Peyton "M" as in Mistake (1 Viewer)

[Z-Men]

Wilbury Wood,The 100 Pick Method determines baselines based on what you predict the first 100 picks of the draft to be. Suppose you expect 10 QBs, 30 RBs, 40 WRs, 10 Ks, and 10 D/STs to be drafted in the first 100 picks, that would make the baseline players the 10th ranked QB, 30th ranked QB, et cetera.The RV Method also determines or measures, if you will, baselines but according to more of a thought process, with mathematical support of course. Much of the thought process is provided in prior posts. -z-

 

[RF1]

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 hate to say it, but you need to read the book before you post. It does pretty much cover everything. A lot of the ideas most footballguys use, but he does go a little more in depth than most players.Your PR needs a little work. I would of suggested getting Footballguys on board to promote it.

The Shark Pool is a cruel place a lot of the times. Some people just look for the opportunity to hammer someone while others are very knowledgeable and respectful with their commentary.

They are also very loyal to Joe and David ever since the Cheatsheets days.

 

[cobalt_27]

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 hate to say it, but you need to read the book before you post. It does pretty much cover everything. A lot of the ideas most footballguys use, but he does go a little more in depth than most players.Your PR needs a little work. I would of suggested getting Footballguys on board to promote it.

The Shark Pool is a cruel place a lot of the times. Some people just look for the opportunity to hammer someone while others are very knowledgeable and respectful with their commentary.

They are also very loyal to Joe and David ever since the Cheatsheets days.

The FBGs have been very clear that this is not a site to promote anything--garbage or treasure.It's why I find this guy's attempts to plug himself and his book so annoying. Ever since bristling Joe last month in his blatant attempt to promote the thing, he's been creating posts that angle himself in indirect ways to mention it at every possible turn. This Manning post isn't about Manning--he's turned it into a sales pitch, referencing and quoting himself (cutting and pasting excerpts as replies).

So, despite being told in no uncertain terms that he shouldn't be using this site as a billboard, it's precisely what he's doing.

 

[NYG Endzone]

Stop bringing it up already! Let FBG take care of policing the threads.

 

[Z-Men]

Stop bringing it up already! 

Let FBG take care of policing the threads.

Let's leave the book out of this. Where's Tremblay when we need him? We need someone to give us the ole "keep things on topic" slap down.

Where were we? Oh yeah. About Manning (or any QB) being taken in first round . ...

-z-

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Wilbury Wood,

The 100 Pick Method determines baselines based on what you predict the first 100 picks of the draft to be. Suppose you expect 10 QBs, 30 RBs, 40 WRs, 10 Ks, and 10 D/STs to be drafted in the first 100 picks, that would make the baseline players the 10th ranked QB, 30th ranked QB, et cetera.

The RV Method also determines or measures, if you will, baselines but according to more of a thought process, with mathematical support of course. Much of the thought process is provided in prior posts. -z-

I understand mechanically how to get the baselines by dissecting the number of players at each position within the 100 picks. What I do not get is the logic behind this. How do project the first 100 picks to be made in the first place? VBD? ADP? It would seem a little chicken or eggish to me.

 

[cobalt_27]

Stop bringing it up already!

Let FBG take care of policing the threads.

Let's leave the book out of this. Where's Tremblay when we need him? We need someone to give us the ole "keep things on topic" slap down.

Where were we? Oh yeah. About Manning (or any QB) being taken in first round . ...

-z-

To borrow an old Bill Simmons line, "excuse me while I throw up in my mouth."That's a really funny statement coming from you. But, dude, have fun quoting yourself from the new tome.

 

[Z-Men]

I understand mechanically how to get the baselines by dissecting the number of players at each position within the 100 picks.  What I do not get is the logic behind this.   How do project the first 100 picks to be made in the first place?  VBD?  ADP?  It would seem a little chicken or eggish to me.

