Objectivity with players analysis (1 Viewer)

[JayMan]

Are MB/Staff members able to distance themselves from their rosters and past expericence in making comments about certain players - in general?

--- presence of a player on their FF team ---

I have been lurking at alot of threads/polls since joinging in January - and it seems that members have a hard time being objective on players talent/opportunities simply because they have/added them to their FF teams:

Portis shoulder injury and Duckett's trade are either "nothing" or "the end of the world"... depending on if the guy posting has him on his redraft squad...

Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because the guy saying so got him as a late steal...

Mike Bell is the next coming of Terrell Davis if you had the chance to get him in the 5th round... but if someone took him 2 spots before you - he'll look like Quentin Griffin in a few weeks...

--- last year's stats weighted too heavily ---

I also noticed that it seems that some projections put too much enfaces on last year's performance:

Kevin Jones was the second coming of Dickerson after his last eight games in his rookie season... but after last year - he'll probably be replace by Artose Pinner soon...

Michael Clayton would change the way we look at WRs after his tremendous first season - step away Randy Moss - we've found a rookie that can do it... last year, shoulder problems - no targets - I should cut him, right?

Andre Johnson - Two magnificent seasons to begin his career - '05 will be his breakout season: we're talking 140/1800/13 right?... ooops, he's on the WW after week 6... and for '06 - you can't count him as one of your 3 starters, no?

---

I think members, to a certain degree, put too much emphasis on these factors - and it is just normal (why would I draft Reggie Bush in the second round if I don't think he'll revolutionize the game - and I'm usually right - I've won 427 leagues in 11 seasons I've played FF)...it's human nature and people don't want to get burn by the same guys this year as last year - but they do want Jamal Lewis at all cost when he helped them win a league with over 2,000 yards rushing...

How do you try to distingush between homer comments / burned FF players / owners of player when reading player analysis?... Aren't the most succesful FF members the one that only look at the facts: playing opportunities / injury risk / schedules / depth chart / etc. and stick to those when drafting players?

Just asking...

 

[#@%&$!?]

Most people have a tendancy to overvalue their own FF players. Partly because owners read alot more about their own players than others, and alot of that stuff is fluff and hype. IMO The staff tend to be more objective. Probably because 1) they have to cover nearly every player, and 2) people like Dodds have a good statistical/historical sense of player performance, which prevents the "Ben watson will score 15 tds type of projections."

 

[SSOG]

I have been lurking at alot of threads/polls since joinging in January - and it seems that members have a hard time being objective on players talent/opportunities simply because they have/added them to their FF teamsortis shoulder injury and Duckett's trade are either "nothing" or "the end of the world"... depending on if the guy posting has him on his redraft squad...Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because the guy saying so got him as a late steal...Mike Bell is the next coming of Terrell Davis if you had the chance to get him in the 5th round... but if someone took him 2 spots before you - he'll look like Quentin Griffin in a few weeks...

I think this is a chicken or egg arguement. Is the staff high on Mike Bell because they drafted him, or did they draft him because they're high on him?I personally believe that the presence of so many players they're high on on the Staff's fantasy teams simply indicates what their rankings already demonstrated- they're higher on said player than everyone else, and they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. I'd be a little worried if their team *WASN'T* full of players they had ranked higher than everyone else, to be honest- because then not even THEY are buying what they're trying to sell me.

 

[Loopdog]

i think the fact that you have been in 427 leagues, let alone won them, is the real factoid here....i really hope that was just a guestimate

how on earth do you have any time to do anything else in life besides putting in your lineups, or do you?

that means you've averaged WINNING about 40 leagues a year, thats absurd

 

[JayMan]

i think the fact that you have been in 427 leagues, let alone won them, is the real factoid here....i really hope that was just a guestimatehow on earth do you have any time to do anything else in life besides putting in your lineups, or do you?that means you've averaged WINNING about 40 leagues a year, thats absurd

That was - obvisouly - a comical comment regarding other members that state as one of their arguments (to let you know that they are right with a player's analysis) the fact that they have won 7 leagues last year by targeting Joey Galloway / Steve Smith / Samkon Gado / the Bears defense / Neil Rackers / Drew Bledsoe with their last 6 picks...All of this by searching and bringing back the thread where they said that Drew Bledsoe would be a top QB in '05 - while omitting to search the 6 other threads where they said he was done

 

[incubus0]

Great post, JayMan.

