Players On the Rise (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

Players On the Rise

Ok I am a bit biased, but this is a MUST READ this fantasy season. You want to find those hidden gems in your draft? I present the method I have used year after year to great results. This article first appeared on the mrfootball website and was last published in 2001 (with the help of the Stats, Inc books). Thanks to Doug Drinen who extracted the data for me to write this piece.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Just looking at your "A" candidates, I really like the Losman and Patrick Crayton selections. I've liked Crayton the last couple of years. If either Glenn or Owens miss time for any reason which is likely when you consider Glenn is getting old and Owens can melt down at any given time............Crayton can easily be a 80 to 100 yard TD guy for that weekend.

 

[Neo]

Great stuff....thanks!

 

[BLOX]

Interesting.

Yesterday I grabbed two of your Grade "A" guys in the 11th round of a 16 team redraft league. I see the same upside you do in the two WRs I grabbed.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Interesting.Yesterday I grabbed two of your Grade "A" guys in the 11th round of a 16 team redraft league. I see the same upside you do in the two WRs I grabbed.

Thank you for not posting the players names .... like the previous poster did. There is a reason for subscriber material.

 

[Rounders]

Good article, and I also agree with you about the grade A WRs. I like a lot of those guys and plan to target a few in some late round drafting.

 

[3nOut]

Interesting.

Yesterday I grabbed two of your Grade "A" guys in the 11th round of a 16 team redraft league. I see the same upside you do in the two WRs I grabbed.

Thank you for not posting the players names .... like the previous poster did. There is a reason for subscriber material.

Ooh. He let 2 names slip. I am not a subscriber this year but if i was I wouldn't care if a few names were "leaked". Its not that big of a deal (unless evryone did).

 

[AnonymousBob]

Can we mention anyone from the list? There are a couple from the "B" side I'm not sure I agree with.

 

[Captain Hook]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

 

[BLOX]

Interesting.

Yesterday I grabbed two of your Grade "A" guys in the 11th round of a 16 team redraft league. I see the same upside you do in the two WRs I grabbed.

Thank you for not posting the players names .... like the previous poster did. There is a reason for subscriber material.

Interesting.

Yesterday I grabbed two of your Grade "A" guys in the 11th round of a 16 team redraft league. I see the same upside you do in the two WRs I grabbed.

Thank you for not posting the players names .... like the previous poster did. There is a reason for subscriber material.

Ooh. He let 2 names slip. I am not a subscriber this year but if i was I wouldn't care if a few names were "leaked". Its not that big of a deal (unless evryone did).

Even if we wanted to post the names, it's not our place to do so as the content of the subscriber area does not belong to us.

 

[(HULK)]

I would've liked to see some historical examples of where this strategy hit and missed.

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

I would've liked to see some historical examples of where this strategy hit and missed.

That would be very interesting

 

[ImTheScientist]

What would also be interesting is an article on "Players on the Decline". Players under 30 who have consistanly gone down for three strait years. For example, Willis McGahee Ranked 9,13,29 the last three years. Has there been a player who has consistanty gone down for three strait years only to turn things around in year 4?

 

[Q-Bert]

I would've liked to see some historical examples of where this strategy hit and missed.

That would be very interesting

That was what I was hoping to see. A retrospective article listing the players who met the criteria for the last few year and how they did in what would have been their predicted breakout season would really help in evaluating how well this system works.

 

[PahtyTom]

Does it work equally well for all positions? What about guy's switching teams?

 

[CiscoKid]

What would also be interesting is an article on "Players on the Decline". Players under 30 who have consistanly gone down for three strait years. For example, Willis McGahee Ranked 9,13,29 the last three years. Has there been a player who has consistanty gone down for three strait years only to turn things around in year 4?

I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the Article. Overall, I have to agree with most of the people on the list - it's nice to get some stats as reinforcement to what I was thinking, though. It's also making me think about the others who are on this list that I wasn't considering in possibly a new light

 

[switz]

Players On the Rise

Ok I am a bit biased, but this is a MUST READ this fantasy season. You want to find those hidden gems in your draft? I present the method I have used year after year to great results. This article first appeared on the mrfootball website and was last published in 2001 (with the help of the Stats, Inc books). Thanks to Doug Drinen who extracted the data for me to write this piece.

I don't believe in subscriber articles

 

[David Dodds]

Can we mention anyone from the list? There are a couple from the "B" side I'm not sure I agree with.