Joe and David suggest either observing last year's draft to see what the first 100 picks were or observing this year's mock drafts. I recommend a third and that is to observe the top 100 overall FBG's rankings, since people tend to draft in this particular order anyway. All three methods can give a good hint as to what positions will be drafted in the first 100 picks.In any case, you bring up the practical inquiry, "What I do not get is the logic behind this."

That's just it. There's no VBD system out there that justifies its purpose (other than strictly using its own mathematical computations). But how do we know those computations are right? No VBD system analyzes things and offers much logic to support its own merit. That's why I like using the RV Method. It gives me insight as to what's going on, why it's going on, what is a baseline, why is a baseline the way it is.

Getting back on topic, the RV Method tells me to never take a QB in the first two rounds (usually). This assumes passing TDs aren't weighted, and 2 QBs cannot be inserted in the starting lineup. Hence I strongly believe Manning will be a first round mistake as far as value goes.

I also want to reiterate an important intangible regarding Manning, one that many have brought up. That is: Manning is durable and proven. If you want to play it safe in the first round then, by that systematic approach alone, will Manning be a proper first round pick, even though some value is being sacrificed.

-z-

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

GOLD, I say.When FF gets ridiculed like a Star Wars convention, it will be C-men who plays the tout.

 

[tytyty]

Bad pub is better than no pub. Just stop the thread!

 

[CalBear]

Here's one problem with both "first 100 picks" and Z-Men's method; the logic is circular. The logic is:

You shouldn't take a QB in the first round, because:

People usually take RBs and WRs before QBs, because:

QBs are usually available later in the draft, because:

People usually take RBs and WRs before QBs, because:

You shouldn't take a QB in the first round.

The other problem is that average starter, worst starter, and worst player baselines are directly translatable to fantasy points for your team; it can be shown that maximizing VBD using those baselines will have specific effects on the number of fantasy points in your starting lineup--especially when the analysis is done in arrears (looking at previous seasons). "First 100" tries to use behavioral economics to predict what players might be available during the draft; there may be some argument for using First 100 baselines to select players during the draft, but it makes no sense to use to evaluate how valuable a player was in a past season.

That is, the fact that 30 RBs were taken in the first 100 picks of the 2004 draft, and only 10 QBs, does not at all imply that the end-of-season #10 QB had the same value as #30 RB. All of the adjustments Z-Men makes are already factored into the end-of-season rankings, as the players have already missed the games they were going to miss, had the breakout seasons they were going to have, etc.

So, the fact that worst-starter and other quantitative methods of measuring positional performance in previous seasons show that the top QB is usually in the top 10 overall implies that the RV and First 100 baselines are actually overstating their case, as it is difficult to see how their suggestions for draft picks would have translated into more fantasy points in your starting lineup, given how fantasy football seasons have actually finished up.

To make the point specifically, from 2004 the #9-11 QBs were Marc Bulger, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees. The #29-31 RBs were Marshall Faulk, Derrick Blaylock, and Onterrio Smith. It seems fanciful in the extreme to suggest that the latter group had as much fantasy impact as the former group.

 

[Unlucky]

CalBear - there is some merit when drafting to consider who everybody else will take. I think most people agree on this. It is circular - if everybody thinks they should draft RBs, then it's even better to draft RBs because lesser RBs will be there for you later, while you can still get quality players at other positions. There is a circular pattern to drafting.As for this discussion, under most scoring systems, I feel it's been shown that the top QB(s) are worthy of a 1st round pick. That hasn't been the case in 2001-2003, but I think those are abberations. In hindsight, Manning was worthy of the 1st or 2nd pick last year. Many feel he's worthy of a top pick again, and I agree. However, under some systems, his value is reduced, and some people want to rag on him. That's good - it means that not everyone is going to draft RB-RB, which is good for the hobby. I feel it's time to bring up one of my favorite draft strategies: DGP. Draft Good Players. People can talk on and on about what system works. The bottom line is that Drafting Good Players is the best system. In other words, player evaluation is more important to me than the system you use to draft. Player evaluation puts you in the ballpark, and the system just moves your seat a few rows closer. You can have the best system, but if you draft crappy players, you'll lose. You can have the worst system, but if your projections/rankings are better than everyone else, you'll win.