With some people, after hearing a little news or watching some moves early in the off season, they start to begin to think they may have found the next great sleeper. They come to a board or with friends, and start talking them up, and after getting negative feedback, start defending this player. It gets to a point where they stop looking at the facts, and just get defensive about them. Sure backup good runner X that went to good rushing team Y may look really promising in March, but after team Y drops some probowl olinemen, or some other things, the odds of player X having a great season go down, but since they've been talking them up for so long, their blinders don't allow them to see it.

I guess the popular advice of not falling in love with certain players at the draft, should extend to projects as well.

That being said, Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because he's on the greatest team to ever grace this Earth with the opportunity of watching them.

 

[JayMan]

That being said, Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because he's on the greatest team to ever grace this Earth with the opportunity of watching them.

Now there's an objective analysis!

 

[Marc Levin]

I'd be a little worried if their team *WASN'T* full of players they had ranked higher than everyone else, to be honest- because then not even THEY are buying what they're trying to sell me.

I certainly would never rank a player very high without being willing to put him on my fantasy team at that spot.

 

[BGP]

Its very hard for human beings to be objective. I think making your goal to find an "objective" news source is wrong to begin with, regardless of topic. I think its far better to find people with clear biases on both sides because they are FAR more like to air their views extremely clearly and that makes for better decision-making.

That said, I don't really come here looking for editorials on players. I come here for stats because the FBG service focuses on stats more than anything else.

 

[Daywalker]

Don't most of the staff participate in numerous leagues which would most likely require them to have say have C. Benson on one team and T. Jones on another?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Are MB/Staff members able to distance themselves from their rosters and past expericence in making comments about certain players - in general?

--- presence of a player on their FF team ---

I have been lurking at alot of threads/polls since joinging in January - and it seems that members have a hard time being objective on players talent/opportunities simply because they have/added them to their FF teams:

Portis shoulder injury and Duckett's trade are either "nothing" or "the end of the world"... depending on if the guy posting has him on his redraft squad...

Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because the guy saying so got him as a late steal...

Mike Bell is the next coming of Terrell Davis if you had the chance to get him in the 5th round... but if someone took him 2 spots before you - he'll look like Quentin Griffin in a few weeks...

--- last year's stats weighted too heavily ---

I also noticed that it seems that some projections put too much enfaces on last year's performance:

Kevin Jones was the second coming of Dickerson after his last eight games in his rookie season... but after last year - he'll probably be replace by Artose Pinner soon...

Michael Clayton would change the way we look at WRs after his tremendous first season - step away Randy Moss - we've found a rookie that can do it... last year, shoulder problems - no targets - I should cut him, right?

Andre Johnson - Two magnificent seasons to begin his career - '05 will be his breakout season: we're talking 140/1800/13 right?... ooops, he's on the WW after week 6... and for '06 - you can't count him as one of your 3 starters, no?

---

I think members, to a certain degree, put too much emphasis on these factors - and it is just normal (why would I draft Reggie Bush in the second round if I don't think he'll revolutionize the game - and I'm usually right - I've won 427 leagues in 11 seasons I've played FF)...it's human nature and people don't want to get burn by the same guys this year as last year - but they do want Jamal Lewis at all cost when he helped them win a league with over 2,000 yards rushing...

How do you try to distingush between homer comments / burned FF players / owners of player when reading player analysis?... Aren't the most succesful FF members the one that only look at the facts: playing opportunities / injury risk / schedules / depth chart / etc. and stick to those when drafting players?

Just asking...

Hi Jay,Absolutely. Facts are the only things that matter. I'd go so far as to say anyone who can't be totally objective won't ever be really successful forecasting players.

J

 

[pizzatyme]

Are MB/Staff members able to distance themselves from their rosters and past expericence in making comments about certain players - in general?

--- presence of a player on their FF team ---

I have been lurking at alot of threads/polls since joinging in January - and it seems that members have a hard time being objective on players talent/opportunities simply because they have/added them to their FF teams:

Portis shoulder injury and Duckett's trade are either "nothing" or "the end of the world"... depending on if the guy posting has him on his redraft squad...

Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because the guy saying so got him as a late steal...

Mike Bell is the next coming of Terrell Davis if you had the chance to get him in the 5th round... but if someone took him 2 spots before you - he'll look like Quentin Griffin in a few weeks...

