RB J.K. Dobbins, LAC (4 Viewers)

[greenmountaingoat]

I mocked on ESPN (home league platform) and I did a double take when I saw him coming up the queue in the 8th. Had no idea he wasn’t already gone. They change the queue on draft day but if if he’s still buried in the queue when i hit the 5/6 I’ll be hyperventilating, hoping to not get sniped

 

[FFCollusion]

Every year there are 12 rb1s in a 12 team league. Every year people try to project players by comparing their past production to rb12 and declaring them a rb1. Every year there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill, and every year some of those guys get injured.

You should project more than 12 guys to put up top 12 rb numbers. Some of them will get hurt or have other unpredictable issues, but there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill.

I agree with your mentality, but in the opposite direction. Roughly 5 years ago, I proposed a new way to define and measure RB1, WR2, etc etc. My thesis at the time, was that there are actually NOT 12 RB1s in the league, but that there were roughly 20 WR2s in the league. It was not received well, but out of curiosity, I still create this data set from time to time, to help orient myself to the ever-evolving talent pool of the NFL, because every season I believe it's important to account for the current population of all positions and their scoring ability, to help prepare a draft strategy that is based on what's actually going to be on the NFL field this season. Not blindly pick a position to draft early, because RB early is right, or Anchor is cool, or Zero RB is trendy... I design my draft strategy based on who and how many, are playing football THIS year.

This isn't really where this belongs, but I don't know where else to drop this... so here goes nothing.

In order to measure variance, you need a baseline. There are a lot of ways to define a baseline and 99.9% of them are arbitrary. Mine is also arbitrary.

The following is a data compilation I created for the 2022 season. The easiest way to explain it is...
Take the highest scoring RB of week 1... and week 2... and week 3... and continue through week 17. You now have 17 weeks of the #1 RB finisher, of each individual week, for a total of the entire fantasy season. Now average those 17 scores together. The #1 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 35.2 points per week.
The #12 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 17.3 points per week.
The #24 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 11.2 points per week.
The #36 scoring fantasy RB on average, scores 7.7 points per week.

https://i.postimg.cc/MHX8YwjZ/2022.png

As you can see I did it for 24 QBs, 24TEs, 36WRs, and 36RBs, each for 17 weeks. 2,040 data points. But what we get, is that to be a "RB1" on any given week, you need to score 17.3 points or better. To be a WR1 you need to score 19.5 points or better. Again, this is somewhat arbitrary, but at least it's based on real world results over the course of an entire season. Obviously, it's not perfect by any means, as who knows how many of the players within each average pool was even owned, yet alone in a starting lineup in any given week.

So, you can do whatever you want with this data. In the past I've posed a thought experiment, that to truly have an "RB1" in any given week, you need to have an RB1 who averages 17.3PPG. There were only 5 RBs in the game last year who managed to do that. When I told people that there were only 5 RB1s in the league, it was not well accepted. This was probably 6 or 7 years ago now, and I tried to find ways to quantify my outlook, and honestly this is where I began focusing on measuring a players impact on a weekly basis, within the realm of my specific team and matchup, not a year long basis, and not their own individual weekly average. I never did find a way to present this to the community in a way that was well received, but it really helped me outline what I believe in the past 2-3 years has now been referred to by 'experts' as deadzone players.

I tried to theorize that the reason I prefer WR early or late, but never middle, was because WRs 7-30ish were all indistinguishable, and that in the grand scheme of fantasy, we were really only talking about 100 yards and 2 TDs either direction (4 total) that would determine whether a WR would finish as a low end 1, or low end 2, and that trying to rank, draft, predict, or chase that difference was futile. Now, the game has changed, and therefor our data analysis needs to as well.

Using the chart above, to be a WR1 on average, you need to average 19.5 points per game. That means last year, I believe there were really only 6 WR1s. To be a WR2 on a weekly basis, you needed to average 14.2, meaning there were 14 WR2s last year. 11.1 to be a WR3, meaning there were 21 WR3s last year, and any WR who couldn't average at least 11.1 ppg, wasn't worth owning. Well, wasn't worth starting at least. That means there were only about 41 WRs worth starting at any given point last year.

As I'm doing this, I think I remember why I originally created this chart. It was to disprove the notion of RB scarcity and 'depth' of WR. I had a league mate on this forum, who claimed that they could just grab any WW WR and get 10 points from them, and my rebuttal that a 10 point WR was useless in our game, and that the statement they were making carried no real world application. I could counter by saying I can pick up any WW RB and score 5 points, it wasn't a valid counter argument for drafting a RB with a high pick.