 

[Chaka]

I wish people (and you know who you are) would stop treating these ranking systems (RV, VBD, AVT, YMCA, NCAA etc.) as hard science. Just because one applies statistics to the problem does not make the conclusions a scientific fact. Any of these ranking systems are far more akin to psychology than chemistry. So let's try to keep a little perspective here.There is to much variability and unpredictibility from year to year to quantitatively state that ranking system X is better than ranking system Y. This variability is increased when you factor in the vast number of different scoring systems and starting lineup formats out there. And even if you can show that one system, using end of season numbers, regularly out predicts another NO system is EVER going to tell you that Muhsin Muhammad is going to be the super sleeper WR and not Koren Robinson (and I bet more people drafted the latter than the former as their sleeper WR last year).Good luck with the debate.

 

[Chaka]

Bad pub is better than no pub. Just stop the thread!

DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!see ya.

 

[Z-Men]

"First 100" tries to use behavioral economics to predict what players might be available during the draft

This is a very smart observation CalBear. Suppose we observe people drafting 30 RBs in the first 100 picks. Who's to say 30 RBs are supposed to be chosen in the first 100 picks? That's one of the faults I found with the 100 pick method. It relies too much on information that may be misleading in the first place.However, I beg to differ on your following quote:

Here's one problem with both "first 100 picks" and Z-Men's method; the logic is circular. The logic is:

The logic is:

You shouldn't take a QB in the first round, because:

People usually take RBs and WRs before QBs, because:

QBs are usually available later in the draft, because:

People usually take RBs and WRs before QBs, because:

You shouldn't take a QB in the first round.

The RV Method doesn't have such a bias. It doesn't say "you should take a QB in the first round because people usually take RBs and WRs. ... et cetera." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but there's nothing circular in the RV method. It's a method that analyzed the players and positions, not the behavior of other fantasy managers. -z-

 

[Z-Men]

CalBear - there is some merit when drafting to consider who everybody else will take.

This is true. But now we're talking about dynamic drafting like the ZVBD or Draft Dominator. Methods like the RV Method and 100 Pick Method are static in nature, so we're getting into a new realm here. -z-

 

[Z-Men]

And even if you can show that one system, using end of season numbers, regularly out predicts another NO system is EVER going to tell you that Muhsin Muhammad is going to be the super sleeper WR and not Koren Robinson (and I bet more people drafted the latter than the former as their sleeper WR last year).

You are right, Chaka, in that none of the previously discussed "systems" will tell us how to rank players or find that next sleeper. But your agrument may be moot because now you're talking apples and oranges; Drafting systems (like VBD) is an all together different subject than ranking players and finding sleepers. YOu can't mix the two.Moreover, you list AVT as one of the "systems." That's again a misconception. AVT is not a drafting system like VBD. AVT, rather, is a projection system. -z-

 

[bagger.]

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

Sandbagger excluded.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I definetely have to question Drinen's VBD system if it keeps spitting out QBs as in the top 3. -z-

1. The main reasons I chose worst-starter as a baseline on my other site are because it's simple to explain, easy to calculate, and gives relatively intuitive results.2. There is a big difference between choosing an optimal baseline for valuing players before the season starts using projections and choosing an optimal baseline for valuing players after the fact using their actual stats. This whole discussion is about the former. The purpose of VBD at my other site is the latter.

 

[joffer]

I feel it's time to bring up one of my favorite draft strategies: DGP. Draft Good Players. People can talk on and on about what system works. The bottom line is that Drafting Good Players is the best system. In other words, player evaluation is more important to me than the system you use to draft. Player evaluation puts you in the ballpark, and the system just moves your seat a few rows closer. You can have the best system, but if you draft crappy players, you'll lose. You can have the worst system, but if your projections/rankings are better than everyone else, you'll win.

