 for Jackson -- his projection of modest TD's keeps him out of my top 35, Mr. LeVin I think people projecting Faulk anywhere near the top 15 and Jackson anywhere in the top 35 need to consider the above facts, but obviously I'm in the minority...

I hate to bust his chops, but Mr. Wimer has no grasp of what's going on in St. Louis if everyone is healthy. (I'm a Rams homer)First, Arlen Harris is being converted to fullback. He's not going to see any goalline action and I would say it's 50-50 that he doesn't even make the team.Two, I don't put much stock in Jim Thomas' statement about not giving Faulk 20 touches a game. Mike Martz has shown NO, ZERO, NADA propensity to share the ball between two backs -- something he should have been doing with Faulk for the past two years. Instead, he's run Faulk to the breaking point, and then given his back-up (Gordon, Harris) the full load, as well. Next, let's not forget that Steven Jackson is a rookie. And a key part of all rookie RBs - but especially a Mike Martz RB - is blocking ability in the passing game. That's the primary reason IMO why Faulk hasn't been spelled in-game and Gordon has been replaced as "the future" by Jackson.Yes, Faulk has lost a step, maybe two. But he is still a more than capable runner, an excellent receiver, and maybe the best "non-power" goalline running back I've ever seen. Even now.Having watched Martz up-close for an extended period of time, a more realistic projection on Faulk would be: 12 games played, 20+ carries per game, 5 receptions per, and a touchdown per. With Jackson picking up most of the rest. Faulk: 264-1050-10TDs / 60-540-2TDsCheers!

 

[BassNBrew]

You make some good points Aaron. Perhaps I'm short changing Muhammed.Here's a stat I bet you don't know (thanks to Doug Drinen for point this out to me)Of all the players who finished second on their team in receiving yards, no player caught as high a percentage of their teams yards as Muhsin Muhammed. He caught over 25% of the Panther's passing yards. By definition, this means the Panthers were the only team where they had more than one player catch over 25% of their passing yards.What does that mean for him in 2004? I'm not too sure. It's certainly possible that he starts taking some of Smith's numbers. Or that the pie in general increases. I'm going to have to take awhile to ponder what I think about that.

Two points to consider as you ponder Chase...1) The Panthers don't have a TE that will put up appreciable receiving numbers. With the changes in the o-line, I would expect that Fox will be more inclined to keep the TE in to block.2) Davis is not a pass catcher. Even combining Davis and Foster, you a measley 40 receptions last year.

 

[Jason Wood]

You make some good points Aaron. Perhaps I'm short changing Muhammed.Here's a stat I bet you don't know (thanks to Doug Drinen for point this out to me)Of all the players who finished second on their team in receiving yards, no player caught as high a percentage of their teams yards as Muhsin Muhammed. He caught over 25% of the Panther's passing yards. By definition, this means the Panthers were the only team where they had more than one player catch over 25% of their passing yards.What does that mean for him in 2004? I'm not too sure. It's certainly possible that he starts taking some of Smith's numbers. Or that the pie in general increases. I'm going to have to take awhile to ponder what I think about that.

Two points to consider as you ponder Chase...1) The Panthers don't have a TE that will put up appreciable receiving numbers. With the changes in the o-line, I would expect that Fox will be more inclined to keep the TE in to block.2) Davis is not a pass catcher. Even combining Davis and Foster, you a measley 40 receptions last year.

Right, and the team doesn't have that many attempts to go around. 29th in the league in passing attempts last year, 28th in completions at a whopping 270. Muhammad may crack the top 40 if all falls right, but that's not enough to pique my interest on draft day. What it really comes down to for me, is I TRY (sometimes it doesn't work out this way) to draft for reliability in the early going and then roll the dice on boom/bust types later in the draft. I'd rather have someone like Kelley Washington or Andre Davis in that area as my WR4 or WR5 in a redraft who could conceivably surprise with a very strong season than bring aboard a guy who, if things fall right, makes a decent WR3 with limited upside beyond that. But that's just me.

 

[zoonation]

My problem with Muhammad is that he was never very fast to begin with, and he's clearly lost a step.

I guess I must've been watching a different player torch the Patriots in the Super Bowl for 140 yards on 4 catches for a whopping 35 yards per catch. Across all 4 playoff games, he averaged 23.5 yards on 15 receptions.In addition, his regular season average of 15.5 y/r in 2003 was the highest in his career by almost 2 full yards since he became a regular starter (only his rookie season average was better).After a slow start to 2003, sure looked to me like he had GAINED a step.I like Colbert too, but mostly as a 3rd WR this year. Muhammad has a lot of upside based on how strong he finished last year. If he can stay healthy and doesn't suffer the post SB hangover, he could easily be a signficant force again with top-30 potential.

No, we were watching the same player -- Muhammad was clearly inspired by his shot at a Super-Bowl Ring, and I commend him for it. He was also the guy who put up these numbers over the past 3 regular seasons:| 2001 car | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 50 585 11.7 1 || 2002 car | 14 | 3 40 13.3 0 | 63 823 13.1 3 || 2003 car | 15 | 2 -2 -1.0 0 | 54 837 15.5 3 |Not exactly awe-inspiring fantasy performances on a regular-season by regular-season basis.My .02.

Despite not being able to inspire awe in Mr. Wimer, and starting out the 2003 season with only 153 yards in 5 games and 298 receiving yards after 9 games, Muhammad put up 539 yards over his final 7 games (would prorate to a 1232 yd season ) and finished as the #33 ranked fantasy WR. He continued that strong performance 4 games into the postseason, including the biggest stage in the world against the Patriots whose pass defense had shut down the high octane Colts just 1 game earlier.I can understand looking at season by season trends...but, sometimes they don't tell the entire story. Muhammad was a new player once Steve Smith emerged as the go-to WR and took most of the defensive attention away from him. Furthermore, the Panthers running game draws even more attention, which allows Muhammad plenty of 1-on-1 matchups with often inferior 2nd CBs that he can use his size and surprisingly still capable wheels to beat.Who was the Panthers QB in those years you are looking at? Rodney "I should have retired 5 years ago" Peete and Chris "I'm a 40 year old rookie" Weinke?Come on guys. Muhammad has VALUE written all over him this year. Delhomme has no qualms about throwing the ball up for big Moose to come down with it when they need a big play. Steve Smith has become the possession WR on this team like Hines Ward in Pittsburgh...but Muhammad showed he's capable of making big plays like Plaxico did frequently in 2002, and Muhammad will likely be the primary receiving target in the red zone whenever they decide not to run it in.My biggest (and only) concern with Muhammad is his health. He's had trouble staying healthy in the past and often gets knicked up by nagging injuries. But, if he picks up where he left off last year and can stay healthy, I seriously would not be shocked if he ended up outscoring Steve Smith this year.