--- last year's stats weighted too heavily ---

I also noticed that it seems that some projections put too much enfaces on last year's performance:

Kevin Jones was the second coming of Dickerson after his last eight games in his rookie season... but after last year - he'll probably be replace by Artose Pinner soon...

Michael Clayton would change the way we look at WRs after his tremendous first season - step away Randy Moss - we've found a rookie that can do it... last year, shoulder problems - no targets - I should cut him, right?

Andre Johnson - Two magnificent seasons to begin his career - '05 will be his breakout season: we're talking 140/1800/13 right?... ooops, he's on the WW after week 6... and for '06 - you can't count him as one of your 3 starters, no?

---

I think members, to a certain degree, put too much emphasis on these factors - and it is just normal (why would I draft Reggie Bush in the second round if I don't think he'll revolutionize the game - and I'm usually right - I've won 427 leagues in 11 seasons I've played FF)...it's human nature and people don't want to get burn by the same guys this year as last year - but they do want Jamal Lewis at all cost when he helped them win a league with over 2,000 yards rushing...

How do you try to distingush between homer comments / burned FF players / owners of player when reading player analysis?... Aren't the most succesful FF members the one that only look at the facts: playing opportunities / injury risk / schedules / depth chart / etc. and stick to those when drafting players?

Just asking...

Hi Jay,Absolutely. Facts are the only things that matter. I'd go so far as to say anyone who can't be totally objective won't ever be really successful forecasting players.

J

I'd almost completely agree with that. However, something has to be said for a forecasters gut feel. Otherwise, how could anyone project stats on some of these really murky situations, ie. Houston RBs, Buffalo QBs, Jax WRs, etc. before the season starts?Some gut feel has to go into place prior to any draft that happens before the season starts. Just MHO.

 

[David Yudkin]

I can't speak for the other staffers, but I generally don't have a problem speaking out in either direction for players whether I own them or not.

I say this with confidence because I will get email from people asking me why I am so high on PLAYER X and the next email will ask why I am so down on PLAYER X.

Most of the time people don't even know what NFL teams I follow and I often get called out on being a homer for teams I don't have any interest in.

As others have mentioned, most of us play in a ton of leagues so the odds are good that we "own" almost everyone in the NFL (or have at one point or another).

I do think that from a rostering perspective that we will avoid players we don't see good things for (or not worth a certain draft pick), but I think we had the opinion first and then avoided the player rather than vice versa.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Are MB/Staff members able to distance themselves from their rosters and past expericence in making comments about certain players - in general?

--- presence of a player on their FF team ---

I have been lurking at alot of threads/polls since joinging in January - and it seems that members have a hard time being objective on players talent/opportunities simply because they have/added them to their FF teams:

Portis shoulder injury and Duckett's trade are either "nothing" or "the end of the world"... depending on if the guy posting has him on his redraft squad...

Ben Watson will score 15 TDs this year simply because the guy saying so got him as a late steal...

Mike Bell is the next coming of Terrell Davis if you had the chance to get him in the 5th round... but if someone took him 2 spots before you - he'll look like Quentin Griffin in a few weeks...

--- last year's stats weighted too heavily ---

I also noticed that it seems that some projections put too much enfaces on last year's performance:

Kevin Jones was the second coming of Dickerson after his last eight games in his rookie season... but after last year - he'll probably be replace by Artose Pinner soon...

Michael Clayton would change the way we look at WRs after his tremendous first season - step away Randy Moss - we've found a rookie that can do it... last year, shoulder problems - no targets - I should cut him, right?

Andre Johnson - Two magnificent seasons to begin his career - '05 will be his breakout season: we're talking 140/1800/13 right?... ooops, he's on the WW after week 6... and for '06 - you can't count him as one of your 3 starters, no?

---

I think members, to a certain degree, put too much emphasis on these factors - and it is just normal (why would I draft Reggie Bush in the second round if I don't think he'll revolutionize the game - and I'm usually right - I've won 427 leagues in 11 seasons I've played FF)...it's human nature and people don't want to get burn by the same guys this year as last year - but they do want Jamal Lewis at all cost when he helped them win a league with over 2,000 yards rushing...

How do you try to distingush between homer comments / burned FF players / owners of player when reading player analysis?... Aren't the most succesful FF members the one that only look at the facts: playing opportunities / injury risk / schedules / depth chart / etc. and stick to those when drafting players?

Just asking...