The names appear on the list because they meet the criteria. About the only thing to agree or disagree is whether I rate them an A, B, C or other candidate. All of these players have increased their fantasy prodction for three straight years. That is fact.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

with the help of the Stats, Inc books

Does FBGs make use of the internet STATS service packages?(Seems as though it would just be overkill)

 

[David Dodds]

Does it work equally well for all positions? What about guy's switching teams?

Generally switching teams kills a player's production from increasing that fourth year (unless they get a bigger role). I did not remove it from this as their are not many data points, but the reason most regress has to do with familiarity with the new playbook (plus their baseline years are skewed to a different offense).

 

[David Dodds]

with the help of the Stats, Inc books

Does FBGs make use of the internet STATS service packages?(Seems as though it would just be overkill)

We have better stats than they do these days. We log everything to the play-by-play so we can extract anything.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

with the help of the Stats, Inc books

Does FBGs make use of the internet STATS service packages?(Seems as though it would just be overkill)

We have better stats than they do these days. We log everything to the play-by-play so we can extract anything.

Excellent.

 

[David Dodds]

I would've liked to see some historical examples of where this strategy hit and missed.

That would be very interesting

I will do that going forward. But since I did not write this article the last two years, I don't have anything to show you at this time. I just remember me using this in 99 - 02 to great success. Then we lost the Stats books and I didn't bother to figure out how to extract the info from our database. Doug Drinen created some special queries and now I am writing this article again. We will recap next year as an intro.

 

[FTRWRTR]

Has there been a player who has consistanty gone down for three strait years only to turn things around in year 4?

I doubt it then again how many starting rbs change teams after their third year? Not to mention mcgahee's situation has improved, not only will the ravens run more but their o-line is better

 

[3nOut]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

So you want to have one board for paying members and another for non-paying members? What purpose will that serve? It sounds a bit elitist to me. Do you think that non-paying members have nothing to contribute to the forum? I have been a paying member for years before this season and feel I can contribute. If you seperate the two, I can almost guarantee you that paying members will hardly ever visit the non-paying board.

 

[dapunisher]

What would also be interesting is an article on "Players on the Decline". Players under 30 who have consistanly gone down for three strait years. For example, Willis McGahee Ranked 9,13,29 the last three years. Has there been a player who has consistanty gone down for three strait years only to turn things around in year 4?

Off the top of my head, I thought of Thomas Jones, though his situation didn't exactly match your scenario:YR TM FPT 2000 ARI 70 2001 ARI 83 2002 ARI 74 2003 TB 99 2004 CHI 180 2005 CHI 202 2006 CHI 172 Sorry for the formatting, but a change of scenery definitely helped Jones. TWICE. And he might spike up again this year.

 

[SuperJohn96]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

So you want to have one board for paying members and another for non-paying members? What purpose will that serve? It sounds a bit elitist to me. Do you think that non-paying members have nothing to contribute to the forum? I have been a paying member for years before this season and feel I can contribute. If you seperate the two, I can almost guarantee you that paying members will hardly ever visit the non-paying board.

Hmm...Maybe instead of...

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

...spoiler tags...

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

We could have...

[subscriber]

...subscriber tags...

[/subscriber]

 

[greenf7cat]

Just looking at your "A" candidates, I really like the Losman and Patrick Crayton selections. I've liked Crayton the last couple of years. If either Glenn or Owens miss time for any reason which is likely when you consider Glenn is getting old and Owens can melt down at any given time............Crayton can easily be a 80 to 100 yard TD guy for that weekend.

I have always liked Crayton as well, for the same reasons..

 

[Lehigh98]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

So you want to have one board for paying members and another for non-paying members? What purpose will that serve? It sounds a bit elitist to me. Do you think that non-paying members have nothing to contribute to the forum? I have been a paying member for years before this season and feel I can contribute. If you seperate the two, I can almost guarantee you that paying members will hardly ever visit the non-paying board.

There are other sites, THIS ONE for example, where a report or article is posted and then there is a link on the bottom that takes you directly to the message board discussion on that particular report or article. I'm noticing more and more that Joe or David are starting topics related to specific articles, why not just tie them in this way?I think a discussion of each of the articles without fear of divulging "subscriber content" would be great to the subscribers to further kick around ideas and make the most of them and also give feedback to FBG on their articles that they can use as input to improve for the future.

I don't think we need completely sperarate boards but I think we do need areas where we can openly discuss subscriber articles.

 

[Block]

Just looking at your "A" candidates, I really like the Losman and Patrick Crayton selections. I've liked Crayton the last couple of years. If either Glenn or Owens miss time for any reason which is likely when you consider Glenn is getting old and Owens can melt down at any given time............Crayton can easily be a 80 to 100 yard TD guy for that weekend.