To really drive home this tangent I've wandered into, I'm going to do it 2 ways. The first, is to disprove the RB scarcity and WR depth claim. As noted above, a WR3 is 11.1 or higher and there were 41 WRs who met that mark last year. To be an RB3 you need to average 7.7 or higher, and there were 57 runningbacks who managed to average 7.7 or higher last year. So while the industry will always pick out the 12th RB overall, 24th RB overall, and 36th RB overall to try and make their claims for RB1, 2, 3, and define scarcity and depth... I'm looking at fantasy football through the lens of what it takes on any given week (aka our 1v1 matchups) to score as an RB1, 2, 3, without the idea that 'points' are limited to 12, 24, or 36 spots.
Secondly, doubling down on this first part, it took 11.2 points to be an RB2 on any given week and we know from above, there were only 5 RBs we consider RB1s. So If you ask 99.99% of the population how many RB2s there are in fantasy, they would tell you, only 12, right? My outlook on the game is that, last year, there were 24 RB2s in fantasy. 24 different RBs averages less than 17.3 but more than 11.2. (This covers RB6 through RB29)
I think this is where the devaluation of RBs has come from and why ZRB continues to gain so much popularity, and the idea of 'dead zone' RBs. Because why draft the 12th RB off the board, if they score in the same range as the 29th RB off the board? This creates basically a 2 round area where people feel justified to ignore the position, because we can't identify a benefit within the gap.

Apologies to the Dobbins thread, if there's a strategy thread this would better be served in, someone point me in the right direction.

 

[Deamon]

Every year there are 12 rb1s in a 12 team league. Every year people try to project players by comparing their past production to rb12 and declaring them a rb1. Every year there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill, and every year some of those guys get injured.

You should project more than 12 guys to put up top 12 rb numbers. Some of them will get hurt or have other unpredictable issues, but there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill.

I agree with your mentality, but in the opposite direction. Roughly 5 years ago, I proposed a new way to define and measure RB1, WR2, etc etc. My thesis at the time, was that there are actually NOT 12 RB1s in the league, but that there were roughly 20 WR2s in the league. It was not received well, but out of curiosity, I still create this data set from time to time, to help orient myself to the ever-evolving talent pool of the NFL, because every season I believe it's important to account for the current population of all positions and their scoring ability, to help prepare a draft strategy that is based on what's actually going to be on the NFL field this season. Not blindly pick a position to draft early, because RB early is right, or Anchor is cool, or Zero RB is trendy... I design my draft strategy based on who and how many, are playing football THIS year.

This isn't really where this belongs, but I don't know where else to drop this... so here goes nothing.

In order to measure variance, you need a baseline. There are a lot of ways to define a baseline and 99.9% of them are arbitrary. Mine is also arbitrary.

The following is a data compilation I created for the 2022 season. The easiest way to explain it is...
Take the highest scoring RB of week 1... and week 2... and week 3... and continue through week 17. You now have 17 weeks of the #1 RB finisher, of each individual week, for a total of the entire fantasy season. Now average those 17 scores together. The #1 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 35.2 points per week.
The #12 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 17.3 points per week.
The #24 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 11.2 points per week.
The #36 scoring fantasy RB on average, scores 7.7 points per week.

https://i.postimg.cc/MHX8YwjZ/2022.png

As you can see I did it for 24 QBs, 24TEs, 36WRs, and 36RBs, each for 17 weeks. 2,040 data points. But what we get, is that to be a "RB1" on any given week, you need to score 17.3 points or better. To be a WR1 you need to score 19.5 points or better. Again, this is somewhat arbitrary, but at least it's based on real world results over the course of an entire season. Obviously, it's not perfect by any means, as who knows how many of the players within each average pool was even owned, yet alone in a starting lineup in any given week.

So, you can do whatever you want with this data. In the past I've posed a thought experiment, that to truly have an "RB1" in any given week, you need to have an RB1 who averages 17.3PPG. There were only 5 RBs in the game last year who managed to do that. When I told people that there were only 5 RB1s in the league, it was not well accepted. This was probably 6 or 7 years ago now, and I tried to find ways to quantify my outlook, and honestly this is where I began focusing on measuring a players impact on a weekly basis, within the realm of my specific team and matchup, not a year long basis, and not their own individual weekly average. I never did find a way to present this to the community in a way that was well received, but it really helped me outline what I believe in the past 2-3 years has now been referred to by 'experts' as deadzone players.

I tried to theorize that the reason I prefer WR early or late, but never middle, was because WRs 7-30ish were all indistinguishable, and that in the grand scheme of fantasy, we were really only talking about 100 yards and 2 TDs either direction (4 total) that would determine whether a WR would finish as a low end 1, or low end 2, and that trying to rank, draft, predict, or chase that difference was futile. Now, the game has changed, and therefor our data analysis needs to as well.

Using the chart above, to be a WR1 on average, you need to average 19.5 points per game. That means last year, I believe there were really only 6 WR1s. To be a WR2 on a weekly basis, you needed to average 14.2, meaning there were 14 WR2s last year. 11.1 to be a WR3, meaning there were 21 WR3s last year, and any WR who couldn't average at least 11.1 ppg, wasn't worth owning. Well, wasn't worth starting at least. That means there were only about 41 WRs worth starting at any given point last year.

