Peyton "M" as in Mistake (1 Viewer)

[Z-Men]

After doing some lengthy VBD analysis and studies, and I'll say it here: Peyton Manning will disappoint all those who take him in the first round. And, by golly, there are millions out there it seems who have him chalked for the first round.

Here's my backup:

Manning will in no way put up the same numbers as he did last year. Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row. When Dan Marino broke the TD record in ’84 with 48 TDs he followed that up with only 30 TDs the next season. Furthermore, I've noticed Manning going in the first round by many experts and fantasy footballers in mock drafts; I believe this to be a mistake. Manning will be a first round bust and not because of bad play. It'll be because of not-as-good-play as 2004 and, more pertinent, Manning’s relative value is not high enough. Opponents will gain too much ground on whoever takes Manning in the first round by taking another decent QB like Aaron Brooks or Brett Favre in the middle rounds. The best value in the first round will come from the RB and WR positions, as always.

-z-

 

[fridayfrenzy]

 

[jurb26]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

 

[CalBear]

Let me guess; your "lengthy VBD analysis" consisted of reading the dozen or so threads on this forum which have actual analysis on the subject.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Let me guess; your "lengthy VBD analysis" consisted of reading the dozen or so threads on this forum which have actual analysis on the subject.

Shut it Calbear - how can you diss the master like that. He could cream you.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

 

[Double Agent]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

Brilliant! I have been telling people this for a month and nobody gets it. Of course, not many people take statistics either and of those who do, not many pass it.

 

[The Indestructible]

Does this apply to leagues that start 2 QBs?

 

[CapGuru]

Regression to the mean, yes indeed.

I was going to reply to another of Z posts and you took the words right out of my mouth. Amen.

 

[LHUCKS]

I agree.

 

[Z-Men]

Does this apply to leagues that start 2 QBs?

No.In a 2-QB league I'd strongly consider Manning/Culpepper in first couple rounds. Last year I played in the WCOFF Hall of Fame league which allows a QB to be played as a flex player, essentially allowing us the capability to start two QBs if we wanted to. In this league I drafted Edge (first round), Culpepper (2nd round), and would of taken Manning (3rd round) if the team before me (Ian and Jon Millman of FFChamps) had not taken him. -z-

 

[Double Agent]

No.

In a 2-QB league I'd strongly consider Manning/Culpepper in first couple rounds. Last year I played in the WCOFF Hall of Fame league which allows a QB to be played as a flex player, essentially allowing us the capability to start two QBs if we wanted to. In this league I drafted Edge (first round), Culpepper (2nd round), and would of taken Manning (3rd round) if the team before me (Ian and Jon Millman of FFChamps) had not taken him. -z-

But you still won right?

 

[LuckyOne]

After doing some lengthy VBD analysis and studies, and I'll say it here: Peyton Manning will disappoint all those who take him in the first round. And, by golly, there are millions out there it seems who have him chalked for the first round.

Here's my backup:

Manning will in no way put up the same numbers as he did last year. Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row. When Dan Marino broke the TD record in ’84 with 48 TDs he followed that up with only 30 TDs the next season. Furthermore, I've noticed Manning going in the first round by many experts and fantasy footballers in mock drafts; I believe this to be a mistake. Manning will be a first round bust and not because of bad play. It'll be because of not-as-good-play as 2004 and, more pertinent, Manning’s relative value is not high enough. Opponents will gain too much ground on whoever takes Manning in the first round by taking another decent QB like Aaron Brooks or Brett Favre in the middle rounds. The best value in the first round will come from the RB and WR positions, as always.

-z-

I just love black and white thinkers. Every player has value. And, great players often have several great seasons in a row. Manning most likely will not put up the numbers he did last year, but he is far and away the best QB. If you ask me, he is a better selection at the end of the first than a bottom first tier RB. Why? He doesn't really have any question marks, and every running back at that point does. So, end of the first, if Manning is there, I will grab him. It's a better selection than say Deuce or Barlow was last year.

 

[cstu]

After doing some lengthy VBD analysis and studies, and I'll say it here: Peyton Manning will disappoint all those who take him in the first round. And, by golly, there are millions out there it seems who have him chalked for the first round.

