CalBear
Footballguy
Uh, no.'Ahmad Rashad said:Roddy is 31, when most WR's start to decline,
Uh, no.'Ahmad Rashad said:Roddy is 31, when most WR's start to decline,
What a perfect reply - well done here. -QGAhmad Rashad at 31 = 69 for 1095 15.9 avg. - his second best year. His best was at 30 so I guess that is why he perceives the start of the decline at 31.
With the news this week of Foster missing practice time with knee soreness and him being a GTD, I thought I would check how I stack up with others who have Foster in the contest.From the contest query app, I notice that 2023 people have Foster and only 289 of the 2023 have Foster and his handcuff Ben Tate. And of those, only 2 have all three - Foster, Tate, and Forsett. 23 Have Foster and only Forsett.For the longest time, I was going with only the Steelers D as my 1 D/ST, thinking that they would be fine all the way through and roll the dice that at week 4, I would be strong enough to go without a D/ST. That earlier team also had Gates instead of V. Davis as the compliment to Graham. This contest requires that there be 2 good TE's to last to the end. Earlier, it also had A. Roberts and E. Royal at WR instead of Hill and Gordon. It also had Jonathan Dwyer.
Then last night, I started messing with weekly points and looking at the effect of bye weeks and cut down. I may have made a mistake of getting away from my Steelers only defense as that idea meant no late week byes that could result in me getting cut when the threshold is even tighter. They were the only D/ST team to have a week 4 bye that was any good. The other was I think the Indy Colts. Oh well. What's done is done.
I really debated on adding Ben Tate as handcuff to Foster, but decided $12 for a hand cuff to a $34 rb was too pricey. That will come back to bite me if Foster goes down. I like Matt Ryan for the whole season and see him as the best value that could finish top 5. The Falcons QB has easiest SOS and Gabbert has a decent week 7 match up as the bye replacement.
I wanted 3 proven studs as my more WRs. Titus Young should be able to fill in nicely as bye week replacement.
This contest is such a blast. Good luck everybody.
Matt Ryan $19
Blaine Gabbert $6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arian Foster $34
Darren McFadden $26
Rashard Mendenhall $4
Cedric Benson $3
Evan Royster $3
Taiwan Jones $2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Jones $23
Brandon Marshall $22
A.J. Green $22
Titus Young $10
Justin Blackmon $7
Stephen Hill $6
Josh Gordon $3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Graham $29
Vernon Davis $17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bironas $3
Justin Medlock $3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Jets $4
Seattle Seahawks $4
Ok, most WR's actually start to decline well before 31, but some elite WR's peak later than average.Here's an article analyzing WR age and fantasy value: http://fantasydouche.com/2012/04/at-what-age-do-wide-receivers-peak-in-fantasy-value/Uh, no.'Ahmad Rashad said:Roddy is 31, when most WR's start to decline,
Julio Jones is just entering the best years for a WR, while Roddy White is starting the "Steady Decline" phase. It doesn't mean there aren't WR's with great years at 31+, but most WR's do decline in production after 30. I avoided drafting any WR over 28 this year.Maybe receivers have four career phases:
21-22 – Getting Good
23-27 – Being Good
28-30 – Trying to stay good
30+ – The Steady Decline
Yep -- peaked at 30 and started to decline at 31. I didn't say older WR's can't have great years, but most do start to decline at 31, or often earlier. Doesn't mean I can't still outperform many young WR's at my old age, but I definitely was much better before 31...Ahmad Rashad at 31 = 69 for 1095 15.9 avg. - his second best year. His best was at 30 so I guess that is why he perceives the start of the decline at 31.
Yes, WR's still can have very good years after 30, but most peak by then. For the guys you listed, here are the ages when they had their best year, all before 31:Ahmad Rashad 30Reggie Wayne 29Marvin Harrison 29 or 30, depending on scoring systemTerrell Owens 28Cris Carter 30The only outlier is Jerry Rice. He had his most TD year at 25, but his highest yardage and receptions year was at 33. He's not most WR's, though, he's the GOAT.Despite Rice's amazing year at 33, I'll stick with the odds and favor WR's under 31.Ahmad Rashad at 31 = 69 for 1095 15.9 avg. - his second best year. His best was at 30 so I guess that is why he perceives the start of the decline at 31. Jerry Rice at 31 = 98 1503 15.3 Reggie Wayne at 31 = 100 1264 12.6 Marvin Harrison at 31 = 94 1272 13.5 Terrell Owens at 31 = 77 1200 15.6 Cris Carter at 31 = 96 1163 12.1 So it appears that there may still be life in old bones. I am reminded of Mark Twain's famous retort that "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." If I owned Roddy I wouldn't panic yet. But since I don't own him I hope Rashad is correct ;-)
Watch him squeak through only to see all those guys benched in week 16 ahead of the playoffs -QG'Ignoratio Elenchi said:lol, speaking of bye weeks. There are a bunch of entries like this as well, which weren't picked up by my earlier query but are all but guaranteed to get eliminated during the bye weeks.