 

[Double Agent]

I wish people (and you know who you are) would stop treating these ranking systems (RV, VBD, AVT, YMCA, NCAA etc.) as hard science. Just because one applies statistics to the problem does not make the conclusions a scientific fact. Any of these ranking systems are far more akin to psychology than chemistry. So let's try to keep a little perspective here.

There is to much variability and unpredictibility from year to year to quantitatively state that ranking system X is better than ranking system Y. This variability is increased when you factor in the vast number of different scoring systems and starting lineup formats out there. And even if you can show that one system, using end of season numbers, regularly out predicts another NO system is EVER going to tell you that Muhsin Muhammad is going to be the super sleeper WR and not Koren Robinson (and I bet more people drafted the latter than the former as their sleeper WR last year).

Good luck with the debate.

Well said! Maybe you could've gotten in to MNDSCC after all.

 

[CalBear]

2. There is a big difference between choosing an optimal baseline for valuing players before the season starts using projections and choosing an optimal baseline for valuing players after the fact using their actual stats. This whole discussion is about the former. The purpose of VBD at my other site is the latter.

I think a question to ask ourselves is, is our VBD system verifiable, or at least falsifiable? It seems clear that worst-starter, or average-starter, are reasonable baselines to use for evaluating past seasons, since they measure real-world performance. There are some edge cases where they don't capture all information, such as the fact that the Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson combo had much more value than either player individuall last year, but in general those sorts of baselines should fairly accurately measure delivered value.

So my question is, if you look at previous seasons and use worst-starter baseline, and it tells you that a QB is usually in the top 5 in end-of-season VBD points, does that indicate a flaw in your pre-season VBD baseline, if your system is not telling you top QBs are first-round values? If not, why not?

 

[Doug Drinen]

I think a question to ask ourselves is, is our VBD system verifiable, or at least falsifiable?

That's a good question.

So my question is, if you look at previous seasons and use worst-starter baseline, and it tells you that a QB is usually in the top 5 in end-of-season VBD points, does that indicate a flaw in your pre-season VBD baseline, if your system is not telling you top QBs are first-round values? If not, why not?

Not necessarily. My favorite example comes from an old Tremblay article. Suppose your league has a "team captain" position. Everyone picks a team captain (that is, a player who is the captain for his NFL team) and you get, say, 100 points if your captain wins the coin toss that week. Well, some team captain is going to deliver at least 200 points of actual value about every year. Hindsight VBD will place a team captain in the top 5 almost every year, but that obviously doesn't mean your system is wrong for never placing one in the preseason top 5.

This is clearly a pretty contrived example whose only purpose is to answer the theoretical question. Whether it has any relevance to the more practical question involving QBs in standard leaues, I don't know.

 

[Chaka]

I wish people (and you know who you are) would stop treating these ranking systems (RV, VBD, AVT, YMCA, NCAA etc.) as hard science. Just because one applies statistics to the problem does not make the conclusions a scientific fact. Any of these ranking systems are far more akin to psychology than chemistry. So let's try to keep a little perspective here.

There is to much variability and unpredictibility from year to year to quantitatively state that ranking system X is better than ranking system Y. This variability is increased when you factor in the vast number of different scoring systems and starting lineup formats out there. And even if you can show that one system, using end of season numbers, regularly out predicts another NO system is EVER going to tell you that Muhsin Muhammad is going to be the super sleeper WR and not Koren Robinson (and I bet more people drafted the latter than the former as their sleeper WR last year).

Good luck with the debate.

Well said! Maybe you could've gotten in to MNDSCC after all.

Not one not two but this deserves a whopping THREE You're back on my Christmas card list.

 

[CalBear]

I think a question to ask ourselves is, is our VBD system verifiable, or at least falsifiable?

That's a good question.

So my question is, if you look at previous seasons and use worst-starter baseline, and it tells you that a QB is usually in the top 5 in end-of-season VBD points, does that indicate a flaw in your pre-season VBD baseline, if your system is not telling you top QBs are first-round values? If not, why not?