As I'm doing this, I think I remember why I originally created this chart. It was to disprove the notion of RB scarcity and 'depth' of WR. I had a league mate on this forum, who claimed that they could just grab any WW WR and get 10 points from them, and my rebuttal that a 10 point WR was useless in our game, and that the statement they were making carried no real world application. I could counter by saying I can pick up any WW RB and score 5 points, it wasn't a valid counter argument for drafting a RB with a high pick.

To really drive home this tangent I've wandered into, I'm going to do it 2 ways. The first, is to disprove the RB scarcity and WR depth claim. As noted above, a WR3 is 11.1 or higher and there were 41 WRs who met that mark last year. To be an RB3 you need to average 7.7 or higher, and there were 57 runningbacks who managed to average 7.7 or higher last year. So while the industry will always pick out the 12th RB overall, 24th RB overall, and 36th RB overall to try and make their claims for RB1, 2, 3, and define scarcity and depth... I'm looking at fantasy football through the lens of what it takes on any given week (aka our 1v1 matchups) to score as an RB1, 2, 3, without the idea that 'points' are limited to 12, 24, or 36 spots.
Secondly, doubling down on this first part, it took 11.2 points to be an RB2 on any given week and we know from above, there were only 5 RBs we consider RB1s. So If you ask 99.99% of the population how many RB2s there are in fantasy, they would tell you, only 12, right? My outlook on the game is that, last year, there were 24 RB2s in fantasy. 24 different RBs averages less than 17.3 but more than 11.2. (This covers RB6 through RB29)
I think this is where the devaluation of RBs has come from and why ZRB continues to gain so much popularity, and the idea of 'dead zone' RBs. Because why draft the 12th RB off the board, if they score in the same range as the 29th RB off the board? This creates basically a 2 round area where people feel justified to ignore the position, because we can't identify a benefit within the gap.

Apologies to the Dobbins thread, if there's a strategy thread this would better be served in, someone point me in the right direction.

can you pls sum this up in 2 sentences.

 

[rockaction]

can you pls sum this up in 2 sentences.

I can. It's value-based drafting only conceptualized in a different way. Actually, it's not even conceptualized that differently.

 

[FFWhiskey]

Something smells rotton here. I keep landing him as my RB2 in a lot of drafts and I can't help but wonder if I can't spot the idiot in the room... then maybe I'm the idiot.


The talent is there, but something just doesn't seem "right". Watch him be stuck in a committee with Hill and Edwards.

 

[Faust]

Ravens RB J.K. Dobbins on return to training camp: 'It's all good now, I'm out here'

 

[pinkstapler]

Something smells rotton here. I keep landing him as my RB2 in a lot of drafts and I can't help but wonder if I can't spot the idiot in the room... then maybe I'm the idiot.


The talent is there, but something just doesn't seem "right". Watch him be stuck in a committee with Hill and Edwards.

Not saying he doesn't have a capped ceiling and other potential "flags" to worry about; but I'd say Gus Edwards and Justice Hill (as well as fumbling machine Melvin Gordon) are WAYYY down that list of things to worry about. They are about as pedestrian as it comes, and Dobbins skill set is miles ahead of either of them. Harbaugh has already made comments himself saying as much. Dobbins won't get 80% of the touches, but he will far and away outpace the rest of them. And will also get all the premium touches (3rd down, red zone).

 

[GoBirds]

What round are you seeing him go in PPR now? Where would you guys aim for him?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

but I'd say Gus Edwards and Justice Hill (as well as fumbling machine Melvin Gordon)

Barring injury, Gordon's not going to stick. They'll keep the rookie Mitchell.

 

[pinkstapler]

but I'd say Gus Edwards and Justice Hill (as well as fumbling machine Melvin Gordon)

Barring injury, Gordon's not going to stick. They'll keep the rookie Mitchell.

Yeah I was laughing when he was first added and some were talking about how it will impact Dobbins. Ravens still have PTSD from 2021 when they lost their entire RB room and don't ever want to find themselves in that position again. I'd agree if they all remain healthy, Gordon should find himself as the odd man out when its time to trim the roster.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

but I'd say Gus Edwards and Justice Hill (as well as fumbling machine Melvin Gordon)

Barring injury, Gordon's not going to stick. They'll keep the rookie Mitchell.

Yeah I was laughing when he was first added and some were talking about how it will impact Dobbins. Ravens still have PTSD from 2021 when they lost their entire RB room and don't ever want to find themselves in that position again. I'd agree if they all remain healthy, Gordon should find himself as the odd man out when its time to trim the roster.

3rd and 4th string RBs play ST for Baltimore. Gordon doesn't. That's why Justice Hill has stuck so long - he's a core STer.