Hi Jay,Absolutely. Facts are the only things that matter. I'd go so far as to say anyone who can't be totally objective won't ever be really successful forecasting players.

J

I'd almost completely agree with that. However, something has to be said for a forecasters gut feel. Otherwise, how could anyone project stats on some of these really murky situations, ie. Houston RBs, Buffalo QBs, Jax WRs, etc. before the season starts?Some gut feel has to go into place prior to any draft that happens before the season starts. Just MHO.

Hi Pizza,I don't disagree. Facts and gut feel. But the gut feel has to be objective. And it can be.

But you have to take every bit of outside influence out of the picture. (hate / love for the guy's college, pro team, hair cut etc. )

J

 

[JayMan]

Its very hard for human beings to be objective. I think making your goal to find an "objective" news source is wrong to begin with, regardless of topic. I think its far better to find people with clear biases on both sides because they are FAR more like to air their views extremely clearly and that makes for better decision-making.

That said, I don't really come here looking for editorials on players. I come here for stats because the FBG service focuses on stats more than anything else.

Interesting take... It may help define a player ceiling/floor when looking at both sides of the story... but those with extreme views must have valid arguments to support their views...Having one guy say Reggie Bush won't make it in the NFL because he's not built like a truck while the other counterattack by saying Emmitt / Barry / Marshall were not trucks of their own - doesn't help me decide if Bush will be a tremendous player or not...

But if someone states that Ben Watson should not be overvalued because when Branch comes back he will have less targets and simply because the Pats spread the ball around by playing to the other team weaknesses... but the other guy counterattacks by saying Belichik never had such a talent at the TE and he will find ways to work the ball to him... now, that's interesting...

 

[-OZ-]

I understand the question, but if the staff is as active as I'm inclined to believe and own a few teams at least, it would be nearly impossible to overhype their own players, as they probably own most roster worthy players in at least one league.

OTOH (and something I'd be very curious to see), what % of teams a staff member has a player in may be important. For example, if Magaw has Byron Leftwich in one league, I doubt it changes his opinion, and is quite unimportant. OTOH, if he has 6 dynasty leagues and owns Leftwich in 4 or more, I take that as a sign that he expects big things.

 

[JayMan]

I can't speak for the other staffers, but I generally don't have a problem speaking out in either direction for players whether I own them or not.I say this with confidence because I will get email from people asking me why I am so high on PLAYER X and the next email will ask why I am so down on PLAYER X.Most of the time people don't even know what NFL teams I follow and I often get called out on being a homer for teams I don't have any interest in.As others have mentioned, most of us play in a ton of leagues so the odds are good that we "own" almost everyone in the NFL (or have at one point or another).I do think that from a rostering perspective that we will avoid players we don't see good things for (or not worth a certain draft pick), but I think we had the opinion first and then avoided the player rather than vice versa.

Thanks for the feedback David... I never intended to make this post seems like I was dissapointed with the Staff views and opinions - far from it...I'm just trying to find better ways to search for a player's analysis... and to ignore the "DeAngelo will only be a change of pace back because he's smaller than my grandmother" argument,,,I think the fact that we can see many staff members projections - alog with the explanations (when asked politely) helps "weighting" the pros and the cons on every player... I didn't mean this post to sound like someone pissed off at others opinions!Sorry if it came out that way

 

[David Yudkin]

I can't speak for the other staffers, but I generally don't have a problem speaking out in either direction for players whether I own them or not.I say this with confidence because I will get email from people asking me why I am so high on PLAYER X and the next email will ask why I am so down on PLAYER X.Most of the time people don't even know what NFL teams I follow and I often get called out on being a homer for teams I don't have any interest in.As others have mentioned, most of us play in a ton of leagues so the odds are good that we "own" almost everyone in the NFL (or have at one point or another).I do think that from a rostering perspective that we will avoid players we don't see good things for (or not worth a certain draft pick), but I think we had the opinion first and then avoided the player rather than vice versa.