Here's my backup:

Manning will in no way put up the same numbers as he did last year. Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row. When Dan Marino broke the TD record in ’84 with 48 TDs he followed that up with only 30 TDs the next season. Furthermore, I've noticed Manning going in the first round by many experts and fantasy footballers in mock drafts; I believe this to be a mistake. Manning will be a first round bust and not because of bad play. It'll be because of not-as-good-play as 2004 and, more pertinent, Manning’s relative value is not high enough. Opponents will gain too much ground on whoever takes Manning in the first round by taking another decent QB like Aaron Brooks or Brett Favre in the middle rounds. The best value in the first round will come from the RB and WR positions, as always.

-z-

Even those that get him with the last pick in the first round? I don't think so. He's still the most reliable QB in football, especially this year with loss of Moss in Minny and TO's potential holdout.I'll take Manning over a RB like Westbrook or WR's like Owens and Holt anytime because of his reliability.

 

[Jim Otto]

But you still won right?

LOL

 

[cstu]

No.

In a 2-QB league I'd strongly consider Manning/Culpepper in first couple rounds. Last year I played in the WCOFF Hall of Fame league which allows a QB to be played as a flex player, essentially allowing us the capability to start two QBs if we wanted to. In this league I drafted Edge (first round), Culpepper (2nd round), and would of taken Manning (3rd round) if the team before me (Ian and Jon Millman of FFChamps) had not taken him. -z-

But you still won right?

 

[BigRed]

After doing some lengthy VBD analysis and studies, and I'll say it here: Peyton Manning will disappoint all those who take him in the first round.

Manning will in no way put up the same numbers as he did last year. Dream seasons like that just don't happen two years in a row.

WHOA out on a limb w/that one!Well, actually, after doing no VBD analysis or studying whatsoever, a great number of us figured that out before the 04 season ended. But welcome, and hop aboard.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

The gap between Manning and Cpep/Mcnabb will be larger this year.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

this is old news

 

[jurb26]

The gap between Manning and Cpep/Mcnabb will be larger this year.

Yes, I agree.... but the gap between Manning and QBs 10-14 will be smaller.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

from 1994 to 1998, Brett Favre had the following end of season rankings among fantasy QBs: 2, 1, 1, 1, 2from 1984 to 1986, Dan Marino had the following end of season rankings among fantasy QBs: 1, 2, 1from 2002 to 2004, Daunte Culpepper had the following end of season rankings among fantasy QBs: 1, 1, 1It's not that unprecedented for a QB to have fantasy success for multiple years in a row.Manning was only the #2 fantasy QB in each of the past 2 seasons. With Culpepper losing Moss, it's hardly unrealistic to expect a #1 QB ranking from him this year with the weapons at his disposal, the weak defenses in his division, and the NFL's new emphasis on enforcing pass interference rules.I'd be interested to know what the VBD value has been for the #1 fantasy QB each year and how that compares with the #10 RB and #1 WR, which are generally the players Manning would be competing with to warrant a 1st round pick.I think the RB and WR groups are very deep this year, and that Manning is a legit consideration for late in round 1.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

I'd be interested to know what the VBD value has been for the #1 fantasy QB each year and how that compares with the #10 RB and #1 WR, which are generally the players Manning would be competing with to warrant a 1st round pick.

Actually, I'm working on an article discussing exactly this.Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD, but the difficulty of picking which RB's in the group of 8-16 actually end up 8-12 makes people take the easy route of Manning/Moss/etc.

 

[fruity pebbles]

More than likely won't throw for 49 again but it's interesting to note that his entire team is back, he threw 49 in 15 games, and while Marino followed up his 48 year with 30, the following year he rebounded with 44. There's a very good chance Manning tosses 40 this year, and if he does, he's worth a mid to late first round pick.

 

[GECKO]

Agreed be it too late!

 

[bostonfred]

I'd be interested to know what the VBD value has been for the #1 fantasy QB each year and how that compares with the #10 RB and #1 WR, which are generally the players Manning would be competing with to warrant a 1st round pick.

Actually, I'm working on an article discussing exactly this.Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD, but the difficulty of picking which RB's in the group of 8-16 actually end up 8-12 makes people take the easy route of Manning/Moss/etc.