please explain the logic for pro-rating someone when they were not injured. WEAK ARGUMENT

 

[Mark Wimer]

Mark Wimer wrote:

St. Louis was 28th in the NFL in rushing attempts in 2003 (411 as a team) -- they were 32nd in attempts in 2002, with a mere 343, so that low ranking in attempts is not an aberration, its a statement of this team's playcalling under Martz -- and 30th in rushing yardage in 2003, with 1496 yards, + STL. RB's had only 15 rushing scores last season: 10 to Faulk, 1 to Gordon, 4 to Harris. (only 1 receiving TD to a Ram back last year, BTW) Assuming Arlen Harris sees some more goal line action in 2004 (reasonable IMO), then Faulk with 8-9 leaves 2-3 for Jackson -- his projection of modest TD's keeps him out of my top 35, Mr. LeVin I think people projecting Faulk anywhere near the top 15 and Jackson anywhere in the top 35 need to consider the above facts, but obviously I'm in the minority...

I hate to bust his chops, but Mr. Wimer has no grasp of what's going on in St. Louis if everyone is healthy. (I'm a Rams homer)First, Arlen Harris is being converted to fullback. He's not going to see any goalline action and I would say it's 50-50 that he doesn't even make the team.Two, I don't put much stock in Jim Thomas' statement about not giving Faulk 20 touches a game. Mike Martz has shown NO, ZERO, NADA propensity to share the ball between two backs -- something he should have been doing with Faulk for the past two years. Instead, he's run Faulk to the breaking point, and then given his back-up (Gordon, Harris) the full load, as well. Next, let's not forget that Steven Jackson is a rookie. And a key part of all rookie RBs - but especially a Mike Martz RB - is blocking ability in the passing game. That's the primary reason IMO why Faulk hasn't been spelled in-game and Gordon has been replaced as "the future" by Jackson.Yes, Faulk has lost a step, maybe two. But he is still a more than capable runner, an excellent receiver, and maybe the best "non-power" goalline running back I've ever seen. Even now.Having watched Martz up-close for an extended period of time, a more realistic projection on Faulk would be: 12 games played, 20+ carries per game, 5 receptions per, and a touchdown per. With Jackson picking up most of the rest. Faulk: 264-1050-10TDs / 60-540-2TDsCheers!

Hey Floyd,I'll defer to your homer insights -- plz answer for me these ?'s if you will. 1). How does Arlen Harris becoming a FB preclude him getting goal-line carries? Last time I checked, that does happen in the NFL on some teams. No-where have I seen a hint that he's in line for the chopping block. Do you have a source for this assertion, or is it pure conjecture on your part?Here's one of the stories I have read on Harris in the St. Louis press recently. It's by Jim Thomas, of the Post-Dispatch.Martz on Harris' Role as FB in 2004

The switch is the latest attempt to find a solution at fullback, which has been much more of a problem area than anyone could have anticipated since the release of James "the Hammer" Hodgins following the 2002 campaign. From J.R. Niklos to Chad Kuhns to Brandon Manumaleuna, the Rams went through nearly a dozen fullback candidates last season. Martz feels some combination of Harris and Joey Goodspeed, who spent the last half of '03 with the Rams, will shore up the position. "I feel really good about these guys," Martz said Sunday, as the Rams wrapped up their three-day minicamp. "We're solid at that position. Very solid." We'll see. But Martz doesn't want Harris to be the next James Hodgins. He'll settle for something along the lines of Robert Holcombe. "First of all at fullback, the connotation is that you've got calluses on your forehead, both shoulders have been dislocated, and you've gotten your nose broken about 10 times," Martz said. "What we're asking our fullback to do, that's not quite the case. "What Arlen gives us is a potential ballcarrier, too. Joey's a terrific receiver and lead blocker, and we think Arlen can do those things. All he has to do is be an adequate blocker." To help sell Harris on the switch, the Rams already have shown him tape of the Rams' 1999 Super Bowl championship season, when Holcombe was the lead blocker for Marshall Faulk. Holcombe also was a converted halfback who was light by traditional NFL fullback standards. "Marshall said Robert Holcombe was taller than me, but he was a 218 guy in '99, and obviously they won it that year," Harris said. "He said you can be effective, it's just that you have to get into that mentality." Holcombe also got the ball some, with 112 carries and 23 receptions from 1999 through 2001. (Although his touches declined with each successive season.) "I know at the fullback position I can do some things coming out of the backfield," Harris said. "In the minicamp, that's what we've been doing - running different routes out of the backfield that we haven't been able to do the last couple years at the position." The plan is for Harris, who played last year at 212 pounds, to get up to 225 for his new role. "I'm 220 right now," he said. "So five more pounds, I can get that done before (training) camp." Harris doesn't want to get any bulkier than that, however, because the Rams still plan to use him as a kickoff returner.

2). On what basis do you see Faulk getting 260 carries in 12 games, when it took him 14 to do so in 2000 and 2001, and given the fact that he got 212 in 14 games in 2002 and 209 in 11 games in 2003? It seems to me that Martz has been calling Faulk's number less and less as the years go by. In fact, Faulk had 5 games with less than 20 carries last season (45% of his games), and only 3 games with 20+ carries in 2002. I just don't see 20 a game, as Jim Thomas indicated in his analysis previously quoted.Thanks in advance for your response.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

please explain the logic for pro-rating someone when they were not injured. WEAK ARGUMENT

Thanks for the critique of one tiny part of my post. I just threw it out there so demonstrate how strong his numbers were in those games. Prorating is simply a tool to make numbers more easily comparable.If a guy plays like the #70 WR in the 1st half of the season, but then plays like a top-10 WR in the 2nd half of the season, I sometimes like to consider what his numbers would have been like if you prorate that 2nd half over 16 games.believe what you want to believe. I'm not sure 2001 and 2002 statistics in a different system with different personnelare any more relevant to predicting 2004 than Muhammad's numbers over his last 11 games or so in the same system with the same surrounding personnel and the same coaches calling the plays.