Not necessarily. My favorite example comes from an old Tremblay article. Suppose your league has a "team captain" position. Everyone picks a team captain (that is, a player who is the captain for his NFL team) and you get, say, 100 points if your captain wins the coin toss that week. Well, some team captain is going to deliver at least 200 points of actual value about every year. Hindsight VBD will place a team captain in the top 5 almost every year, but that obviously doesn't mean your system is wrong for never placing one in the preseason top 5.

This is clearly a pretty contrived example whose only purpose is to answer the theoretical question. Whether it has any relevance to the more practical question involving QBs in standard leaues, I don't know.

I think the example points out one of the problems with AVT, but I don't think it's directly relevant to the QB question. In particular, I think top QBs are actually quite a bit more predictable than top RBs; Young was #1QB three years in a row, Favre did it three years in a row, Culpepper did it three years in a row. There's no similar run for RBs, which are more prone to injury and are affected by more factors in their productivity.

 

[cstu]

Has there been any statistical analysis done to find out how correlated each position has been to FBG's projections over the years? I'm very interesting to know which positions are easiest to project. It would help in making the decisions between similar ranked players at different positions if the error in predicting the different positions was known.

 

[buck naked]

But you still won right?

LOL

He came in 3rd of 12.

 

[buck naked]

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-

You are so arrogant I can't stand it. All we hear about, on every board - this one, WCOFF, NFFC - is your 2nd and 3rd place finishes. HEY ROB WE ALL KNOW THAT.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Here's one problem with both "first 100 picks" and Z-Men's method; the logic is circular. The logic is:

You shouldn't take a QB in the first round, because:

People usually take RBs and WRs before QBs, because:

QBs are usually available later in the draft, because:

People usually take RBs and WRs before QBs, because:

You shouldn't take a QB in the first round.

The other problem is that average starter, worst starter, and worst player baselines are directly translatable to fantasy points for your team; it can be shown that maximizing VBD using those baselines will have specific effects on the number of fantasy points in your starting lineup--especially when the analysis is done in arrears (looking at previous seasons). "First 100" tries to use behavioral economics to predict what players might be available during the draft; there may be some argument for using First 100 baselines to select players during the draft, but it makes no sense to use to evaluate how valuable a player was in a past season.

That is, the fact that 30 RBs were taken in the first 100 picks of the 2004 draft, and only 10 QBs, does not at all imply that the end-of-season #10 QB had the same value as #30 RB. All of the adjustments Z-Men makes are already factored into the end-of-season rankings, as the players have already missed the games they were going to miss, had the breakout seasons they were going to have, etc.

So, the fact that worst-starter and other quantitative methods of measuring positional performance in previous seasons show that the top QB is usually in the top 10 overall implies that the RV and First 100 baselines are actually overstating their case, as it is difficult to see how their suggestions for draft picks would have translated into more fantasy points in your starting lineup, given how fantasy football seasons have actually finished up.

To make the point specifically, from 2004 the #9-11 QBs were Marc Bulger, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees. The #29-31 RBs were Marshall Faulk, Derrick Blaylock, and Onterrio Smith. It seems fanciful in the extreme to suggest that the latter group had as much fantasy impact as the former group.

It sounds like to me that VBD methods employing "worst starter" or "average starter" baselines are objective criteria by which, assuming one has "above average" projections, one can systematically try to maximize the point production of your fantasy team for the year.

RV and First 100 baselines deviate from being an objective quantitative method and merge together elements of "behaviorism", draft tendencies, etc. That's not to say that an RV approach can not be superior, it may very well be. But for me, RV/First 100 create a hybrid tool that "clouds", not clarifies the picture. That's because I want my VBD to clearly show my projected advantages to drafting certain players versus my competition. I will not blindly use VBD, but then will make my own ad hoc adjustements by looking at things like undervalued players (ADP data), unique trends in my leagues, etc. I would rather that my VBD tool be "pure" and then leave it my hands as to how to modify the VBD approach with qualitative factors.

 

[Z-Men]

I would rather that my VBD tool be "pure" and then leave it my hands as to how to modify the VBD approach with qualitative factors.