 

[DropKick]

I understand your point based on relative and "expected" value. But in Manning's case, he could (likely?) outperform your projections which conservatively have him "coming back to earth". There are factors to consider that go beyond projections. After all, most models project stats as a single point when a range is more appropriate. Anyone care to consider a math model with probabilities or confidence intervals? OK... OK, thats probably overkill.How about durability as a factor? How about the liklihood of a RB with 20+ carries per game getting injured? Manning's durability has to be a big plus.

 

[radballs.]

I'd be interested to know what the VBD value has been for the #1 fantasy QB each year and how that compares with the #10 RB and #1 WR, which are generally the players Manning would be competing with to warrant a 1st round pick.

I had some 3 year AVT data that I just compiled yesterday so it was fairly easy to do this quickly. Caveats, this is for a 1 ppr league, start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, and it doesn't include TEs. This would bump the QB ranking down even more by one or two players in a couple of these years. So, just looking at the QB 1 VBD ranking under these conditions, QB 1 was ranked 3rd in 2004, 31st in 2003, and 16th in 2002. The X value for QB 1 during these years was 166, 60, and 96 respectively in years 2004-2002. RB 10 was 61, 104, and 87 respectively for the same years. WR 1 was 170, 222, and 208 for those same years. Sorry, but I don't have the non 1 ppr data so I'm not crunching that right now.

 

[Z-Men]

If you ask me, he is a better selection at the end of the first than a bottom first tier RB. Why? He doesn't really have any question marks, and every running back at that point does.

I actually could go along with this. The one thing Manning does provide is stability and confidence. Many believe, and I'm one of them, that fantasy football is not won in the first round but it could be lost in the first round. So, by taking Manning, you are all but ensuring yourself that you won't lose it in the first round.But my mantra has always been to aim for the stars. Go for it all. A RB or WR's value in the first round offers more potential than Manning, albeit with risk. I won't back down from the risk.

To play with fear is not to play optimal. -z-

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'd be interested to know what the VBD value has been for the #1 fantasy QB each year and how that compares with the #10 RB and #1 WR, which are generally the players Manning would be competing with to warrant a 1st round pick.

Actually, I'm working on an article discussing exactly this.Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD, but the difficulty of picking which RB's in the group of 8-16 actually end up 8-12 makes people take the easy route of Manning/Moss/etc.

agreed.I'd also rate Manning's injury risk lower than pretty much any other player in the league.

I think the key is getting Manning late enough in the 1st round that you can still land a viable RB1 early in round 2. Some teams that take Manning too high in round 1 wind up with a guy like Brian Westbrook as their RB1 and that's not a strategy I'd be too happy with. But, if I could get Manning and an Ahman Green, I'd be all over it in a league that awards 6pts for passing TDs (another important factor to consider - I wouldn't take Manning in the 1st round in a standard 4pt per passing TD league).

 

[radballs.]

Anyone care to consider a math model with probabilities or confidence intervals? OK... OK, thats probably overkill.

I don't think it's overkill at all. In fact, I think there would be a lot of usefullness in it. I don't have time to work on this but I think you could assign confidence intervals around a player's expected projections which may or may not increase his true value given the greater likelihood of said player hitting his projections. This does need to be explored deeper for sure but not overkill in my mind.

 

[Z-Men]

Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD.

I justify taking a WR via VBD, and I might be the only one who found a way. The WR position is very underappreciated by traditional VBD'ers. It's an error in the VBD systems people are using. Here's a clip from page 189 on the results of my RV Method:Note there’s a WR ranked in the top five overall. This probably seems crazy to most folks, considering I’ve witnessed every competing WCOFF manager draft a RB in the first six picks each season. However, the RV Method tells me to strongly look at the WR position in the middle of the first round. It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD.

I justify taking a WR via VBD, and I might be the only one who found a way. The WR position is very underappreciated by traditional VBD'ers. It's an error in the VBD systems people are using. Here's a clip from page 189 on the results of my RV Method:Note there’s a WR ranked in the top five overall. This probably seems crazy to most folks, considering I’ve witnessed every competing WCOFF manager draft a RB in the first six picks each season. However, the RV Method tells me to strongly look at the WR position in the middle of the first round. It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Okay, I thought I could stomach it at first, but I think I'm going to throw up now. :X

 

[Capella]

To play with fear is not to play optimal. -z-

edit to add:

 

[BassNBrew]

Occasionally even a blind squirrel finds a nut. - BnB-

 

[BassNBrew]

Occasionally even a blind squirrel finds a nut. - BnB-

Sandbagger excluded.