As you say, Gordon's just there for insurance in case every other RB gets hurt 12 seconds before the season starts as they did in 2021. He's shown nothing in TC or preseason.

 

[FarFromHome]

I want to like Dobbins. Has all the skills to be an upper tier NFL RB. With Jackson taking RedZone rushing tds and Dobbins inability to stay on the field i just can't. I won't.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And will also get all the premium touches (3rd down, red zone).

I’m not so sure he gets GL over Edwards. Edwards is much larger and has been every bit as effective in that offense and Dobbins has - and that’s ignoring Jackson stealing GL touches.

 

[pinkstapler]

And will also get all the premium touches (3rd down, red zone).

I’m not so sure he gets GL over Edwards. Edwards is much larger and has been every bit as effective in that offense and Dobbins has - and that’s ignoring Jackson stealing GL touches.

Yeah I didn't mean to say he would get all of them, but I definitely think he will get a fair amount. I don't think he'll come off the field just because they are on the GL. But if he's on the sidelines and Edwards is getting a drive, I think they'll keep Edwards in the same. I do think Lamar's goal line work gets a little exaggerated. He'll steal some, but he only ran in 3 himself last year, and only 2 the year before (when they didn't have much for RBs either).

 

[maxwell1295]

Every year there are 12 rb1s in a 12 team league. Every year people try to project players by comparing their past production to rb12 and declaring them a rb1. Every year there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill, and every year some of those guys get injured.

You should project more than 12 guys to put up top 12 rb numbers. Some of them will get hurt or have other unpredictable issues, but there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill.

I agree with your mentality, but in the opposite direction. Roughly 5 years ago, I proposed a new way to define and measure RB1, WR2, etc etc. My thesis at the time, was that there are actually NOT 12 RB1s in the league, but that there were roughly 20 WR2s in the league. It was not received well, but out of curiosity, I still create this data set from time to time, to help orient myself to the ever-evolving talent pool of the NFL, because every season I believe it's important to account for the current population of all positions and their scoring ability, to help prepare a draft strategy that is based on what's actually going to be on the NFL field this season. Not blindly pick a position to draft early, because RB early is right, or Anchor is cool, or Zero RB is trendy... I design my draft strategy based on who and how many, are playing football THIS year.

This isn't really where this belongs, but I don't know where else to drop this... so here goes nothing.

In order to measure variance, you need a baseline. There are a lot of ways to define a baseline and 99.9% of them are arbitrary. Mine is also arbitrary.

The following is a data compilation I created for the 2022 season. The easiest way to explain it is...
Take the highest scoring RB of week 1... and week 2... and week 3... and continue through week 17. You now have 17 weeks of the #1 RB finisher, of each individual week, for a total of the entire fantasy season. Now average those 17 scores together. The #1 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 35.2 points per week.
The #12 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 17.3 points per week.
The #24 scoring fantasy RB, on average, scores 11.2 points per week.
The #36 scoring fantasy RB on average, scores 7.7 points per week.

https://i.postimg.cc/MHX8YwjZ/2022.png

As you can see I did it for 24 QBs, 24TEs, 36WRs, and 36RBs, each for 17 weeks. 2,040 data points. But what we get, is that to be a "RB1" on any given week, you need to score 17.3 points or better. To be a WR1 you need to score 19.5 points or better. Again, this is somewhat arbitrary, but at least it's based on real world results over the course of an entire season. Obviously, it's not perfect by any means, as who knows how many of the players within each average pool was even owned, yet alone in a starting lineup in any given week.

So, you can do whatever you want with this data. In the past I've posed a thought experiment, that to truly have an "RB1" in any given week, you need to have an RB1 who averages 17.3PPG. There were only 5 RBs in the game last year who managed to do that. When I told people that there were only 5 RB1s in the league, it was not well accepted. This was probably 6 or 7 years ago now, and I tried to find ways to quantify my outlook, and honestly this is where I began focusing on measuring a players impact on a weekly basis, within the realm of my specific team and matchup, not a year long basis, and not their own individual weekly average. I never did find a way to present this to the community in a way that was well received, but it really helped me outline what I believe in the past 2-3 years has now been referred to by 'experts' as deadzone players.

I tried to theorize that the reason I prefer WR early or late, but never middle, was because WRs 7-30ish were all indistinguishable, and that in the grand scheme of fantasy, we were really only talking about 100 yards and 2 TDs either direction (4 total) that would determine whether a WR would finish as a low end 1, or low end 2, and that trying to rank, draft, predict, or chase that difference was futile. Now, the game has changed, and therefor our data analysis needs to as well.

Using the chart above, to be a WR1 on average, you need to average 19.5 points per game. That means last year, I believe there were really only 6 WR1s. To be a WR2 on a weekly basis, you needed to average 14.2, meaning there were 14 WR2s last year. 11.1 to be a WR3, meaning there were 21 WR3s last year, and any WR who couldn't average at least 11.1 ppg, wasn't worth owning. Well, wasn't worth starting at least. That means there were only about 41 WRs worth starting at any given point last year.