That's a very fair assesment, and the same exact one I have. I basically modified the Worst Starter Method to a signficant degree and dubbed it RV Method. You seem to have some good insight and I trust you are capable of doing very good adjustments on your own.Hey, record what your adjustments, log the results, and call it the WW Method. I'd be interested in seeing what modifications you make. -z-

 

[Joe T]

That is a great book Z...

thanks for turning me on to some new fantasy football insights.

 

[GStrot]

That is a great book Z...

thanks for turning me on to some new fantasy football insights.

JoeT,Thanks for letting me borrow your copy. I can't find this book in stock anywhere on line. Must be all the free pub he is getting here.

 

[1maninthebox]

Have you ever needed to know "who's playing who" ?Could you find the answer quick enough ?Sport Skeds are made for just that moment. When you want to look at who your roster is up against during the 'fantasy playoffs'. When you can easily spot the holes in an opponent's line-up based on the difficulty of his upcoming schedule. Or, when your 'significant other' is "making plans" and you need a quick check to see which games you don't want to miss next week. Robert Zarzycki, author of Drafting To Win, says: "Keeping tabs on all of my FFL rosters is tough business, that's why a Sport Sked is an essential part of my prep work - from draft day to the playoffs!" Our color format is the best tool for giving you the whole season - at a glance.Be prepared...get a Sport Sked.

Anyone else use this? I have a hard time reading the NFL schedule, too.

 

[cobalt_27]

Have you ever needed to know "who's playing who" ?Could you find the answer quick enough ?Sport Skeds are made for just that moment. When you want to look at who your roster is up against during the 'fantasy playoffs'. When you can easily spot the holes in an opponent's line-up based on the difficulty of his upcoming schedule. Or, when your 'significant other' is "making plans" and you need a quick check to see which games you don't want to miss next week. Robert Zarzycki, author of Drafting To Win, says: "Keeping tabs on all of my FFL rosters is tough business, that's why a Sport Sked is an essential part of my prep work - from draft day to the playoffs!" Our color format is the best tool for giving you the whole season - at a glance.Be prepared...get a Sport Sked.

Anyone else use this? I have a hard time reading the NFL schedule, too.

Damn...I totally forgot about Zarzycki. He is such a football god around these parts..

 

[duaneok66]

a classic thread to say the least . . .

 

[cobalt_27]

You are so arrogant I can't stand it. All we hear about, on every board - this one, WCOFF, NFFC - is your 2nd and 3rd place finishes. HEY ROB WE ALL KNOW THAT.

He's now a pimp for himself on the poker circuit.

 

[code]

You are so arrogant I can't stand it. All we hear about, on every board - this one, WCOFF, NFFC - is your 2nd and 3rd place finishes. HEY ROB WE ALL KNOW THAT.

He's now a pimp for himself on the poker circuit.

I'm looking forward to his poker book

 

[MelvinTScupper]

That is a great book Z...

thanks for turning me on to some new fantasy football insights.

JoeT,Thanks for letting me borrow your copy. I can't find this book in stock anywhere on line. Must be all the free pub he is getting here.

Thanks for photocopying all of that so I didn't have to buy it.

 

[Warpig]

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-

C'mon...Brooks and Favre are gonna implode this year. I would not have mentioned them as decent.

Now had you said Bledsoe, Leftwich, Brad Johnson, Culpepper..etc I would have agreed.

However, I believe that after the top 3 RB's (LJ, LT, and SA) there is a big puddle of RB's that are all pretty similar. But Manning is always a lock to be in the top 3.

 

[CalBear]

C'mon...Brooks and Favre are gonna implode this year. I would not have mentioned them as decent.

The post is from last year. Go buy his book if you want more bad advice.

 

[duaneok66]

C'mon...Brooks and Favre are gonna implode this year. I would not have mentioned them as decent.

The post is from last year. Go buy his book if you want more bad advice.

come on Cal, please stop . . . my stomach is already hurting . . . LOL . . .