Thanks for the feedback David... I never intended to make this post seems like I was dissapointed with the Staff views and opinions - far from it...I'm just trying to find better ways to search for a player's analysis... and to ignore the "DeAngelo will only be a change of pace back because he's smaller than my grandmother" argument,,,I think the fact that we can see many staff members projections - alog with the explanations (when asked politely) helps "weighting" the pros and the cons on every player... I didn't mean this post to sound like someone pissed off at others opinions!Sorry if it came out that way

I certainly was not offended and all are welcome to formulate and convey their opinions. However, I have a tough time sometimes when someone with a team name in their board name and an avatar with the team's logo tries to come across as objective when embroiled in a player debate.What I don't like lately has been when I give opinions on players or sleeper picks and then the same guys I have been pimping start getting picked up by all the guys I play against from the boards. That could very well be a coincidence (or just better drafting overall), but it's tough to have any hold cards when your thoughts and information are posted everywhere for the world to see.

 

[-OZ-]

What I don't like lately has been when I give opinions on players or sleeper picks and then the same guys I have been pimping start getting picked up by all the guys I play against from the boards. That could very well be a coincidence (or just better drafting overall), but it's tough to have any hold cards when your thoughts and information are posted everywhere for the world to see.

I'd take that as a good thing. It means you're being listened to.I wouldn't subscribe if I thought the staff members were holding back. You're on staff to give insight, which IMO means giving all your insight, not keeping things back for yourself.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Its very hard for human beings to be objective. I think making your goal to find an "objective" news source is wrong to begin with, regardless of topic. I think its far better to find people with clear biases on both sides because they are FAR more like to air their views extremely clearly and that makes for better decision-making.That said, I don't really come here looking for editorials on players. I come here for stats because the FBG service focuses on stats more than anything else.

Couldn't disagree more. I love for people to passionately believe in ideas or people. But to hope for bias that could be anything from homerism to hating where the guy went to school is something I go out of my way to avoid.I guess some sites may do this. Footballguys won't.J

 

[Joe Bryant]

I understand the question, but if the staff is as active as I'm inclined to believe and own a few teams at least, it would be nearly impossible to overhype their own players, as they probably own most roster worthy players in at least one league.OTOH (and something I'd be very curious to see), what % of teams a staff member has a player in may be important. For example, if Magaw has Byron Leftwich in one league, I doubt it changes his opinion, and is quite unimportant. OTOH, if he has 6 dynasty leagues and owns Leftwich in 4 or more, I take that as a sign that he expects big things.

Thanks OZ.I think that's where it gets to a "which comes first" thing. If Magaw is all over Reggie Bush, I think he'll say so here and I think he'll do all he can to have Reggie Bush on his teams. But liking Reggie Bush is what drives it.He doesn't hype Reggie Bush because he has him on his team. He has him on his team because he hypes Reggie Bush.I honestly think every staff guy we have does it this way. J

 

[JayMan]

I understand the question, but if the staff is as active as I'm inclined to believe and own a few teams at least, it would be nearly impossible to overhype their own players, as they probably own most roster worthy players in at least one league.OTOH (and something I'd be very curious to see), what % of teams a staff member has a player in may be important. For example, if Magaw has Byron Leftwich in one league, I doubt it changes his opinion, and is quite unimportant. OTOH, if he has 6 dynasty leagues and owns Leftwich in 4 or more, I take that as a sign that he expects big things.

Thanks OZ.I think that's where it gets to a "which comes first" thing. If Magaw is all over Reggie Bush, I think he'll say so here and I think he'll do all he can to have Reggie Bush on his teams. But liking Reggie Bush is what drives it.He doesn't hype Reggie Bush because he has him on his team. He has him on his team because he hypes Reggie Bush.I honestly think every staff guy we have does it this way. J

Thanks for jumping in on this thread Joe - I certainly wasn't doing this to bash at the staff (I posted it responding to David earlier) - to the contrary in fact...All staff members are accountable for their views/projections and thus research (opportunities / talent / coachability / surroundings / etc.) is omnipresent in their arguments to say why they are all over a certain player or not... just looking at Chase / David / Clayton / Jason / Sigmund (and others) comments - you can see that they have been looking into all of those aspects prior to posting their views on certain players / positions...There are also alot of knowledgeable members out there (I have been able to find some in the last 8 months) that ranks up there with the staff members when finding value in every format of FF...This is why I have been hooked to FBG for the last 8 months (I know - a newbie speaking!)What I was trying to stress out is that too often - when looking at a thread - you can see the discussion generating (when two members disagree on a player/position) to invalid statements as to why his view is better than the other (the: "I won 42 leagues last year because of this way of ranking players" tops the list)... and this is why I'm trying to figure out a valid way of filtering those comments...I think a good example of this would be Jason's Players spotlight... when a member throws the projections average for a player out the window simply because he went to high school with the brother in law of that QB and he knows from this that the 50 TDs mark is a walk in the park for this guy...

