Davidgreat reports!
Thanks. Homer notes like these are very helpful. Bob Henry does the depth charts, but doesn't always see posts like this one. He has a link at the top of the depth chart page to send him updates and changes. I'll PM your post to him so he sees it.Some notes on the Giants depth chart:WR: Anthony Mix is also in the mix...TE: Darcy Johnson is probably the favorite to win the back up spot behind Shockey. Charles Davis is a possibility as well.DE: Adrian Awasom was just re-signed to a 1 year tender and will likely be the 4th DE.DT: Barry Cofield and Fred Robbins are the starters at DT as of right now. William Joseph's versatility as a DT/ DE will help his cause, but he really needs to show something in camp.LB: Kevin Lewis is not on the roster.CB: Jason Bell is a S. Gerrick McPhearson should be included at CB.
Cool. Thanks.Thanks. Homer notes like these are very helpful. Bob Henry does the depth charts, but doesn't always see posts like this one. He has a link at the top of the depth chart page to send him updates and changes. I'll PM your post to him so he sees it.Some notes on the Giants depth chart:WR: Anthony Mix is also in the mix...TE: Darcy Johnson is probably the favorite to win the back up spot behind Shockey. Charles Davis is a possibility as well.DE: Adrian Awasom was just re-signed to a 1 year tender and will likely be the 4th DE.DT: Barry Cofield and Fred Robbins are the starters at DT as of right now. William Joseph's versatility as a DT/ DE will help his cause, but he really needs to show something in camp.LB: Kevin Lewis is not on the roster.CB: Jason Bell is a S. Gerrick McPhearson should be included at CB.
As Jene said, thanks CMJ! Very helpful.. I definitely forgot about Mix and Darcy Johnson in particular.Cool. Thanks.Thanks. Homer notes like these are very helpful. Bob Henry does the depth charts, but doesn't always see posts like this one. He has a link at the top of the depth chart page to send him updates and changes. I'll PM your post to him so he sees it.Some notes on the Giants depth chart:WR: Anthony Mix is also in the mix...TE: Darcy Johnson is probably the favorite to win the back up spot behind Shockey. Charles Davis is a possibility as well.DE: Adrian Awasom was just re-signed to a 1 year tender and will likely be the 4th DE.DT: Barry Cofield and Fred Robbins are the starters at DT as of right now. William Joseph's versatility as a DT/ DE will help his cause, but he really needs to show something in camp.LB: Kevin Lewis is not on the roster.CB: Jason Bell is a S. Gerrick McPhearson should be included at CB.
It's an open competition and it's kind of a hard race to handicap at this point. We have to list one guy first. It could have been either one. But whichever guy starts in week one of 2007, I think Croyle will have the job by no later than the first game in 2008, and probably sometime before then.Davidgreat reports!
about KC, do you really think that Croyle gets the starting QB spot? looks ike an all-out QB competition is due in KC this summer!
I can't see Huard not getting the job, he was 10-1 as a starter last season, completing 60% of his passes, and finished with a 98 passer rating.
That's my handiwork. Shipp seems to be flying under the fantast radar even in deep 16-team leagues. He seems like a decent late, late flyer. Arrington looks like nothing more than an afterthought at this point.LHUCKS said:Cards report looks good...agree with the pencil them in for 80 comment. Also it was astute to note that the new regime likes Shipp.
I've watched plenty of Cards games to note that even the new regime can't make Shipp look like even an okay RB . . .That's my handiwork. Shipp seems to be flying under the fantast radar even in deep 16-team leagues. He seems like a decent late, late flyer. Arrington looks like nothing more than an afterthought at this point.LHUCKS said:Cards report looks good...agree with the pencil them in for 80 comment. Also it was astute to note that the new regime likes Shipp.
Very disappointed in the lack of consistancy between the team reports and the projections.ETA: As a whole, not the Cards specifically.That's my handiwork. Shipp seems to be flying under the fantast radar even in deep 16-team leagues. He seems like a decent late, late flyer. Arrington looks like nothing more than an afterthought at this point.LHUCKS said:Cards report looks good...agree with the pencil them in for 80 comment. Also it was astute to note that the new regime likes Shipp.
Part of the issue overall with the site is so many people work on so many different things that not everything will align properly. I don't have anything to do with the projections but will be working on Player Spotlights, Faceoffs, Team and Player Reports, etc. (as will everyone else). There's no way that we as a staff can present a totally uniform front unless one person did everything.Very disappointed in the lack of consistancy between the team reports and the projections.ETA: As a whole, not the Cards specifically.That's my handiwork. Shipp seems to be flying under the fantast radar even in deep 16-team leagues. He seems like a decent late, late flyer. Arrington looks like nothing more than an afterthought at this point.LHUCKS said:Cards report looks good...agree with the pencil them in for 80 comment. Also it was astute to note that the new regime likes Shipp.