 

[bostonfred]

"Rob's accomplishments in the World Championship of Fantasy Football are unparalleled. His back-to-back finishes in the top three demonstrate his cunning understanding of how to win." - Roger Craig, three-time Super Bowl Champion, SanFrancisco 49ers.

 

[jurb26]

Just a question, but why do so many of you let Z-men's posts bother you so much?

 

[Capella]

Just a question, but why do so many of you let Z-men's posts bother you so much?

I'm just here for the comedy, bro.Guy is the funniest thing going today.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD.

I justify taking a WR via VBD, and I might be the only one who found a way. The WR position is very underappreciated by traditional VBD'ers. It's an error in the VBD systems people are using. Here's a clip from page 189 on the results of my RV Method:Note there’s a WR ranked in the top five overall. This probably seems crazy to most folks, considering I’ve witnessed every competing WCOFF manager draft a RB in the first six picks each season. However, the RV Method tells me to strongly look at the WR position in the middle of the first round. It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Tell me which one is the right one this year. Past results can be based purely on luck.

 

[Demons]

Just a question, but why do so many of you let Z-men's posts bother you so much?

I'm just here for the comedy, bro.Guy is the funniest thing going today.

 

[cstu]

Frankly, I don't think anyone could ever justify taking a QB or a WR based on VBD.

I justify taking a WR via VBD, and I might be the only one who found a way. The WR position is very underappreciated by traditional VBD'ers. It's an error in the VBD systems people are using. Here's a clip from page 189 on the results of my RV Method:Note there’s a WR ranked in the top five overall. This probably seems crazy to most folks, considering I’ve witnessed every competing WCOFF manager draft a RB in the first six picks each season. However, the RV Method tells me to strongly look at the WR position in the middle of the first round. It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Ever heard the term "better lucky than good"? That's you.

 

[Peyton Marino]

If you ask me, he is a better selection at the end of the first than a bottom first tier RB.  Why?  He doesn't really have any question marks, and every running back at that point does. 

But my mantra has always been to aim for the stars.

I'm losing track of all these mantras.

 

[Riffraff]

After doing some lengthy VBD analysis and studies,

I'm still waiting to see the bibliography, works cited, or reference list on the research that was supposedly conducted. Please post.

 

[radballs.]

Occasionally even a blind squirrel finds a nut. - BnB-

Sandbagger excluded.

 

[radballs.]

There are some things to be learned by reading his book. Quite a few with regards to legitimate reasons for tweaking the VBD baselines for various reasons. That's what I enjoyed the most about the book because they made sense and a lot of it are things that most of us will discount with our gut but it helps quantify those things. Rob's got some great ideas but I would suggest him allowing someone else to handle his PR the next time around. You definitely don't want to come off as cocky or too headstrong among a crowd of people who would be most likely interested in the book by consciously or subconsciously demeaning their own respective accomplishments. Honestly, I think Rob means well, knows quite a bit about FF, but just has a hard time communicating those ideas effectively and humbly while promoting the book. At the same time, it sounds like a lot of the bashing against him really isn't warranted and almost comes off as sour grapes sounding. Don't mock until you give his book a read. It's a quick read. If your problem is with his posts, I don't blame you to a certain extent but he's trying to promote his lifeblood. There's a slight sense of desperation but again, it is very enjoyable information that reads fairly well. Just my two ####### cents. I'm on the fence but I've actually taken the time to read the book before I bash. Good job Rob. It takes big balls to take ideas in this context and put them into a finished, published product.

 

[CalBear]

It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Gee, looks like in hindsight, your choice was completely wrong. Randy Moss ended up as the #5 WR in 2002, while Priest Holmes scored 24 TDs, LT2 went for 2150 total yards and 15 TDs, and McAllister reeled off 1700 yards and 16 TDs. I'm sure Randy Moss' 1350 yards and 7 TDs were the key to your season. If you're going to try to come up with reasons why you're so great...you should at least find an example where one of your decisions was correct. I assume, since you did well, that you made at least one decent decision.

 

[radballs.]