What's funny is you say that Glenn is getting old and Owens can blow up...when Owens is the one going through MRI's and coming off finger surgery, and is actually older than Glenn.

 

[freeannyong]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

So you want to have one board for paying members and another for non-paying members? What purpose will that serve? It sounds a bit elitist to me. Do you think that non-paying members have nothing to contribute to the forum? I have been a paying member for years before this season and feel I can contribute. If you seperate the two, I can almost guarantee you that paying members will hardly ever visit the non-paying board.

There are other sites, THIS ONE for example, where a report or article is posted and then there is a link on the bottom that takes you directly to the message board discussion on that particular report or article. I'm noticing more and more that Joe or David are starting topics related to specific articles, why not just tie them in this way?I think a discussion of each of the articles without fear of divulging "subscriber content" would be great to the subscribers to further kick around ideas and make the most of them and also give feedback to FBG on their articles that they can use as input to improve for the future.

I don't think we need completely sperarate boards but I think we do need areas where we can openly discuss subscriber articles.

This is exactly what I was thinking too. A subscriber message board, but there is no thread creation by anybody other than an Admin. There would be one thread for each subscriber article put on the site.

 

[Two Deep]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

So you want to have one board for paying members and another for non-paying members? What purpose will that serve? It sounds a bit elitist to me. Do you think that non-paying members have nothing to contribute to the forum? I have been a paying member for years before this season and feel I can contribute. If you seperate the two, I can almost guarantee you that paying members will hardly ever visit the non-paying board.

I say let the payers start their own board, because if they have to pay for information they should already know then they're just in the way.

 

[Driver]

Can we mention anyone from the list? There are a couple from the "B" side I'm not sure I agree with.

The names appear on the list because they meet the criteria. About the only thing to agree or disagree is whether I rate them an A, B, C or other candidate. All of these players have increased their fantasy prodction for three straight years. That is fact.

I must have missed something. Why isn't Travis Henry included (37-45-171)?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Can we mention anyone from the list? There are a couple from the "B" side I'm not sure I agree with.

The names appear on the list because they meet the criteria. About the only thing to agree or disagree is whether I rate them an A, B, C or other candidate. All of these players have increased their fantasy prodction for three straight years. That is fact.

I must have missed something. Why isn't Travis Henry included (37-45-171)?

Not every player is a candidate and he switched teams.

 

[David Dodds]

Can we mention anyone from the list? There are a couple from the "B" side I'm not sure I agree with.

The names appear on the list because they meet the criteria. About the only thing to agree or disagree is whether I rate them an A, B, C or other candidate. All of these players have increased their fantasy prodction for three straight years. That is fact.

I must have missed something. Why isn't Travis Henry included (37-45-171)?

He should have made the list. I will include him. I worked off of the dataset that Doug generated for me.

 

[David Dodds]

As far as the separate board, I don't think we will ever do that. We hear the arguments every year, but prefer having a consolidated board to talk about football.

 

[krsone21]

Interesting.Yesterday I grabbed two of your Grade "A" guys in the 11th round of a 16 team redraft league. I see the same upside you do in the two WRs I grabbed.

Thank you for not posting the players names .... like the previous poster did. There is a reason for subscriber material.

If they didn't want names mention in the forums than mabey David should not have posted it in the forums were it would obviously be discussed. Since there are no Subsciber only forums what fun is it if you can't discuss the articles if you agree or disagree with them without a few names slipping out. Chill out man.

 

[3nOut]

As far as the separate board, I don't think we will ever do that. We hear the arguments every year, but prefer having a consolidated board to talk about football.

Glad to hear it. As a paying member for years, I'm glad I won't be left out this one year I can't subscribe. Although I will be missing out on a ton of great subscriber info, I still feel this is one of the best boards around where I can still gain a lot of insight.

 

[Lehigh98]

As far as the separate board, I don't think we will ever do that. We hear the arguments every year, but prefer having a consolidated board to talk about football.

I personally don't care about a separate board, I just want to be able to discuss some of the articles in detail. How can we do that?

 

[ThePittbully]

 

[Bears_Man2]

Any article that lists that WR3 in Texas as a player on the rise is a good one.