 

[The Jerk]

What I was trying to stress out is that too often - when looking at a thread - you can see the discussion generating (when two members disagree on a player/position) to invalid statements as to why his view is better than the other (the: "I won 42 leagues last year because of this way of ranking players" tops the list)... and this is why I'm trying to figure out a valid way of filtering those comments...

Most of the time, people who are emphasizing their success to prove that they are right concerning a given player should be ignored. It seems that they are out of specific details so they move on to self-promotion.JayMan, your original post asked:

How do you try to distingush between homer comments / burned FF players / owners of player when reading player analysis?

Obvious homers or burned owners tend to give themselves away with emphatic, decisive posts that seem to go too far toward one side or another. Ultimately, you get to know which posters tend to be homers vs. informed fans of their favorites teams, which owners can have perspective with players that burned them, and who is rooting for their player to do well vs. maintaining objectivity of their roster.In that post you also stated:

Aren't the most succesful FF members the one that only look at the facts: playing opportunities / injury risk / schedules / depth chart / etc. and stick to those when drafting players?

I'd generally agree with you, but I'd add that there is something to intangibles and "gut feeling" when it comes to players. For example, factual analysis cannot precisely indicate exactly where to draft a player like Larry Johnson in 2005. Or perhaps Portis this year. The Portis example may serve as a reference point to my comment on intangibles. Risk may be a higher consideration to me than to you. When we discussed this in a thread, you apparently wanted a draft slot for Portis and that's it. I don't think it's as simple as that given the fluidity of the situation and the risk factor. In a sense, we're both right. If you're drafting right now, you need to have an exact slot for Portis. To me, the only honest answer is to give one slot for risk-takers and a different slot for the risk averse. Also, if Portis is not a goal-line back, league scoring methods now also produce variation. So to me, stating a range is not avoiding a definitive answer but rather intending to speak to a wider audience. So, am I an "objective" poster who can be trusted or a hack who should be ignored? Time will tell both you and other FBGs.

 

[The Jerk]

JayMan,

Another of the super-informative posts we get to start seeing now that many league drafts are complete is:

"I can't believe you have _____ or _____ on waivers. What kind of league is that? Blah blah blah."

Arguably, this is more informative as it implies that player _____ has value. Still, not very helpful.

 

[JayMan]

What I was trying to stress out is that too often - when looking at a thread - you can see the discussion generating (when two members disagree on a player/position) to invalid statements as to why his view is better than the other (the: "I won 42 leagues last year because of this way of ranking players" tops the list)... and this is why I'm trying to figure out a valid way of filtering those comments...

Most of the time, people who are emphasizing their success to prove that they are right concerning a given player should be ignored. It seems that they are out of specific details so they move on to self-promotion.JayMan, your original post asked:

How do you try to distingush between homer comments / burned FF players / owners of player when reading player analysis?

Obvious homers or burned owners tend to give themselves away with emphatic, decisive posts that seem to go too far toward one side or another. Ultimately, you get to know which posters tend to be homers vs. informed fans of their favorites teams, which owners can have perspective with players that burned them, and who is rooting for their player to do well vs. maintaining objectivity of their roster.In that post you also stated:

Aren't the most succesful FF members the one that only look at the facts: playing opportunities / injury risk / schedules / depth chart / etc. and stick to those when drafting players?

I'd generally agree with you, but I'd add that there is something to intangibles and "gut feeling" when it comes to players. For example, factual analysis cannot precisely indicate exactly where to draft a player like Larry Johnson in 2005. Or perhaps Portis this year. The Portis example may serve as a reference point to my comment on intangibles. Risk may be a higher consideration to me than to you. When we discussed this in a thread, you apparently wanted a draft slot for Portis and that's it. I don't think it's as simple as that given the fluidity of the situation and the risk factor. In a sense, we're both right. If you're drafting right now, you need to have an exact slot for Portis. To me, the only honest answer is to give one slot for risk-takers and a different slot for the risk averse. Also, if Portis is not a goal-line back, league scoring methods now also produce variation. So to me, stating a range is not avoiding a definitive answer but rather intending to speak to a wider audience. So, am I an "objective" poster who can be trusted or a hack who should be ignored? Time will tell both you and other FBGs.