This really needs to be addressed or at least a tagline needs to be added so we know who's opinion we're getting. Right now the team reports talk about Croyle as the starter in KC. Dodds' has Haurd and Green projected with starting QB numbers. If I was new here I'd be left with the impression that stuff is being thrown together hap-hazardly. With the player spotlights and faceoffs it's pretty obvious that you're getting several different opinions so I do see an issue there. However the team reports include direct links to projections that don't jive. Maybe the team report should say written by David Yudkin and reference that you disagree with the prevailing projections or include your own projections. Bottom line; linked material should be consistant or at least clearly point out why inconsistencies exist. The random surfer stumbling across your site won't be getting your explanation above and may not hang around to understand the issues in detail before moving to a competitor.Major companies have thousands of people working on different things but they attempt to bring things together before releasing a product. Somehow Ford manages to release a truck without offering front wheel drive and rear wheel drive versions.Part of the issue overall with the site is so many people work on so many different things that not everything will align properly. I don't have anything to do with the projections but will be working on Player Spotlights, Faceoffs, Team and Player Reports, etc. (as will everyone else). There's no way that we as a staff can present a totally uniform front unless one person did everything.Very disappointed in the lack of consistancy between the team reports and the projections.ETA: As a whole, not the Cards specifically.That's my handiwork. Shipp seems to be flying under the fantast radar even in deep 16-team leagues. He seems like a decent late, late flyer. Arrington looks like nothing more than an afterthought at this point.LHUCKS said:Cards report looks good...agree with the pencil them in for 80 comment. Also it was astute to note that the new regime likes Shipp.
he's doing very well over thereand even Casey Bramlet who is currently in NFL Europe, competing with Palmer for the last QB job.
What about Printers? Thoughts on him?BassNBrew raises a fair point. I did the KC team profile. If there were a way to list two guys as being even, that's what I'd do with Croyle and Huard, but the format requires that we list one guy as the starter and another as the backup. I've seen comments from a few sources that the Chiefs would like Croyle to win the job and will give him every opportunity to do so. (See, e.g., this article: "Although Damon Huard is seemingly the right choice to win the starting job in Kansas City, [Trent] Green said the Chiefs' coaches are stacking the deck to give Brodie Croyle the edge in that competition." And this one: "Green said he wanted to leave Kansas City because the quarterback competition is 'heavily weighted' toward having 2006 third-round pick Brodie Croyle win the spot.") The battle is wide open and will be won in training camp and the preseason. Croyle has better physical skills, and physical skills tend to stand out more in training camp and the preseason. (In the regular season, there's more of a premium on making good reads, quick decisions, etc.) So I think Croyle will have an advantage in that respect, but overall I see it as a pretty even race right now. Dodds' projections currently have Huard as better than a 10-1 favorite over Croyle. Frankly, I think his projections will change on that topic throughout the course of the preseason, but you're right that we ought to try to be more on the same page between projections and writeups. I'll get with Dodds on this . . .
I see two reasons that the tight end position may be an afterthought this season...1) The Dolphins OL is in a serious state of flux with a huge question mark at tackle: If the Dolphins go with Alabi or even Carey at left tackle there will need to be some help to the outside to protect in passing situations. 2) The talent at tight end isn't nearly what it was in San Diego: It doesn't take an offensive guru to realize it is a wise move to get TE Gates involved in the passing attack as often as possible. David Martin and the rest of the TE position aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to talent......It's still early but I would be surprised to see the Dolphins tight end position make a really strong impact this season unless the huge answers along the OL are answered ASAP.Hope that answers your questionTo whoever wrote the Dolphin's spotlight,Why is it presumed that Cam Cameron wont pass to his TEs in a manner consistent with his recent history?