As I'm doing this, I think I remember why I originally created this chart. It was to disprove the notion of RB scarcity and 'depth' of WR. I had a league mate on this forum, who claimed that they could just grab any WW WR and get 10 points from them, and my rebuttal that a 10 point WR was useless in our game, and that the statement they were making carried no real world application. I could counter by saying I can pick up any WW RB and score 5 points, it wasn't a valid counter argument for drafting a RB with a high pick.

To really drive home this tangent I've wandered into, I'm going to do it 2 ways. The first, is to disprove the RB scarcity and WR depth claim. As noted above, a WR3 is 11.1 or higher and there were 41 WRs who met that mark last year. To be an RB3 you need to average 7.7 or higher, and there were 57 runningbacks who managed to average 7.7 or higher last year. So while the industry will always pick out the 12th RB overall, 24th RB overall, and 36th RB overall to try and make their claims for RB1, 2, 3, and define scarcity and depth... I'm looking at fantasy football through the lens of what it takes on any given week (aka our 1v1 matchups) to score as an RB1, 2, 3, without the idea that 'points' are limited to 12, 24, or 36 spots.
Secondly, doubling down on this first part, it took 11.2 points to be an RB2 on any given week and we know from above, there were only 5 RBs we consider RB1s. So If you ask 99.99% of the population how many RB2s there are in fantasy, they would tell you, only 12, right? My outlook on the game is that, last year, there were 24 RB2s in fantasy. 24 different RBs averages less than 17.3 but more than 11.2. (This covers RB6 through RB29)
I think this is where the devaluation of RBs has come from and why ZRB continues to gain so much popularity, and the idea of 'dead zone' RBs. Because why draft the 12th RB off the board, if they score in the same range as the 29th RB off the board? This creates basically a 2 round area where people feel justified to ignore the position, because we can't identify a benefit within the gap.

Apologies to the Dobbins thread, if there's a strategy thread this would better be served in, someone point me in the right direction.

If I read this correctly (and yes, I read all of it), your chart indicates that RB24 (low RB2) is equal to the WR36 (WR3) in points scored, which is the only thing that matters. Based on that, there are more 50% more opportunities to acquire a WR that would score at the 11 points per game baseline. Basically, the dropoff at RB happens a lot sooner than at WR.

Or am I looking at it wrong?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

And will also get all the premium touches (3rd down, red zone).

I’m not so sure he gets GL over Edwards. Edwards is much larger and has been every bit as effective in that offense and Dobbins has - and that’s ignoring Jackson stealing GL touches.

Yeah I didn't mean to say he would get all of them, but I definitely think he will get a fair amount. I don't think he'll come off the field just because they are on the GL. But if he's on the sidelines and Edwards is getting a drive, I think they'll keep Edwards in the same. I do think Lamar's goal line work gets a little exaggerated. He'll steal some, but he only ran in 3 himself last year, and only 2 the year before (when they didn't have much for RBs either).

I do, too, but I have nothing to back that up. Plus, I wondering how much option they are going to run down there with a new offense and a $260 million QB.

 

[JoeKappBudGrant]

And will also get all the premium touches (3rd down, red zone).

I’m not so sure he gets GL over Edwards. Edwards is much larger and has been every bit as effective in that offense and Dobbins has - and that’s ignoring Jackson stealing GL touches.

Yeah I didn't mean to say he would get all of them, but I definitely think he will get a fair amount. I don't think he'll come off the field just because they are on the GL. But if he's on the sidelines and Edwards is getting a drive, I think they'll keep Edwards in the same. I do think Lamar's goal line work gets a little exaggerated. He'll steal some, but he only ran in 3 himself last year, and only 2 the year before (when they didn't have much for RBs either).

I do, too, but I have nothing to back that up. Plus, I wondering how much option they are going to run down there with a new offense and a $260 million QB.

The last 7 games that Dobbins had double digit carries and Jackson was his QB, he scored 9 TD's and 2 two point conversions.

 

[Apple Juice]

And will also get all the premium touches (3rd down, red zone).

I’m not so sure he gets GL over Edwards. Edwards is much larger and has been every bit as effective in that offense and Dobbins has - and that’s ignoring Jackson stealing GL touches.

Yeah I didn't mean to say he would get all of them, but I definitely think he will get a fair amount. I don't think he'll come off the field just because they are on the GL. But if he's on the sidelines and Edwards is getting a drive, I think they'll keep Edwards in the same. I do think Lamar's goal line work gets a little exaggerated. He'll steal some, but he only ran in 3 himself last year, and only 2 the year before (when they didn't have much for RBs either).