Very interesting take on the last part - the "risk averse / risk takers" theory is directly derive from financial analysis (sorry, my background) and serves well for a range... I don't have any problem with this... also, as you mention, the scoring system has to be taken into account when ranking players...Concerning the example you are referring to - the "Portis is 11th" thread... I must have not made myself clear when asking for your insight - since I was looking more to know your reasons why you would draft him 11th on that day (i.e. why Steven Jackson would be ahead of him if he's got tendenitis and you don't want to take risk - same for Westbrook with his nagging injury history) and not "is he 10th - 12th or 14th?"... I had not made myself clear on this...Your posts are always well thought processes - and that's why I was looking for your information on the other thread previously - it's refreshing to see members being able to support their arguments with solid facts - and you are one of them

 

[The Jerk]

The Portis example may serve as a reference point to my comment on intangibles. Risk may be a higher consideration to me than to you. When we discussed this in a thread, you apparently wanted a draft slot for Portis and that's it. I don't think it's as simple as that given the fluidity of the situation and the risk factor. In a sense, we're both right. If you're drafting right now, you need to have an exact slot for Portis. To me, the only honest answer is to give one slot for risk-takers and a different slot for the risk averse. Also, if Portis is not a goal-line back, league scoring methods now also produce variation. So to me, stating a range is not avoiding a definitive answer but rather intending to speak to a wider audience. So, am I an "objective" poster who can be trusted or a hack who should be ignored? Time will tell both you and other FBGs.

Very interesting take on the last part - the "risk averse / risk takers" theory is directly derive from financial analysis (sorry, my background) and serves well for a range... I don't have any problem with this... also, as you mention, the scoring system has to be taken into account when ranking players...Concerning the example you are referring to - the "Portis is 11th" thread... I must have not made myself clear when asking for your insight - since I was looking more to know your reasons why you would draft him 11th on that day (i.e. why Steven Jackson would be ahead of him if he's got tendenitis and you don't want to take risk - same for Westbrook with his nagging injury history) and not "is he 10th - 12th or 14th?"... I had not made myself clear on this...Your posts are always well thought processes - and that's why I was looking for your information on the other thread previously - it's refreshing to see members being able to support their arguments with solid facts - and you are one of them

Thanks for the compliments. I'm not sure if you are still interested in the Portis debate. By the way, Westbrook is NOT ahead of Portis for me in any format. Jackson's tendonitis doesn't concern me as much as Portis' shoulder due to news reports that it should be fine once the Rams hit their regular season routine. In TD heavy leagues, I might drop him below Rudi due to the injury, but that's about it.The 10 RBs I rank before Portis are: Big 3, Tiki, Jackson and Johnson, Williams, Jordan, Brown, James. I rank Portis very nearly on a tier with the four right ahead of him. If I can get convincing reports to ameliorate my concern similar to Jackson's (as I wrote above), I will move him up to 7. League variables will probably determine that ordering, and might even allow McGahee and Parker to be considered. So I guess I'd adjust my range to 7-13 now.By the way, I see some pretty good stuff on many of your posts, too.

 

[JayMan]

The 10 RBs I rank before Portis are: Big 3, Tiki, Jackson and Johnson, Williams, Jordan, Brown, James. I rank Portis very nearly on a tier with the four right ahead of him. If I can get convincing reports to ameliorate my concern similar to Jackson's (as I wrote above), I will move him up to 7. League variables will probably determine that ordering, and might even allow McGahee and Parker to be considered. So I guess I'd adjust my range to 7-13 now.By the way, I see some pretty good stuff on many of your posts, too.

Thanks - exactly what I was looking for (sorry for not having been clear on that in the first place) and thanks also for the kind words...Now - it's time to draft (tonight in fact!)

 

[The Jerk]

The 10 RBs I rank before Portis are: Big 3, Tiki, Jackson and Johnson, Williams, Jordan, Brown, James. I rank Portis very nearly on a tier with the four right ahead of him. If I can get convincing reports to ameliorate my concern similar to Jackson's (as I wrote above), I will move him up to 7. League variables will probably determine that ordering, and might even allow McGahee and Parker to be considered. So I guess I'd adjust my range to 7-13 now.By the way, I see some pretty good stuff on many of your posts, too.

Thanks - exactly what I was looking for (sorry for not having been clear on that in the first place) and thanks also for the kind words...Now - it's time to draft (tonight in fact!)

Good luck.