There has been very little said about Printers to this point. Don't know if he is now an afterthought in KC or if he may still emerge in time. Doesn't look to have a snowball's chance in hell of doing much this season. I watched his CFL career very closely and he does have some talent but needs to grow emotionally and improve his grasp of defenses to make an impact at the NFL level. He has tremendous athleticism though. The worst mistake he could have made was leaving the CFL when he did. He should have stuck around for another couple of seasons to improve his all-around skills.Only time will tell in regards to Printers but I can't see him having much value in Dynasty (or any other type of league) at this time.What about Printers? Thoughts on him?BassNBrew raises a fair point. I did the KC team profile. If there were a way to list two guys as being even, that's what I'd do with Croyle and Huard, but the format requires that we list one guy as the starter and another as the backup. I've seen comments from a few sources that the Chiefs would like Croyle to win the job and will give him every opportunity to do so. (See, e.g., this article: "Although Damon Huard is seemingly the right choice to win the starting job in Kansas City, [Trent] Green said the Chiefs' coaches are stacking the deck to give Brodie Croyle the edge in that competition." And this one: "Green said he wanted to leave Kansas City because the quarterback competition is 'heavily weighted' toward having 2006 third-round pick Brodie Croyle win the spot.") The battle is wide open and will be won in training camp and the preseason. Croyle has better physical skills, and physical skills tend to stand out more in training camp and the preseason. (In the regular season, there's more of a premium on making good reads, quick decisions, etc.) So I think Croyle will have an advantage in that respect, but overall I see it as a pretty even race right now. Dodds' projections currently have Huard as better than a 10-1 favorite over Croyle. Frankly, I think his projections will change on that topic throughout the course of the preseason, but you're right that we ought to try to be more on the same page between projections and writeups. I'll get with Dodds on this . . .
Thanks for the reply MT. Overall the staff is a pretty talented group. I realize that this is a part time gig for most of you, but I'd like to see the site put some weight behind the key guys doing the detailed analysis. If it's not possible to tie things together better, then at least a header stating "MT's KC Team Report" might help differentiate that people are reading two separate opinions. It's really not that big of a deal to me personally, but I think you guys need to step back and look at things from a perspective new consumer's standpoint.BassNBrew raises a fair point. I did the KC team profile. If there were a way to list two guys as being even, that's what I'd do with Croyle and Huard, but the format requires that we list one guy as the starter and another as the backup. I've seen comments from a few sources that the Chiefs would like Croyle to win the job and will give him every opportunity to do so. (See, e.g., this article: "Although Damon Huard is seemingly the right choice to win the starting job in Kansas City, [Trent] Green said the Chiefs' coaches are stacking the deck to give Brodie Croyle the edge in that competition." And this one: "Green said he wanted to leave Kansas City because the quarterback competition is 'heavily weighted' toward having 2006 third-round pick Brodie Croyle win the spot.") The battle is wide open and will be won in training camp and the preseason. Croyle has better physical skills, and physical skills tend to stand out more in training camp and the preseason. (In the regular season, there's more of a premium on making good reads, quick decisions, etc.) So I think Croyle will have an advantage in that respect, but overall I see it as a pretty even race right now. Dodds' projections currently have Huard as better than a 10-1 favorite over Croyle. Frankly, I think his projections will change on that topic throughout the course of the preseason, but you're right that we ought to try to be more on the same page between projections and writeups. I'll get with Dodds on this . . .
Thanks for the reply MT. Overall the staff is a pretty talented group. I realize that this is a part time gig for most of you, but I'd like to see the site put some weight behind the key guys doing the detailed analysis. If it's not possible to tie things together better, then at least a header stating "MT's KC Team Report" might help differentiate that people are reading two separate opinions. It's really not that big of a deal to me personally, but I think you guys need to step back and look at things from a perspective new consumer's standpoint.BassNBrew raises a fair point. I did the KC team profile. If there were a way to list two guys as being even, that's what I'd do with Croyle and Huard, but the format requires that we list one guy as the starter and another as the backup. I've seen comments from a few sources that the Chiefs would like Croyle to win the job and will give him every opportunity to do so. (See, e.g., this article: "Although Damon Huard is seemingly the right choice to win the starting job in Kansas City, [Trent] Green said the Chiefs' coaches are stacking the deck to give Brodie Croyle the edge in that competition." And this one: "Green said he wanted to leave Kansas City because the quarterback competition is 'heavily weighted' toward having 2006 third-round pick Brodie Croyle win the spot.") The battle is wide open and will be won in training camp and the preseason. Croyle has better physical skills, and physical skills tend to stand out more in training camp and the preseason. (In the regular season, there's more of a premium on making good reads, quick decisions, etc.) So I think Croyle will have an advantage in that respect, but overall I see it as a pretty even race right now. Dodds' projections currently have Huard as better than a 10-1 favorite over Croyle. Frankly, I think his projections will change on that topic throughout the course of the preseason, but you're right that we ought to try to be more on the same page between projections and writeups. I'll get with Dodds on this . . .