 

[Mark Wimer]

1). How does Arlen Harris becoming a FB preclude him getting goal-line carries? Last time I checked, that does happen in the NFL on some teams. No-where have I seen a hint that he's in line for the chopping block. Do you have a source for this assertion, or is it pure conjecture on your part?

Here's one of the stories I have read on Harris in the St. Louis press recently. It's by Jim Thomas, of the Post-Dispatch.

Martz on Harris' Role as FB in 2004

The switch is the latest attempt to find a solution at fullback, which has been much more of a problem area than anyone could have anticipated since the release of James "the Hammer" Hodgins following the 2002 campaign. From J.R. Niklos to Chad Kuhns to Brandon Manumaleuna, the Rams went through nearly a dozen fullback candidates last season. Martz feels some combination of Harris and Joey Goodspeed, who spent the last half of '03 with the Rams, will shore up the position.

"I feel really good about these guys," Martz said Sunday, as the Rams wrapped up their three-day minicamp. "We're solid at that position. Very solid."

We'll see.

But Martz doesn't want Harris to be the next James Hodgins. He'll settle for something along the lines of Robert Holcombe.

"First of all at fullback, the connotation is that you've got calluses on your forehead, both shoulders have been dislocated, and you've gotten your nose broken about 10 times," Martz said. "What we're asking our fullback to do, that's not quite the case.

"What Arlen gives us is a potential ballcarrier, too. Joey's a terrific receiver and lead blocker, and we think Arlen can do those things. All he has to do is be an adequate blocker."

To help sell Harris on the switch, the Rams already have shown him tape of the Rams' 1999 Super Bowl championship season, when Holcombe was the lead blocker for Marshall Faulk. Holcombe also was a converted halfback who was light by traditional NFL fullback standards.

Just for reference's sake, Holcombe's #'s in the FB Role under Vermeil (99)/Mike Martz (2000-2001):

| 1999 ram | 15 | 78 294 3.8 4 | 14 163 11.6 1 |

| 2000 ram | 13 | 21 70 3.3 3 | 8 90 11.2 1 |

| 2001 ram | 16 | 13 42 3.2 1 | 1 14 14.0 0 |

 

[3nOut]

The thing that jumps put at me most (again) is Mark Wimer's low ranking of Marshal Faulk.

Mark, OK, maybe you don't think that highly of Faulk this year, for whatever reason, his age, his knee, whatever. But 26?? Thats an RB3 in a 12 team league. I just don't see the logic. Some issues:

1. If you think its because of his age and/or knees, then you must think Steven Jackson will start in his place for a number of games. If thisis true, why don't you even have Jackson ranked? Who will get the carries in STL?

2. I think Steven Jackson wil only spell Faulk during games, giving Faulk some rest and keeping him fresh, but not enough to warrant a drop out of the top 12, let alone the top 24. EVERY team uses their backups to some extent. But what surprises me is that you rank other RBs who will more likely have fewer carries becasue of RBBC higher than Faulk. OK, I can see your logic for your top 12 (although i don't agree ), but the following are all ranked higher than Faulk. Most are in RBBC or have someone vulturing goaline TDs:

#13 Bennett (Smith and Williams)

#14 Barber (Dayne)

#15 Henry (McGahee)

#16 Rudi Johnson (unproven)

#17 Westbrook (Buckhalter)

#18 Davis (Foster)

#19 Martin (Jordan, plus they won't have that many TDs anyway)

#20 Staley (Bettis)

#21 Shipp????

#22 Griffin (Anderson, Bell, Hearst)

#23 Brown (may not even be starter if george resigns)

#24 T. Jones (A-Train)

#25 Dillon (also ranked too low)

Are you saying you'd sooner draft any ofthese before Faulk as your RB2? Wow! Well lets just agree to disagree then. I personally think that Faulk will rebound and be a top 10 RB this year, possibly top 5.

| 1999 ram | 16 | 253 1381 5.5 7 | 87 1048 12.0 5 || 2000 ram | 14 | 253 1359 5.4 18 | 81 830 10.2 8 |

| 2001 ram | 14 | 260 1382 5.3 12 | 83 765 9.2 9 |

| 2002 ram | 14 | 212 953 4.5 8 | 80 537 6.7 2 |

| 2003 ram | 11 | 209 818 3.9 10 | 45 290 6.4 1 |

Hey 3nOut --

Above is the stat line for Marshall Faulk since he joined the Rams. The decline in games played is quite evident, as is his downward spiral in terms of yards per carry and yards per catch.

I don't think that the Rams expended a first round pick on a new RB capriciously, I think they agree with observers like Jim Thomas who wrote on 6/28/04

Clipped from: Foxsports/Sporting News article by Jim Thomas, 6/28/04

RUNNING BACKS ANALYSIS

The big question is how much the Rams will get from Marshall Faulk. Faulk still can be a workhorse for a short stretch, but it would be foolish to count on him for 20 carries per game. First-round pick Steven Jackson has good receiving skills and, though he's more of a power runner than Faulk, can turn the corner. Look for the team to devise some two-back sets to make use of both players. Lamar Gordon, set back by injury problems in the past, might have missed his chance to be Faulk's successor. Joey Goodspeed and Arlen Harris will compete at fullback. Goodspeed is a decent blocker and pass catcher; Harris, a converted running back, is tough but undersized (5-10, 225).

I see Faulk as the starter going into the season, but increasingly splitting time with Jackson, until he is supplanted (whether due to injury or just plain being outperformed by the younger back) -- my projections for Faulk in 2004 are 700-800 rushing with 7-8 TD's and 200-300 receiving with 1-2 receiving TD's, while Jackson gets 600-700 rushing and 2-3 rushing TD's, with 100-200 receiving and 0-1 TD's. Regarding Bennett: He's on record predicting 1500/10 rushing for himself this season (exclusive of receiving), and Coach Tice has been very positive in his assessments of Bennett's prospects in material I have read out of Minnesota. I think he's the headliner, with some spelling from the others.