What? Did he think he could roll the extra salary into another contest for cash out...
Its in post #1Sorry to be a dummy, but what is the link to the query function?Thanks!
That's not what the odds say.Despite Rice's amazing year at 33, I'll stick with the odds and favor WR's under 31.
He'll go out in week 7--five of his kickers are on bye.
I'm glad you back up your statements with such solid facts...That's not what the odds say.Despite Rice's amazing year at 33, I'll stick with the odds and favor WR's under 31.
I don't have time to teach a basic statistics course here, but among other things, you haven't controlled the sample for WR quality or situation. Comparing Roddy White at 31 to a WR who changed teams, or lost his starting job, or got injured at age 30 doesn't make any sense. We know that Roddy White is an all-Pro WR who is a starter on a good offense at age 31; what's the curve look like for that population? You have no idea.I'm glad you back up your statements with such solid facts...That's not what the odds say.Despite Rice's amazing year at 33, I'll stick with the odds and favor WR's under 31.
Nice attitude.Ok, here's a different study of WR's from 1990-2010 who finished in the top 36 at least one season (PPR and standard scoring), adjusted for same team vs. changing teams: http://www.fantasyshrink.com/2011/06/09/how-does-age-impact-wr-production-part-ii/I don't have time to teach a basic statistics course here, but among other things, you haven't controlled the sample for WR quality or situation. Comparing Roddy White at 31 to a WR who changed teams, or lost his starting job, or got injured at age 30 doesn't make any sense. We know that Roddy White is an all-Pro WR who is a starter on a good offense at age 31; what's the curve look like for that population? You have no idea.I'm glad you back up your statements with such solid facts...That's not what the odds say.Despite Rice's amazing year at 33, I'll stick with the odds and favor WR's under 31.
Uh, no.
That's not what the odds say.
I don't have time to teach a basic statistics course here
Don't waste your time teaching a basic statistics course, but please enlighten us as to what the odds do say. Thanks...You have no idea.
Not yet. There are no cuts in week 1 anyway.Is the live scoring site going again this year?
Shorts just scored - SOD!no one took Cecil Shorts?? :(
5 guys have Shorts, not enough to round up to 0.1%-QGShorts just scored - SOD!no one took Cecil Shorts?? :(
I run the live scoring site and it takes some work to prep it for a new season. I am working on getting it ready to go ASAP.Not yet. There are no cuts in week 1 anyway.Is the live scoring site going again this year?
Locker and Vick making me nervous I only went with two....Locker making me glad I picked 3 QB already (and swapped out Tannehill for Gabbert so I didn't have both Ryan and Tannehill on bye).-QG
gottem does that make me unique or not to bright?5 guys have Shorts, not enough to round up to 0.1%-QGShorts just scored - SOD!no one took Cecil Shorts?? :(
Thanks OC as always for this, don't forget to add the new wrinkles in the scoring (-2 for INT and 1 point for each RB reception) -QGI run the live scoring site and it takes some work to prep it for a new season. I am working on getting it ready to go ASAP.Not yet. There are no cuts in week 1 anyway.Is the live scoring site going again this year?
Thanks for that? Be sure to put in a donate button.I run the live scoring site and it takes some work to prep it for a new season. I am working on getting it ready to go ASAP.Not yet. There are no cuts in week 1 anyway.Is the live scoring site going again this year?
Likely both.gottem does that make me unique or not to bright?5 guys have Shorts, not enough to round up to 0.1%-QGShorts just scored - SOD!no one took Cecil Shorts?? :(
Meh, from a contest perspective what did they do today? Three sacks and a pick? That's 5 points. Judging by all the INT totals I saw today, I assume there are a whole bunch of defenses that outscored the Niners. (ETA: And if I'm wrong, and the 49ers defense actually was one of the best today, what does that tell you about defensive scoring in this contest?)I think we all know the SF defense is really good, but are they worth paying extra money for? Almost certainly not, in my opinion. Defensive scoring is too low and variable in this contest to spend money on the higher-priced teams.3,198 teams took the San Francisco 49's defense...and they were all 100% on the money.
Vick, Locker, and Skelton making me really glad I went with 4.Locker and Vick making me nervous I only went with two....Locker making me glad I picked 3 QB already (and swapped out Tannehill for Gabbert so I didn't have both Ryan and Tannehill on bye).-QG