It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Gee, looks like in hindsight, your choice was completely wrong. Randy Moss ended up as the #5 WR in 2002, while Priest Holmes scored 24 TDs, LT2 went for 2150 total yards and 15 TDs, and McAllister reeled off 1700 yards and 16 TDs. I'm sure Randy Moss' 1350 yards and 7 TDs were the key to your season. If you're going to try to come up with reasons why you're so great...you should at least find an example where one of your decisions was correct. I assume, since you did well, that you made at least one decent decision.

Cal,I really agree with a lot of your posts but you know as well as I do that hindsight is 20/20. The simple fact is that top WRs are generally undervalued in a lot of drafts from a pure, static VBD perspective. That doesn't mean though that Z didn't make mistakes in that particular draft. We all do every year. It's minimizing early mistakes and hoping for later round surprises that make your whole team competitive.

 

[pizzatyme]

There are some things to be learned by reading his book. Quite a few with regards to legitimate reasons for tweaking the VBD baselines for various reasons. That's what I enjoyed the most about the book because they made sense and a lot of it are things that most of us will discount with our gut but it helps quantify those things. Rob's got some great ideas but I would suggest him allowing someone else to handle his PR the next time around. You definitely don't want to come off as cocky or too headstrong among a crowd of people who would be most likely interested in the book by consciously or subconsciously demeaning their own respective accomplishments. Honestly, I think Rob means well, knows quite a bit about FF, but just has a hard time communicating those ideas effectively and humbly while promoting the book.

At the same time, it sounds like a lot of the bashing against him really isn't warranted and almost comes off as sour grapes sounding. Don't mock until you give his book a read. It's a quick read. If your problem is with his posts, I don't blame you to a certain extent but he's trying to promote his lifeblood. There's a slight sense of desperation but again, it is very enjoyable information that reads fairly well.

Just my two ####### cents. I'm on the fence but I've actually taken the time to read the book before I bash. Good job Rob. It takes big balls to take ideas in this context and put them into a finished, published product.

I agree that Z could tone it down a little with both the Hyping of his book and the arrogant way he goes about it.

I also say that 2 top-3 finishes in that league MUST be respected. The bashing is silly and really looks like sour grapes. One doesn't win money in the High $$$ leagues consistently while being a "blind squirrel". Too many sharks out there.

I would also state that to point out your successes without also discussing your failures and what you think caused them is opening yourself to a certain amount of criticism.

Z, just be balanced on your approach and let those who have read your book do the word-of-mouth PR for you.

 

[B-Deep]

If you ask me, he is a better selection at the end of the first than a bottom first tier RB. Why? He doesn't really have any question marks, and every running back at that point does.

But my mantra has always been to aim for the stars.

I'm losing track of all these mantras.

You should check out my new product: Mantra Dominator!

 

[B-Deep]

It says that a WR should be considered with the fifth pick of the draft assuming the top four RBs are already taken, and that’s exactly what I did in the 2002 WCOFF; I drafted Randy Moss with the fifth overall pick. I remember the managers smiling behind me when I passed up on RBs Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Deuce McCallister, all taken by those same managers in the next four picks. Of course, I had the last laugh after reaching my league’s championship game and taking 2nd place overall among all 46 WCOFF leagues, a nice $22,000 payday.

-z-

Gee, looks like in hindsight, your choice was completely wrong. Randy Moss ended up as the #5 WR in 2002, while Priest Holmes scored 24 TDs, LT2 went for 2150 total yards and 15 TDs, and McAllister reeled off 1700 yards and 16 TDs. I'm sure Randy Moss' 1350 yards and 7 TDs were the key to your season. If you're going to try to come up with reasons why you're so great...you should at least find an example where one of your decisions was correct. I assume, since you did well, that you made at least one decent decision.

Cal,I really agree with a lot of your posts but you know as well as I do that hindsight is 20/20. The simple fact is that top WRs are generally undervalued in a lot of drafts from a pure, static VBD perspective. That doesn't mean though that Z didn't make mistakes in that particular draft. We all do every year. It's minimizing early mistakes and hoping for later round surprises that make your whole team competitive.

Every post by "Z-the world's greatest fanatsy football hack" always has some example of his strategy where he makes what turned out to be a big mistake. Yet we are always told to ignore the results, and focus on the startegy. These startegies always seem to make him do things like pass on Priest Holmes!I'll wager that Z deducts his FBG membership cost as an advertising expense on his taxes, he seems to post for one reason, to push his book.