Re: Barber: Barber seeking to Eliminate Fumbling: Vastly Improve Strength -- Also -- Dayne? Hasn't been able to do the job yet -- why would he now?

Re: Henry -- McGahee is totally unproven and Henry is said to be in great shape/attitude heading into the season.

Re: Johnson: I don't call

| 2002 cin | 7 | 17 67 3.9 0 | 6 34 5.7 0 |

| 2003 cin | 13 | 215 957 4.5 9 | 21 146 7.0 0 |

unproven. I do call McGahee unproven, though.

Re: Westbrook: Eagles 417 carries 2015 yards 4.83 ave 23 TD's rushing as a team in 2003, and now Staley is in Pitt; Plenty of balls/yards to split between Westbrook/Buckhalter, with Westbrook getting larger share and more FP. Buckhalter is my #32 RB, so it's not like I forgot to factor in his share, either.

Re: Davis: Panthers 521 carries 2095 yards 4.02 ave 9 TD's rushing as a team in 2003; assuming a similar emphasis on rushing in 2004, assuming we see Davis @ 25 carries a game (high, IMO, but assume for sake of argument) and there is still 100-120 for Foster to get as change of pace back in 2005. At 20 per game for Davis (318 1444 4.5 8 in 2003, BTW) -- more likely, IMO -- then more like 160-170 for Foster, and we still have Mr. Davis at #18 on my board with 1200-1300 yards 9-10 TD's rushing with 100-150 receiving 0-1 TD's (my current projections for him in 2004).

Re: Martin: Abnormally sub-par year last year with an absolutely horrible start. Weeks 4-10 do bother me as it is a brutal mid-year sched IMO, but I can't see Martin doing that poorly again in 2004. Jets basically told Jordan to shut up earlier in off-season when he whined about wanting more PT in 2004, BTW.

Staley: Rush/Receiving skill mix good fit for pass happy Steelers Offense, which even Bettis says won't go back to smash-mouth football (numerous stories on this topic out of Pitt this year). Bettis will be a situational player, and took a significant pay-cut in recognition of this fact.Bettis $3.3 Million Pay Cut Details/Story from 4/13/04

Shipp: Yes, Shipp. E. Smith will not start all season. Tank empty. The move was a sign of respect from H.C. Green and to motivate Shipp. I am worried about Josh Scobey, though -- waiting on Training Camp to see how the AZ situation plays out. It is early July, after all.

Re: Griffin: Inside track to start, according to about 1/2 the sources I read. No clear Bronco Back yet, but I think it will be Griffin (with significant help from other RB's, thus the 22 ranking for a Bronco Back)

Re: Brown: E George:

| 1999 ten | 16 | 320 1304 4.1 9 | 47 458 9.7 4 |

| 2000 ten | 16 | 403 1509 3.7 14 | 50 453 9.1 2 |

| 2001 ten | 16 | 315 939 3.0 5 | 37 279 7.5 0 |

| 2002 ten | 16 | 343 1165 3.4 12 | 36 255 7.1 2 |

| 2003 ten | 16 | 312 1031 3.3 5 | 22 163 7.4 0 |

Re-signed or not, Tank Empty. Brown starts by end of training camp.

Re: T. Jones: Best guess until we see how training camp shakes out.

Re: Corey Dillon: Prima-Donna whiner meets authoritarian Bill Belichick: a marriage made in the nether regions. Dillon: career max is 10 rushing scores in a season. Career average is 6.5 per season, with 5 receiving TD's in career (and Kevin Faulk to play in passing situations). RBBC with limited upside for Dillon on a team that plays matchups with their RB's and will start whoever they please in a given week, sure to anger/make whiny/end-up-on-bench Mr. Dillon. Cedric Cobbs waiting in the wings.... I like Dillon only marginally better than Faulk, with projections of 1000-1100 8-9 rushing and 100-200 0-1 receiving -- definitely not ranked too low, and maybe too optimisitic... Career numbers in Cincy, where he was unchallenged #1 until last year:

| 1997 cin | 16 | 233 1129 4.8 10 | 27 259 9.6 0 |

| 1998 cin | 15 | 262 1130 4.3 4 | 28 178 6.4 1 |

| 1999 cin | 15 | 263 1200 4.6 5 | 31 290 9.4 1 |

| 2000 cin | 16 | 315 1435 4.6 7 | 18 158 8.8 0 |

| 2001 cin | 16 | 340 1315 3.9 10 | 34 228 6.7 3 |

| 2002 cin | 16 | 314 1311 4.2 7 | 43 298 6.9 0 |

| 2003 cin | 13 | 138 541 3.9 2 | 11 71 6.5 0 |

No huge FP seasons here, ever, and only 2 seasons 10 or more TD's total. Note especially marked drop off in yards per carry and yards per catch over the last 3 seasons compared to earlier efforts.

My analysis of the situations as of today. All based on sound reasoning/statistical information(trends)/latest NFL news, IMO.

OK, a few things:1. If you are so certain that he will miss games, or that he will supplant Faulk completely, why don't you rank Jackson at all?.

2. You like to quote stats and I was going to spew some out to you as well, but everyone can twist numbers to support their view instead of viewing the stats and looking at them objectively.

3. One should not only use stats to determine draft players. Sometimes you have to use your own head and instinct (but not personal feelings either - point 4).

4. Don't let past player performances that burned you before dictate how you draft this year. You seem to do this (I did some stat crunching myself ). From your 8/27/03 RB Rankings, of your top 24 RBs (RB1 and RB2), 6 ended up rankedin double-digits lower than what you predicted (and 1 more at -9). This is not an assessment nor a criticism, many others had the same players you rnaked highly ranked similarly to you. Too many things happen during the course of a season that affect final stats, be it injury, poor team play, etc. The thing that jumps out at me is that of these 10 players, who were just last year at least RB2 candidates, none are in your top 24 this year.