I do, too, but I have nothing to back that up. Plus, I wondering how much option they are going to run down there with a new offense and a $260 million QB.

The last 7 games that Dobbins had double digit carries and Jackson was his QB, he scored 9 TD's and 2 two point conversions.

Beat me to it. Dobbins is excellent in short yardage. It's not just about size, it's about finding creases and sliding past defenders. Dobbins is great at it.

And I've always disagreed with the "Lamar steals tds" argument. I see it everywhere, it's automatic whenever an RB with a running QB is mentioned. Why is Lamar running for a TD inside the 5 different than Burrow throwing to Chase inside the 5? Very few teams run on every down unless it's inside the one so QBs are gonna steal tds regardless. If anything, the defense having to account for a running QB makes it easier for the RB to score.

 

[FFCollusion]

Every year there are 12 rb1s in a 12 team league. Every year people try to project players by comparing their past production to rb12 and declaring them a rb1. Every year there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill, and every year some of those guys get injured.

You should project more than 12 guys to put up top 12 rb numbers. Some of them will get hurt or have other unpredictable issues, but there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill.

https://i.postimg.cc/MHX8YwjZ/2022.png

If I read this correctly (and yes, I read all of it), your chart indicates that RB24 (low RB2) is equal to the WR36 (WR3) in points scored, which is the only thing that matters. Based on that, there are more 50% more opportunities to acquire a WR that would score at the 11 points per game baseline. Basically, the dropoff at RB happens a lot sooner than at WR.

Or am I looking at it wrong?

My goal is just to offer data and my own perspective or interpretation of that data. Not to try and convince people to see things my way. I believe the biggest mistake fantasy players fall victim to, is seeing someone post data, or charts, or stats, and to blindly accept the conclusion of the person who presented it.

My example is always simple... I used to listen to a lot of Matthew Berry when he was with ESPN. He is obviously the whipping boy of forums like this, no matter what he does, people love to rag on him. That's their prerogative, but I did not listen to Berry for his opinions, I listened for his data, and used it to form my own opinion. The stat team he had available to him at ESPN was quite impressive, and i would always listen for the nuggets of data Berry would share. The conclusion he came to, his opinion, his interpretation of said data... Was of no relevance to me.

So, if you look at that chart above and come to a conclusion that is different than mine, that's perfectly fine.

Since you are asking though, I'll try to clarify my interpretation in a more condensed version.

First, we need to clarify that the chart is an average of weekly scores, not a specific player or scoring range.

So, while you are correct in that RB falls off faster when looking at 'total points' of the week, that's not what I feel is important. My opinion is that we use that cutoff point as a measuring stick, and identify how many RBs or WRs hit that mark.

So your conclusion may be that on any given week, WR36 scores about the same as RB24. That's accurate, but the important question is, how many WRs and RBs are breaking that threshold every week? Or year?

RB falls off at 24, but remember the cutoff for RB24 is 11.2 points, and there were 24 RBs who hit that mark. (RB6-RB29). So 5 RB1s in the league and 26 RB2s in the league that meet that cutoff... Is the position deep or shallow?

But for WR, using those cutoffs, we had 6 WR1s (5RB1 vs 6WR1) and then only 14 WRs. (24RB2s vs 14WR2s). Which position is deeper? Which is more scarce?

Like I said, this all developed from someone who once told me they only draft RBs early, because they can always find a 10 point WR in the waiver wire, and my immediate thought was... Who cares? That's like saying I don't draft RB early, because I can find a 5 point RB on the WW. That 5 point RB isn't going to help you, just like a 10 point WR won't.
You have to outscore your opponents and it's the gaps between your respective starters that matters.

If there are only 14WRs you give you WR2 gaps, and 24RB2s who offer gaps... On what order would you draft to try and obtain them?

It's the same reason we tier players by position for draft rankings. If you know there are 6 WRs in a tier, and 2 RBs in a tier, you take the RB first, hoping the WR will be there for your next pick. All I'm doing is tiering the results on a bigger scale to help make informed decisions, strategically, for evaluating depth, scarcity, and available assets for drafting.

 

[GoBirds]

Every year there are 12 rb1s in a 12 team league. Every year people try to project players by comparing their past production to rb12 and declaring them a rb1. Every year there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill, and every year some of those guys get injured.

You should project more than 12 guys to put up top 12 rb numbers. Some of them will get hurt or have other unpredictable issues, but there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill.

https://i.postimg.cc/MHX8YwjZ/2022.png

If I read this correctly (and yes, I read all of it), your chart indicates that RB24 (low RB2) is equal to the WR36 (WR3) in points scored, which is the only thing that matters. Based on that, there are more 50% more opportunities to acquire a WR that would score at the 11 points per game baseline. Basically, the dropoff at RB happens a lot sooner than at WR.

Or am I looking at it wrong?