Fair enough. I believe Martin could surprise some folks with a modest reception total of 40 or so.I see two reasons that the tight end position may be an afterthought this season...1) The Dolphins OL is in a serious state of flux with a huge question mark at tackle: If the Dolphins go with Alabi or even Carey at left tackle there will need to be some help to the outside to protect in passing situations. 2) The talent at tight end isn't nearly what it was in San Diego: It doesn't take an offensive guru to realize it is a wise move to get TE Gates involved in the passing attack as often as possible. David Martin and the rest of the TE position aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to talent......It's still early but I would be surprised to see the Dolphins tight end position make a really strong impact this season unless the huge answers along the OL are answered ASAP.Hope that answers your questionTo whoever wrote the Dolphin's spotlight,Why is it presumed that Cam Cameron wont pass to his TEs in a manner consistent with his recent history?
Fair point. Not sure how DD or Joe would feel about adding authors names to team and player writeups. I like that Joe and DD encourage us to formulate our own opinions as long as we can objectively back them up with rationale. If we ever started moving towards a "group-think" mentality I feel it would drag down the quality of the site.I know different writers are going to have different views, but as a website there has to be a unified front on some things. For the different views on things, I did like the round table articles...you got varying views, but at least knew who was making the point.
Excellent points made by everyone debating here... I agree with Shick! position here - I'm paying to have expert opinions - I want to see everyone's point of view along with the arguments that back these up... I also think that showing who are the authors would be helpful - not to bash obvisouly, but to better understand and be able to ask about one's point of view... I think we can summarize these thoughts with the expert rankings... I don't want FBG to only show me the average rank a guy gets - I'm far more interested in the underlying volatility... why does expertA think Cedric Benson deserves a RB4 ranking?... Will I have to grab Edge with a top20 pick? maybe not if no one has him ranked higher than RB14...Fair point. Not sure how DD or Joe would feel about adding authors names to team and player writeups. I like that Joe and DD encourage us to formulate our own opinions as long as we can objectively back them up with rationale. If we ever started moving towards a "group-think" mentality I feel it would drag down the quality of the site.I know different writers are going to have different views, but as a website there has to be a unified front on some things. For the different views on things, I did like the round table articles...you got varying views, but at least knew who was making the point.
I understand your point, but let's disect a hypothetical situation...Shick is the Seattle expert or at least has shown a history of having a good handle on how things play out in Seattle. FBG assigns Shick to do the team report. Shick talks about how how Hackett will grab the reigns at WR2 and post good numbers. I'm curious what kind of numbers so I click on the projection tab at the top of the page and see that he's projected behind Branch and Engram. Curious about where Engram is on the depth chart I click on the depth chart tab only to see Burleson in the WR2 position and Engram at WR4. Now if I was a new customer not knowing how things work around here I'd be left with the opinion that the site is littered with errors and inconsistancies.I realize this is a tough nut to tackle, but when you're the 900 lb gorilla in the industry or trying to assume that status, you need to find a solution/compromise that conveys a clear thought process without falling into group think issues.Fair point. Not sure how DD or Joe would feel about adding authors names to team and player writeups. I like that Joe and DD encourage us to formulate our own opinions as long as we can objectively back them up with rationale. If we ever started moving towards a "group-think" mentality I feel it would drag down the quality of the site.I know different writers are going to have different views, but as a website there has to be a unified front on some things. For the different views on things, I did like the round table articles...you got varying views, but at least knew who was making the point.
excellent post . . .simple answer; let shick control most of the site info that is Seahawks related . . . let other guys weigh in with different projections, but if shick is the man in Seattle, most of the site should reflect this . . .I understand your point, but let's disect a hypothetical situation...Shick is the Seattle expert or at least has shown a history of having a good handle on how things play out in Seattle. FBG assigns Shick to do the team report. Shick talks about how how Hackett will grab the reigns at WR2 and post good numbers. I'm curious what kind of numbers so I click on the projection tab at the top of the page and see that he's projected behind Branch and Engram. Curious about where Engram is on the depth chart I click on the depth chart tab only to see Burleson in the WR2 position and Engram at WR4. Now if I was a new customer not knowing how things work around here I'd be left with the opinion that the site is littered with errors and inconsistancies.I realize this is a tough nut to tackle, but when you're the 900 lb gorilla in the industry or trying to assume that status, you need to find a solution/compromise that conveys a clear thought process without falling into group think issues.Fair point. Not sure how DD or Joe would feel about adding authors names to team and player writeups. I like that Joe and DD encourage us to formulate our own opinions as long as we can objectively back them up with rationale. If we ever started moving towards a "group-think" mentality I feel it would drag down the quality of the site.I know different writers are going to have different views, but as a website there has to be a unified front on some things. For the different views on things, I did like the round table articles...you got varying views, but at least knew who was making the point.