1 Faulk Final Rank: 16 Difference: -15 2004 Rank: 26

12 Dillon Final Rank: 44 Difference: -32 2004 Rank: 25

14 Garner Final Rank: 31 Difference: -17 2004 Rank: 27

18 Dunn Final Rank: 27 Difference: -9 2004 Rank: 30

20 Buckhalter Final Rank: 30 Difference: -10 2004 Rank: 33

21 Alstott Final Rank: 82 Difference: -61 2004 Rank: NR

24 Zeroue Final Rank: 40 Difference: -16 2004 Rank: NR

Interestingly, last year you had Faulk as your number one RB on your board. Did you draft him as your RB1 only to see him get hurt, then trade him away only to see him have a strong comeback? Did you draft Dillon as your RB2 as well only to have him burn you? Nothing against you personally, but it looks to me like you hold grudges against players. (See I can skew stats too )

On the other hand you had two players that rnaked in double-digits higher than you anticipated: Ahman Green at 13 (finished 2, +11) and Jamal Lewis at 16 (finished 4, +12). I think Faulk will be your double-digit surprise this year.

 

[Bob Magaw]

If a guy plays like the #70 WR in the 1st half of the season, but then plays like a top-10 WR in the 2nd half of the season, I sometimes like to consider what his numbers would have been like if you prorate that 2nd half over 16 games.believe what you want to believe. I'm not sure 2001 and 2002 statistics in a different system with different personnelare any more relevant to predicting 2004 than Muhammad's numbers over his last 11 games or so in the same system with the same surrounding personnel and the same coaches calling the plays.

STRONG ARGUMENTSprorating takes place all the time... those who didn't pro-rate chad johnson's strong second half in '02 suffered the consequences as others in their league scooped up a top 3-5 WR in '03.admittedly prorating for different reasons in two examples... in case of johnson, getting a young player right in the inflection point of his ascendancy. in case of moose, recognizing that he was in a changed situation & accounting for fact that he had a QB who could get him the ball (peete was QB in '02, & i think weinke had been b4 that prior season), their O-Line had improved with addition of jordan gross, & they had a running game that had to be accounted for with free agent stud stephen davis, to caused the safeties to cheat up, the offense became more opened up once delhomme earned OC's trust around mid-season, among other things.

 

[3nOut]

2). On what basis do you see Faulk getting 260 carries in 12 games, when it took him 14 to do so in 2000 and 2001, and given the fact that he got 212 in 14 games in 2002 and 209 in 11 games in 2003? It seems to me that Martz has been calling Faulk's number less and less as the years go by. In fact, Faulk had 5 games with less than 20 carries last season (45% of his games), and only 3 games with 20+ carries in 2002. I just don't see 20 a game, as Jim Thomas indicated in his analysis previously quoted.

Thanks in advance for your response.

Maybe based on the fact that Martz knows he need to use Faulk more to win. Yes, you are correct, Faulk had 5 games in which he carried the ball less than 20 times, and three of them were losses. In one, they still won and he had over 100 yards and 3 TDs.09/07 @New York L 13-23 9/28/0

09/14 San Francisco W 27-24 18/57/1

09/21 @Seattle L 23-24 15/31/0

11/09 Baltimore W 33-22 20/48/2

11/16 @Chicago W 23-21 20/103/0

11/23 @Arizona W 30-27 24/100/1

11/30 Minnesota W 48-17 17/108/3

12/08 @Cleveland W 26-20 24/102/0

12/14 Seattle W 27-22 28/85/1

12/21 Cincinnati W 27-10 22/121/1

12/28 @Detroit L 20-30 12/35 /1

And in the games he didn't play in, here are the Gordon/Harris stats:

09/28 Arizona W 37-13 33/128/1

10/13 Atlanta W 36-0 29/115/0

10/19 Green Bay W 34-24 22/105/1

10/26 @Pittsburgh W 33-21 34/81/3

11/02 @San Francisco L 10-30 8/9/0

In all their losses, the RBs carried the rock less than 20 times. In order for STL to be successful they have to run the ball at least 25 times a game. Even with 20 of the 25 carries per game, he will get his yards. I dont care how many carries it takes him, if he can break 100 yds in less than 20 carries great. However, I dont think that will happen often so Faulk will get his carries ... and yards... and TDs. Martz needs to get Faulk the ball...

 

[Will Grant]

In all their losses, the RBs carried the rock less than 20 times. In order for STL to be successful they have to run the ball at least 25 times a game. Even with 20 of the 25 carries per game, he will get his yards. I dont care how many carries it takes him, if he can break 100 yds in less than 20 carries great. However, I dont think that will happen often so Faulk will get his carries ... and yards... and TDs. Martz needs to get Faulk the ball...

Not trying to take away from your argument about Faulk being the key to St. Louis success... My question, though is this: Is it the lack of 20 carries that caused the Rams to lose those games, or is it the fact that they were losing and had to throw the ball more to catch up that resulted in fewer carries?

When you're down by 20 points to San Francisco on the road, my guess is you're throwing on every down.

edited because I'm trying to do 5 things at once here..

 

[Reservoir Dog]

I think the rankings are pretty solid, hard for me to argue with for the most part.However, one thing jumped out at me. Mark Wimer has Clinton Portis ranked 12th. Mark, I think you're a great FF pundit...one of my favorites, but in my opinion that is just asinine. If you were attempting to be different, or to get noticed, it definitely worked.Do you have any rationale behind that ranking? I understand Portis is changing teams, but he's playing for Joe Gibbs now. Not to mention Bugel as the O-line coach. In that system, I could see Portis being the #1 rb in FF this season. I can't imagine that Washington would make Portis the highest paid rb in the NFL without the intent of using him very heavily this season. I see him as a strong candidate for the NFL MVP for 04. It would be interesting to hear your explanation.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think the rankings are pretty solid, hard for me to argue with for the most part.However, one thing jumped out at me. Mark Wimer has Clinton Portis ranked 12th. Mark, I think you're a great FF pundit...one of my favorites, but that is just asinine. If you were attempting to be different, or to get noticed, it definitely worked.Do you have any rationale behind that ranking? I understand Portis is changing teams, but he's playing for Joe Gibbs now. Not to mention Bugel as the O-line coach. In that system, I could see Portis being the #1 rb in FF this season. I can't imagine that Washington would make Portis the highest paid rb in the NFL without the intent of using him very heavily this season. I see him as a strong candidate for the NFL MVP for 04. It would be interesting to here your explanation.