My goal is just to offer data and my own perspective or interpretation of that data. Not to try and convince people to see things my way. I believe the biggest mistake fantasy players fall victim to, is seeing someone post data, or charts, or stats, and to blindly accept the conclusion of the person who presented it.

My example is always simple... I used to listen to a lot of Matthew Berry when he was with ESPN. He is obviously the whipping boy of forums like this, no matter what he does, people love to rag on him. That's their prerogative, but I did not listen to Berry for his opinions, I listened for his data, and used it to form my own opinion. The stat team he had available to him at ESPN was quite impressive, and i would always listen for the nuggets of data Berry would share. The conclusion he came to, his opinion, his interpretation of said data... Was of no relevance to me.

So, if you look at that chart above and come to a conclusion that is different than mine, that's perfectly fine.

Since you are asking though, I'll try to clarify my interpretation in a more condensed version.

First, we need to clarify that the chart is an average of weekly scores, not a specific player or scoring range.

So, while you are correct in that RB falls off faster when looking at 'total points' of the week, that's not what I feel is important. My opinion is that we use that cutoff point as a measuring stick, and identify how many RBs or WRs hit that mark.

So your conclusion may be that on any given week, WR36 scores about the same as RB24. That's accurate, but the important question is, how many WRs and RBs are breaking that threshold every week? Or year?

RB falls off at 24, but remember the cutoff for RB24 is 11.2 points, and there were 24 RBs who hit that mark. (RB6-RB29). So 5 RB1s in the league and 26 RB2s in the league that meet that cutoff... Is the position deep or shallow?

But for WR, using those cutoffs, we had 6 WR1s (5RB1 vs 6WR1) and then only 14 WRs. (24RB2s vs 14WR2s). Which position is deeper? Which is more scarce?

Like I said, this all developed from someone who once told me they only draft RBs early, because they can always find a 10 point WR in the waiver wire, and my immediate thought was... Who cares? That's like saying I don't draft RB early, because I can find a 5 point RB on the WW. That 5 point RB isn't going to help you, just like a 10 point WR won't.
You have to outscore your opponents and it's the gaps between your respective starters that matters.

If there are only 14WRs you give you WR2 gaps, and 24RB2s who offer gaps... On what order would you draft to try and obtain them?

It's the same reason we tier players by position for draft rankings. If you know there are 6 WRs in a tier, and 2 RBs in a tier, you take the RB first, hoping the WR will be there for your next pick. All I'm doing is tiering the results on a bigger scale to help make informed decisions, strategically, for evaluating depth, scarcity, and available assets for drafting.

What's the best resource for accurate tiers?

 

[FFCollusion]

What's the best resource for accurate tiers?

I have no clue, I do my own and recommend everyone do the same, or find an analysts you like, agree with, or feel is the best, and start with theirs, then maybe make a few tweaks for your personal preferences.

 

[maxwell1295]

Every year there are 12 rb1s in a 12 team league. Every year people try to project players by comparing their past production to rb12 and declaring them a rb1. Every year there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill, and every year some of those guys get injured.

You should project more than 12 guys to put up top 12 rb numbers. Some of them will get hurt or have other unpredictable issues, but there are more than 12 guys who fit that bill.

https://i.postimg.cc/MHX8YwjZ/2022.png

If I read this correctly (and yes, I read all of it), your chart indicates that RB24 (low RB2) is equal to the WR36 (WR3) in points scored, which is the only thing that matters. Based on that, there are more 50% more opportunities to acquire a WR that would score at the 11 points per game baseline. Basically, the dropoff at RB happens a lot sooner than at WR.

Or am I looking at it wrong?

My goal is just to offer data and my own perspective or interpretation of that data. Not to try and convince people to see things my way. I believe the biggest mistake fantasy players fall victim to, is seeing someone post data, or charts, or stats, and to blindly accept the conclusion of the person who presented it.

My example is always simple... I used to listen to a lot of Matthew Berry when he was with ESPN. He is obviously the whipping boy of forums like this, no matter what he does, people love to rag on him. That's their prerogative, but I did not listen to Berry for his opinions, I listened for his data, and used it to form my own opinion. The stat team he had available to him at ESPN was quite impressive, and i would always listen for the nuggets of data Berry would share. The conclusion he came to, his opinion, his interpretation of said data... Was of no relevance to me.

So, if you look at that chart above and come to a conclusion that is different than mine, that's perfectly fine.

Since you are asking though, I'll try to clarify my interpretation in a more condensed version.

First, we need to clarify that the chart is an average of weekly scores, not a specific player or scoring range.

So, while you are correct in that RB falls off faster when looking at 'total points' of the week, that's not what I feel is important. My opinion is that we use that cutoff point as a measuring stick, and identify how many RBs or WRs hit that mark.

So your conclusion may be that on any given week, WR36 scores about the same as RB24. That's accurate, but the important question is, how many WRs and RBs are breaking that threshold every week? Or year?