 

[flranger]

39 posts and almost nothing about the actual article. I'll never get that 10 minutes of my life back. Geesh, tons of FFL info on this post. Here is 1 from each position I think is "on the rise". QB: Rex Grossman. This guy is getting killed and I can think of a better value play. He has the weapons to potentially be a top 2-3 QB any week (not entire season, don't overreact). Your going to have some ugly games, but with how low you can take him and the potential to explode week to week I'd rather invest the early picks (or auction $) on RB and WR and gamble with Rexy. I bet he finished about #9 or so, but everyone will remember the stinkers.RB: Ahman Green. Ahhh, the glamour position. It's always all about the RB. When I think of players on the rise I think of someone who will improve their stats over last season and the season before. Yes, he is over 30 but last year he had a pretty decent season compared to his expectations, and now he is the certain starter in Houston. I'm not sure that anyone has mentioned this, but HOU running game at the end of last year was pretty damn good (go back and look at Daynes stats). The doughboy was averaging 100 yards and a TD per game. This is a guy I will target for certain as I honestly believe there is potential for 1800 total yards and 12 total TDs. I know I'll take a beating on this, but I love the situation.WR: Greg Jennings. He started off firecracker hot last year and got dinged. Despite the recent 185+ post thead in one day on Brett Favre, I still think he can wing the ball around and is going to complete a ton of passes. Donald Driver hasn't passed physical yet and as long as Jennings is healthy I feel he is a lock for 1000 yards and 7 TDs. Considering where he is being drafted he looks to be a steal to me.Anyways, I haven't read the article yet but thought it would be nice to get a little actual football talk into this post that has so much potential.

 

[freeannyong]

As far as the separate board, I don't think we will ever do that. We hear the arguments every year, but prefer having a consolidated board to talk about football.

I personally don't care about a separate board, I just want to be able to discuss some of the articles in detail. How can we do that?

Yeah, another board isn't necessary, but it would be good to be able to discuss the article while throwing names out.

 

[JayMan]

Players On the Rise

Ok I am a bit biased, but this is a MUST READ this fantasy season. You want to find those hidden gems in your draft? I present the method I have used year after year to great results. This article first appeared on the mrfootball website and was last published in 2001 (with the help of the Stats, Inc books). Thanks to Doug Drinen who extracted the data for me to write this piece.

Looking quickly at pro-football-reference and going back to 1931... there were 2544 instances where the 3years criteria (only that one - without looking at the age criteria) was met and 715 times the FFpts total in year N+1 was higher or equal to the FFpts in year N and 1829 times where the Fpts total was lower in year N+1... thus, a 28% 'sucess rate'...Unless I'm mistaken, looking only at the last 10 years (from '97 and up) and active players... the 'triple-criteria' (3years, age, same team) was met 283 times - and breaking out 62 times (FFpts going up in year N+1)... 22%...

Some notorious drops are, in my humble opinion:

T. Barber (69-98-226-168 in '98-'01);

P. Burress (27-136-174-109 in '00-'03);

K. Curtis (1-56-122-72 in '03-'06);

B. Franks (42-86-91-48 in '00-'03);

D. Givens (15-87-105-87 in '02-'05);

T. Gonzalez (74-150-174-129 in '98-'01);

A. Green (12-251-264-217 in '99-'02);

J. Harrington (124-173-195-122 in '02-'05);

L. Jordan (53-71-224-62 in '03-'06);

A. Lelie (68-79-150-91 in '02-'05);

S. Moss (3-71-177-115 in '01-'04);

J. Shockey (65-102-131-104 in '03-'06);

J. Stevens (7-52-85-47 in '03-'06);

H. Ward (96-132-219-182 in '00-'03).

 

[RabidRabbit]

My guess is he posted this thread so that people would talk about it and give him feedback and discuss.

So what if names are mentioned. Non-subscribers can't read the analysis and see all the grades.

Get a life or join the CIA.

 

[freeannyong]

So what if names are mentioned. Non-subscribers can't read the analysis and see all the grades.

That point is that it would be great to discuss the analysis and grades with the player names!

 

[joffer]

like the (sounds like cattle) pick

 

[KING]

David & Joe - just another reason to have BOTH boards

So you want to have one board for paying members and another for non-paying members? What purpose will that serve? It sounds a bit elitist to me. Do you think that non-paying members have nothing to contribute to the forum? I have been a paying member for years before this season and feel I can contribute. If you seperate the two, I can almost guarantee you that paying members will hardly ever visit the non-paying board.

Hmm...Maybe instead of...

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

...spoiler tags...

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

We could have...

[subscriber]

...subscriber tags...

[/subscriber]

why even start a post, that can't be discussed. oh, don't drop names or discuss double secret subscribber only stuff. if it can't be discussed, then it shouldn't put out in regular forums. WTF?

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

I don't like Losman as an "A". Two words: **** Jauron.

 

[proninja]

There's more stupid bickering in here than a thread about tipping in the FFA, ladies