I may not agree with Mark's rankings in many cases, but one thing I know, he has very strong rationale for all his picks. We all might think he's off base, but he's thought it through.As to Portis, while I agree that he's not going to finish 12th barring injury, I also don't see that him finishing 1st overall is very likely either. Contrarian? YESAssinine? NO

 

[Bob Magaw]

In all their losses, the RBs carried the rock less than 20 times. In order for STL to be successful they have to run the ball at least 25 times a game. Even with 20 of the 25 carries per game, he will get his yards. I dont care how many carries it takes him, if he can break 100 yds in less than 20 carries great. However, I dont think that will happen often so Faulk will get his carries ... and yards... and TDs. Martz needs to get Faulk the ball...

Not trying to take away from your argument about Faulk being the key to St. Louis success... My question, though is this: Is it the lack of 20 carries that caused the Rams to lose those games, or is it the fact that they were losing and had to throw the ball more to catch up that resulted in fewer carries?

When you're down by 20 points to San Francisco on the road, my guess is you're throwing on every down.

edited because I'm trying to do 5 things at once here..

i don't have time to see all the ram games, but they are the team i follow most closely. there have been times when ram insiders have expressed dismay that the rams pass the ball excessively even early in the game, before they are behind. if it doesn't work out, & they suffer a few picks, it is natural to speculate that is why & how they got behind, some of the time. it is also natural for fans to wonder if they would win more games if they employed better pass/rush balance. not sure i agree, but some fans think martz likes to demonstrate how clever he is by throwing into the teeth of defenses specifically trying to take that away (3-8 defenses :^)... i don't think he is crazy enough to compromise rams chances to win by sending some kind of egotistical message, or jeapordize his career. but he does seem to ignore the run at times inexplicably in the past, even when faulk was healthy & they were in close games, not necessarily the obvious ones where they were forced to, necessitated by situation where they are down 30-0 in 4th quarter. the rams do win a lot(i think #1 or #2 in regular season wins dating back to warner's first year as the starter in '99), but it is possible they could have won even more, maybe even 3 of the last 5 super bowls, if they had run the ball more effectively. :^)

 

[Mark Wimer]

1. If you are so certain that he will miss games, or that he will supplant Faulk completely, why don't you rank Jackson at all?.

2. You like to quote stats and I was going to spew some out to you as well, but everyone can twist numbers to support their view instead of viewing the stats and looking at them objectively.

3. One should not only use stats to determine draft players. Sometimes you have to use your own head and instinct (but not personal feelings either - point 4).

4. Don't let past player performances that burned you before dictate how you draft this year. You seem to do this (I did some stat crunching myself ). From your 8/27/03 RB Rankings, of your top 24 RBs (RB1 and RB2), 6 ended up rankedin double-digits lower than what you predicted (and 1 more at -9). This is not an assessment nor a criticism, many others had the same players you rnaked highly ranked similarly to you. Too many things happen during the course of a season that affect final stats, be it injury, poor team play, etc. The thing that jumps out at me is that of these 10 players, who were just last year at least RB2 candidates, none are in your top 24 this year.

1 Faulk Final Rank: 16 Difference: -15 2004 Rank: 26

12 Dillon Final Rank: 44 Difference: -32 2004 Rank: 25

14 Garner Final Rank: 31 Difference: -17 2004 Rank: 27

18 Dunn Final Rank: 27 Difference: -9 2004 Rank: 30

20 Buckhalter Final Rank: 30 Difference: -10 2004 Rank: 33

21 Alstott Final Rank: 82 Difference: -61 2004 Rank: NR

24 Zeroue Final Rank: 40 Difference: -16 2004 Rank: NR

Interestingly, last year you had Faulk as your number one RB on your board. Did you draft him as your RB1 only to see him get hurt, then trade him away only to see him have a strong comeback? Did you draft Dillon as your RB2 as well only to have him burn you? Nothing against you personally, but it looks to me like you hold grudges against players. (See I can skew stats too )

On the other hand you had two players that rnaked in double-digits higher than you anticipated: Ahman Green at 13 (finished 2, +11) and Jamal Lewis at 16 (finished 4, +12). I think Faulk will be your double-digit surprise this year.

3NOut,on 1. I already covered this earlier in the thread in my response to Mr. Levin, when he asked the same thing of me. The number of carries and TD's left over for Jackson after accounting for Faulk and Harris don't leave enough FP for Jackson to show up in my top 35 as I detailed above.

2. What else am I supposed to use? Make up numbers? Read some tea leaves? Consult a tarot deck? BTW, your accusation that I am somehow "twisting" stats wounds me deeply -- I'd hate to think you were trying to hurt my feelings...

3. Instinct? Sounds like another word for "gut". I try not to use non-thinking parts of my anatomy when doing FF analysis -- use my brain, now that gets a

4. Grudges? Come on, this is just silly. I've played FF for 15 years and written about it/forecasted it in public forums for ~5 years, and many players have disappointed me in that time (and many others have surprised and excited me, like when Marcel Shipp's late burst in 2002 took me to the championship trophy in my dynasty league, particularly week 15 with 3 TD's). I don't get permanently angry over things I can't control, although I have been known to be frustrated on any given Sunday that a majority of my FF teams are in the "L" column. As would be any passionate FF enthusiast.

These players that you list had bad performances last season, and have various issues detracting from their value in 2004. In M. Faulk's case, there is a documented spiral in performance that no-one can deny. No bounce-back (which I expected last year, 'tis true) last season, just continued decline. Those real-life performances were not in any way caused by or dependant on my predictions (you always have to beware of falling into a gambler's fallacy-type mentality in FF) Perhaps I am more aware of Faulk's flaws (having suffered by having him on several of my FF teams last season, as I reveiwed in my discussion with BassNBrew, once again, earlier in this same thread). But that doesn't make my 2004 analysis fundamentally incorrect on the face of it. Suffice it to say that I spent as much time as any FF fan watching (or not watching, as he stood injured on the sidelines) Faulk play last year.