RB falls off at 24, but remember the cutoff for RB24 is 11.2 points, and there were 24 RBs who hit that mark. (RB6-RB29). So 5 RB1s in the league and 26 RB2s in the league that meet that cutoff... Is the position deep or shallow?

But for WR, using those cutoffs, we had 6 WR1s (5RB1 vs 6WR1) and then only 14 WRs. (24RB2s vs 14WR2s). Which position is deeper? Which is more scarce?

Like I said, this all developed from someone who once told me they only draft RBs early, because they can always find a 10 point WR in the waiver wire, and my immediate thought was... Who cares? That's like saying I don't draft RB early, because I can find a 5 point RB on the WW. That 5 point RB isn't going to help you, just like a 10 point WR won't.
You have to outscore your opponents and it's the gaps between your respective starters that matters.

If there are only 14WRs you give you WR2 gaps, and 24RB2s who offer gaps... On what order would you draft to try and obtain them?

It's the same reason we tier players by position for draft rankings. If you know there are 6 WRs in a tier, and 2 RBs in a tier, you take the RB first, hoping the WR will be there for your next pick. All I'm doing is tiering the results on a bigger scale to help make informed decisions, strategically, for evaluating depth, scarcity, and available assets for drafting.

I agree with this 1000%. I figured that is what you were getting at, but just wanted to clarify. Thanks for info and good luck!

 

[GoBirds]

Anyone seeing a big season here playing for a contract?

 

[Weebs210]

Anyone seeing a big season here playing for a contract?

I like him and Walker the best in that tier of backs. Would be happy with either or both depending.

 

[Faust]

Final Drive: J.K. Dobbins Expects to Catch a Lot of Passes

 

[BlackCrowes]

I like this guy this year. Very talented.

 

[Faust]

Jamison Hensley
Raven GM Eric DeCosta said: “We love JK. I have a strong affinity for him.”

Asked about contract talks with JK Dobbins DeCosta said he would keep in-house but pointed to strong history of keeping players. Dobbins is in final year of deal.

https://twitter.com/jamisonhensley/status/1697656646363648392?s=21

 

[Truebluey]

Anyone seeing a big season here playing for a contract?

I like him and Walker the best in that tier of backs. Would be happy with either or both depending.

From your lips to God's ears. Those are my RBs 1 and 2 (I went WR heavy early). Wasn't aiming at Dobbins in any way shape or form, but Matt Waldman had him high on his draft sheet at that spot (round 7), so that's who I got.

 

[Da Franchise]

Achilles. I hate this so ****ing much.

 

[Truebluey]

Feel terrible for the man. Just all bad luck. Such a seemingly innocuous tackle.

 

[3nOut]

So much potential for this kid, but he just could never stay healthy. Is there anyone worth picking up from this offense in his place?

 

[Da Franchise]

Feel terrible for the man. Just all bad luck. Such a seemingly innocuous tackle.

Just sucks so so much. They gotta do something with these RBs man. No idea what tho.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don’t have him on any teams but hard not to feel terrible for this kid. Guess that contract isn’t coming.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So much potential for this kid, but he just could never stay healthy. Is there anyone worth picking up from this offense in his place?

Edwards has always succeeded and Hill is looking good.

 

[Down Under]

 

[greenmountaingoat]

I have him everywhere I could get him. Feel sorry for the kid.

Fantasy football injury chaos is in midseason form.

 

[rockaction]

Such a shame. Could have had a great career. I didn't see the injury and am only reading this thread, so if it's his achilles, that's terrible.

 

[JohnnyU]

Kareem Hunt?

 

[Ardbeg4ever]

He was so good at Tosu, as a Michigan fan I hated him but respected him a lot.

 

[nittanylion]

Achilles. I hate this so ****ing much.

Is this verified?

 

[Truebluey]

Achilles. I hate this so ****ing much.

Is this verified?

Reported on Redzone that Ravens suspect it

 

[FarFromHome]

Absolutely brutal of early reports are true. Dude can't catch a break. I can see Hunt in Baltimore

 

[The Frankman]

Kareem Hunt?

Melvin Gordon III on the practice squad more likely.

 

[Biabreakable]

This is sad. My gut was telling me for some reason it just wasnt going to work out for him. Wish my gut was wrong sometimes.

 

[kface]

My team is just decimated...over before it started

 

[Runkle]

Achilles. I hate this so ****ing much.

Is this verified?

Currently it is "feared", awaiting the MRI confirmation

 

[karl.Racki]

Serious.. At this point is his career over, or his career as a starter?

 

[massraider]

Serious.. At this point is his career over, or his career as a starter?

Did he even have a career as a starter?

Just a string of injuries since he came to the league.

 

[Sunday Gravy]

Serious.. At this point is his career over, or his career as a starter?

If it's Achilles he's done. What a shame.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Bummer