I don't like your hypothetical, because there's lots of stuff there that isn't true. Hackett is projected by DD to score the second highest fantasy points by a Seattle WR. Also, he's listed as WR2 behind Branch on the depth charts.I'm not saying that there aren't some inconsistencies, but this isn't one of them. I feel part of the process is throwing everything on the table now (in May) so we can work it out over the summer. That's why they're listed as prelim team reports. You guys on the message board play a role in finding these inconsistencies and pointing them out, and we appreciate your help there in aiding us to do a better job.BassNBrew said:I understand your point, but let's disect a hypothetical situation...Shick is the Seattle expert or at least has shown a history of having a good handle on how things play out in Seattle. FBG assigns Shick to do the team report. Shick talks about how how Hackett will grab the reigns at WR2 and post good numbers. I'm curious what kind of numbers so I click on the projection tab at the top of the page and see that he's projected behind Branch and Engram. Curious about where Engram is on the depth chart I click on the depth chart tab only to see Burleson in the WR2 position and Engram at WR4. Now if I was a new customer not knowing how things work around here I'd be left with the opinion that the site is littered with errors and inconsistancies.I realize this is a tough nut to tackle, but when you're the 900 lb gorilla in the industry or trying to assume that status, you need to find a solution/compromise that conveys a clear thought process without falling into group think issues.
And I think it does. All the staff members do a solid job of sharing information with other staff members on the teams they feel they know best. Hackett is a good example of this. I don't think most NFL fans are aware of the opportunity Hackett has. I made sure the staff knew about it. I'm not saying Hackett is a lock, but I'm saying he has the inside track along with some great upside.Further, the bulk of the team reports are written by staff members that follow those teams. I know Rudnicki would have done the Buffalo report while Pasquino and Wood probably chipped in the Philly report. Smith and the Phins. Tremblay and the Chargers. Etc. All this said, please feel free to point out those inconsistencies. We're only looking to improve.duaneok66 said:excellent post . . .simple answer; let shick control most of the site info that is Seahawks related . . . let other guys weigh in with different projections, but if shick is the man in Seattle, most of the site should reflect this . . .
thanks ChrisChris Smith said:There has been very little said about Printers to this point. Don't know if he is now an afterthought in KC or if he may still emerge in time. Doesn't look to have a snowball's chance in hell of doing much this season. I watched his CFL career very closely and he does have some talent but needs to grow emotionally and improve his grasp of defenses to make an impact at the NFL level. He has tremendous athleticism though. The worst mistake he could have made was leaving the CFL when he did. He should have stuck around for another couple of seasons to improve his all-around skills.Only time will tell in regards to Printers but I can't see him having much value in Dynasty (or any other type of league) at this time.Bri said:What about Printers? Thoughts on him?BassNBrew raises a fair point. I did the KC team profile. If there were a way to list two guys as being even, that's what I'd do with Croyle and Huard, but the format requires that we list one guy as the starter and another as the backup. I've seen comments from a few sources that the Chiefs would like Croyle to win the job and will give him every opportunity to do so. (See, e.g., this article: "Although Damon Huard is seemingly the right choice to win the starting job in Kansas City, [Trent] Green said the Chiefs' coaches are stacking the deck to give Brodie Croyle the edge in that competition." And this one: "Green said he wanted to leave Kansas City because the quarterback competition is 'heavily weighted' toward having 2006 third-round pick Brodie Croyle win the spot.") The battle is wide open and will be won in training camp and the preseason. Croyle has better physical skills, and physical skills tend to stand out more in training camp and the preseason. (In the regular season, there's more of a premium on making good reads, quick decisions, etc.) So I think Croyle will have an advantage in that respect, but overall I see it as a pretty even race right now. Dodds' projections currently have Huard as better than a 10-1 favorite over Croyle. Frankly, I think his projections will change on that topic throughout the course of the preseason, but you're right that we ought to try to be more on the same page between projections and writeups. I'll get with Dodds on this . . .
hy·po·thet·i·cal /ˌhaɪpəˈθɛtɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.I don't like your hypothetical, because there's lots of stuff there that isn't true.
Sorry. You're right. What I should have asked for was a concrete example. The material is all there. Instead of discussing what might be, can you give us an example of what is.hy·po·thet·i·cal /?ha?p????t?k?l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.I don't like your hypothetical, because there's lots of stuff there that isn't true.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.
hypothesis
1596, from M.Fr. hypothese, from L.L. hypothesis, from Gk. hypothesis "base, basis of an argument, supposition," lit. "a placing under," from hypo- "under" + thesis "a placing, proposition." A term in logic; narrower scientific sense is 1646; hypothetical is 1588.