As I stated earlier in the thread, sometimes my calls have been right on, sometimes not. Last year's RB analysis that you excerpted (leaving out all the on-target calls, BTW) doesn't make my points this year wrong, any more than the article that I wrote back in 2002 (reviewed above) makes me right. Nobody is ever going to be all-knowing about the events of regular season -- if I were precognizant, I'd be a kajillionaire in Vegas! -- however, we can analyze trends and give informed opinions about what is likely to happen. Some of us are more informed/have better analysis than others -- that's the crux of FF.

Sometimes, you just have bad luck. Just like in the NFL. Otherwise, what would we have to gripe about in the off-season?

 

[bostonfred2]

4. Don't let past player performances that burned you before dictate how you draft this year. You seem to do this (I did some stat crunching myself ). From your 8/27/03 RB Rankings, of your top 24 RBs (RB1 and RB2), 6 ended up rankedin double-digits lower than what you predicted (and 1 more at -9). This is not an assessment nor a criticism, many others had the same players you rnaked highly ranked similarly to you. Too many things happen during the course of a season that affect final stats, be it injury, poor team play, etc. The thing that jumps out at me is that of these 10 players, who were just last year at least RB2 candidates, none are in your top 24 this year.

1 Faulk Final Rank: 16 Difference: -15 2004 Rank: 26

12 Dillon Final Rank: 44 Difference: -32 2004 Rank: 25

14 Garner Final Rank: 31 Difference: -17 2004 Rank: 27

18 Dunn Final Rank: 27 Difference: -9 2004 Rank: 30

20 Buckhalter Final Rank: 30 Difference: -10 2004 Rank: 33

21 Alstott Final Rank: 82 Difference: -61 2004 Rank: NR

24 Zeroue Final Rank: 40 Difference: -16 2004 Rank: NR

Interestingly, last year you had Faulk as your number one RB on your board. Did you draft him as your RB1 only to see him get hurt, then trade him away only to see him have a strong comeback? Did you draft Dillon as your RB2 as well only to have him burn you? Nothing against you personally, but it looks to me like you hold grudges against players. (See I can skew stats too )

Didn't almost all of these guys get hurt?

 

[Dancing Bear]

Actually, I find Mark's assessement very interesting. He is visibly different with many of his rankings:QB:Tom Brady[+]Donovan McNabb[-]Chad Pennington[-]RB:Clinton Portis[-]Domanick Davis[+]Marshall Faulk[-]Brian Westbrook[+]WR:Anquan Boldin[+]Charlie Rogers[+]Brandon Lloyd[+]Peter Warrick[+]Terrell Owens[-]TE: Dallas Clark[+]Itula Mili[+]Jed Weaver[+]I believe that I can understand where Mark is coming from for most of these, but I find the Brady, Pennington, Boldin, Rogers, Lloyd, Clark predictions to be the most interesting [and yes I have somewhat differing opinions for them ...]Brady has consistently proven that he is a WINNER, no question. But he has not produced Top 5 stats. I don't see this one happening. Because of Brady, because of the Patriots defense, and because of the overall offensive balance.Pennington completes nearly 70% of his passes when he is healthy, which he now is after that freaky injury. He should easily have the tools to be back among the Top 15 and flirt with the Top 10.Boldin should be no higher than Terrell Owens if Mark is going to be consistent IMO. Boldin has a new QB, a new Head Coach, a completely new O-system, etc. How can he be Top 10 and not Owens who has consistently proven himself to be Top 5.Rogers and the whole Lions Offense are totally unproven, and I cannot see Rogers out performing the likes of Jimmy Smith, Amani Toomer, Eric Moulds, Koren Robinson, Andre Johnson, etc. in basically his first year. Especially since Harrington has not proven he can play in the NFL.Lloyd is completely unproven, and he is playing with a new QB who is also unproven [and trying to recover from injury]. The guy has less than 1 reception per game ... Not to mention that his supporting cast is largely unproven. I cannot see him out performing the likes of Jimmy Smith, Amani Toomer, Eric Moulds, Koren Robinson, Andre Johnson, etc.Clark is interesting from the standpoint of how the receptions unfold, and he has the most stable chance to flirt with Mark's ranking, but ... James, Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, Pollard, and Clark will all catch Manning's balls in 2004. I just do not see Clark out-performing Pollard [Pollard was nearly 2 ypc better in 2003], and I think that Stokely will pinch balls away from both Pollard and Clark. I also think that there is a good chance that the Harrison-Wayne combination will flirt with 200 receptions and 2,500 yards.Thanks for thinking outside the box Mark!

 

[Floyd The Barber]

Mark Wimer worte:

1). How does Arlen Harris becoming a FB preclude him getting goal-line carries? Last time I checked, that does happen in the NFL on some teams. No-where have I seen a hint that he's in line for the chopping block. Do you have a source for this assertion, or is it pure conjecture on your part?

Mark - It's neither conjecture nor do I have a "source". It's simply what I've seen with my eyes. Faulk is a great "crease" runner in short yardage situations. Not good, great. Once Vermeil/Martz figured this out, the deception games with the FB were over and Faulk started racking up 20+ touchdowns. If you're asking me to interpret Martz' comments on Harris as a runner, I would say they apply to him as an emergency tailback or one back, not a fullback. Of course, I could be wrong.Really, the only way I see Harris having a "Crockett / Alstott" goalline role would be if Faulk is out of the equation and Jackson and/or Gordon prove ineffective. And that's based on Martz' track record since Hodgkins was the FB.The frustrating thing about Martz as a Rams fan is his unwillingness to adapt or even change a little. He's still trying to find "the next Az Hakim", drafting and signing small wideouts. Instead of getting a big guy to help them in the red zone (a small current team achilles heel).

2). On what basis do you see Faulk getting 260 carries in 12 games, when it took him 14 to do so in 2000 and 2001, and given the fact that he got 212 in 14 games in 2002 and 209 in 11 games in 2003? It seems to me that Martz has been calling Faulk's number less and less as the years go by. In fact, Faulk had 5 games with less than 20 carries last season (45% of his games), and only 3 games with 20+ carries in 2002. I just don't see 20 a game, as Jim Thomas indicated in his analysis previously quoted.

OK. I'll fess us here. I projected Faulk's rushing stats based on the belief that if he's close to 1000, Martz will make sure he gets that milestone. (Martz is big on numbers and records.)On the 20 carries per game... the perception from this quarter remains that Martz doesn't spell his starter. So, if Faulk (or Gordon or whoever) doesn't get 20 carries in a game, it's because he called more passing plays on that given day.I wish Martz would RBBC to keep Faulk healthy, but he simply doesn't. As a play caller, he's a freakin' Einstein. A guy oblivious to all, walking outside without his pants. It never occurs to him to replace Faulk, and apparently none of his assistants have the nads or the influence to get him to yeild to common sense. And I simply don't see him changing his ways.He was willing to sacrifice the career of Kurt Warner with his insistance on running 4 and 5 wideout sets. A dirty rotten shame, really. IMO, Warner was needlessly pummeled into a punch drunk has-been at the hands of his pass happy head coach. What I mean is, after the league caught up to him, Martz refrused to adjust his play calling and it killed his quarterback. And it's because of that indiffernece that I simply don't see Faulk being spelled.He hasn't when Faulk has immediately returned from injury and I don't think he will now. Hope that enlightens a little.Cheers!

 

[Mark Wimer]

Mark Wimer worte:

1). How does Arlen Harris becoming a FB preclude him getting goal-line carries? Last time I checked, that does happen in the NFL on some teams. No-where have I seen a hint that he's in line for the chopping block. Do you have a source for this assertion, or is it pure conjecture on your part?

Mark - It's neither conjecture nor do I have a "source". It's simply what I've seen with my eyes. Faulk is a great "crease" runner in short yardage situations. Not good, great. Once Vermeil/Martz figured this out, the deception games with the FB were over and Faulk started racking up 20+ touchdowns. If you're asking me to interpret Martz' comments on Harris as a runner, I would say they apply to him as an emergency tailback or one back, not a fullback. Of course, I could be wrong.Really, the only way I see Harris having a "Crockett / Alstott" goalline role would be if Faulk is out of the equation and Jackson and/or Gordon prove ineffective. And that's based on Martz' track record since Hodgkins was the FB.The frustrating thing about Martz as a Rams fan is his unwillingness to adapt or even change a little. He's still trying to find "the next Az Hakim", drafting and signing small wideouts. Instead of getting a big guy to help them in the red zone (a small current team achilles heel).

2). On what basis do you see Faulk getting 260 carries in 12 games, when it took him 14 to do so in 2000 and 2001, and given the fact that he got 212 in 14 games in 2002 and 209 in 11 games in 2003? It seems to me that Martz has been calling Faulk's number less and less as the years go by. In fact, Faulk had 5 games with less than 20 carries last season (45% of his games), and only 3 games with 20+ carries in 2002. I just don't see 20 a game, as Jim Thomas indicated in his analysis previously quoted.

OK. I'll fess us here. I projected Faulk's rushing stats based on the belief that if he's close to 1000, Martz will make sure he gets that milestone. (Martz is big on numbers and records.)On the 20 carries per game... the perception from this quarter remains that Martz doesn't spell his starter. So, if Faulk (or Gordon or whoever) doesn't get 20 carries in a game, it's because he called more passing plays on that given day.I wish Martz would RBBC to keep Faulk healthy, but he simply doesn't. As a play caller, he's a freakin' Einstein. A guy oblivious to all, walking outside without his pants. It never occurs to him to replace Faulk, and apparently none of his assistants have the nads or the influence to get him to yeild to common sense. And I simply don't see him changing his ways.He was willing to sacrifice the career of Kurt Warner with his insistance on running 4 and 5 wideout sets. A dirty rotten shame, really. IMO, Warner was needlessly pummeled into a punch drunk has-been at the hands of his pass happy head coach. What I mean is, after the league caught up to him, Martz refrused to adjust his play calling and it killed his quarterback. And it's because of that indiffernece that I simply don't see Faulk being spelled.He hasn't when Faulk has immediately returned from injury and I don't think he will now. Hope that enlightens a little.Cheers!

Ok, thanks Floyd. I wondered if I was missing a "local" news source that you had access to, or if you had seen something to contradict the Harris=Holcombe parallels that Martz was talking about a month ago.We'll see the roles in better relief once training camp starts...Regarding Faulk getting spelled or injured -- either way, he doesn't get a full season's worth of carries and shots at the goal-line. For purposes of the overall and RB rankings it is immaterial which is the cause of lower production for Faulk.Thanks again for your clarifications there.MW

 

[3nOut]

This is not an assessment nor a criticism, many others had the same players you rnaked highly ranked similarly to you.

As I stated earlier in the thread, sometimes my calls have been right on, sometimes not. Last year's RB analysis that you excerpted (leaving out all the on-target calls, BTW)...

Mark,First of all, I didn't mention your "right-on" calls because that wasn't part of the discussion. You did quite well with your top 12 generally. The "missed" calls you made were not expected by anyone as i mentioned in my reply to you. That was not my point. I just thought that you unfairly ranked many of those players lower because they were injured last year. Thats all. Its just funny how the numbers reflected that. You ranked all your double-digit "losers" two tiers lower in a single season. Justified rationale or coincidence? I don't know. That was just another point I wanted to make, people can skew their numbers any way they want to support their theory.

Secondly, I am here to eat crow... for now. With the latest rumor about Faulk not playing in 2004, you may have been right after all. Caveat: Still think you were unfair and ranked him way too low without KNOWLEDGE of his knee status (or did you?... hmmmm). Anyway, I can't argue with you on this call. Lucky or not, gut feeling or not, you were right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.

I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.

You're on MT.Bell

Hearst

Griffin

Anderson

Yup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.

No you didn't. Droughns finished #14, but note that nobody who thought the staff was nuts for failing to put a Denver RB in the top 25 was pimping Droughns.

(I was actually looking for last year's Denver RB stuff, but came across this thread from 2004, which is pretty darn interesting in its own right.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.

I'll take Tatum Bell. How much?

$22 through Pokerstars (enough for one FBG tourney)?

I'm in. And just to show I'm not going to TommyGunz this, let's clearly define top 25 as total points at end of year, not points per game, not what they would've scored if he'd been the starter the whole year. Just top 25.

BTW, bostonfred made good on this without being reminded.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I feel very good about my defense of Muhammad in this thread. Anyone who listened wound up with the #1 WR in 2004.