Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
RB Willis McGahee is STILL Overrated (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe T
- Start date
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I just want the 300th post in this thread.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Darn. You guys beat me to it.
very true about the QB position being more stable. But, Deuce's receiving numbers were way down last year, and I fully expect to see McGahee's increase substantially this year. Deuce is still the better receiver though, no doubt about that. Where I think McGahee can make up the difference is in his TD potential. Travis Henry is a wild card right now. The chances of him holding out or being traded are just as great as his chances of stealing carries.
ok, 14 starts. I saw him listed as having played in 15 games and assumed he would start any game that he played in.
not sure yet. I do know that the Bills do though or they wouldn't have dumped Bledsoe. I think the running game, defense, and special teams will be enough for this team to be competitive every week though. The Steelers went 15-1 last year with a rookie QB leading them most of the way. I don't think the Bills are in for that type of year, but "5 wins at best" is a ridiculously low prediction. I also would be very surprised if they finished in the bottom 10 on offense with all the weapons they have.
Well, I suppose if you expect all of McCallister's numbers to go down / stay down and all of McGahee's numbers to go up, then you have an open-shut case
Never said Deuce's numbers would go down. But, people are obviously projecting a HUGE improvement over his 2004 numbers for him to become a top-5 RB. Meanwhile, McGahee just needs to maintain his level of production from 2004 to reach the same goal.
wilked
Footballguy
Not sure what numbers you are using that had him in 15 games.Further, good thing you are using week 2, the week he was hurt
WK TM OPP RSH YD TD TARG REC YD TD FPT
2 NO SF 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
Sometimes you ahve to interpret the numbers, rather than just spout them off, the same reason I do not use weeks 1-5 when investigating McGahee
Last edited by a moderator:
Sidewinder
Footballguy
Call it 14 starts, but he was hurt on his first carry of the SF game, did not return, and then didn't play at all the next 2 games. So in reality, 13 games. And he was certainly limited for many weeks after his return.
my bad. not sure where I was getting 15 from.even if you take McAllister's production from his 12 best starts and compare them with McGahee's only 12 starts, Willis significantly outperformed him in 2004. Yet, Willis is somehow the risky pick here?
so, Deuce's numbers were hurt significantly by a minor injury in 2004, yet he's less of an injury risk than McGahee?
msommer
Footballguy
I'm not sure that is an accurate assesment. They dumped Bledsoe because he clearly was not getting it done. (IMHO toast). As for the vote of confidence in Losman - they signed Holcomb who reportedly took less money to sign in BUF than he was offered in CLE. One possible reason why is that he was promised a fair shot or a short hook on Losman.I personally believe Losman will do well this year - but he will make too many rookie mistakes. I have him on two dynasty teams, I dare to use him as qb2 and have picked up Holcomb for insurance.
minor = an injury that that still allows the player to suit up and play.major = an injury that forces a player to miss several games.
McGahee played with some minor injuries late last year that likely limited his production, and he still was not likely fully healed from the knee injury. If we're going to forgive Deuce's low YPC b/c of an injury, then it only seems fair to give McGahee the same consideration.
IIRC, one of the major concerns about Deuce coming out of college was his durability.
Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll
Footballguy
wilked
Footballguy
If not including the statline "3 rushes for 1 yd, left due to injury" is called forgiving, then so be it. Deuce was fairly well healed the second half of the season. Using weeks 9-17, he averaged 4.25 YPC. Remember, I am also doing the same with McGahee, using only weeks 6-17
Sidewinder
Footballguy
Once he returned, Deuce looked slow and heavy the rest of the year. It was painfully obvious that he had marginal cutting ability and very little burst until probably the second Atlanta game (week 16). Even in the final game at Carolina, he broke a 70 yard run but got caught from behind, something that didn't happen in 2002 or 2003.
those 3 rushes hardly had any impact on his overall YPC for 2004. I don't really think they are an issue.McGahee was playing injured late last season as well...especially in the 49ers game.like I have said all along, McGahee's explosiveness is still returning after his devastating injury. I expect his YPC to increase in 2005 based on that factor alone.
wilked
Footballguy
There are big differences there though"I expect Deuce's numbers to return to those of his previous two seasons"
Is not equivalent to
"I expect McGahee's numbers to be better than his rookie season"
One of the above relies on proven effectiveness, the other is speculative.
Guess which is which.
they both are speculative.
one player was a top-10 fantasy RB last year...the other was not. I believe 2004 would fall under "past performance", would it not?projecting similar performance from year 1 to year 2 is a lot more realistic than projecting major improvement from year 1 to year 2.
Last edited by a moderator:
wilked
Footballguy
If you wish to focus your analysis on 2004 only, ignoring injuries, then by all means go for it. I honestly get the impression that you have not spent much time with the numbers, and Deuce's injury seemed to take you a bit by surprise. Care to make a similar bet, McGahee vs. Deuce, standard scoring (no PPR), who scores the higher bottom line? Say $20? No injury clause this time, as risk is equally balanced.
not really interested in that bet, because I have them rated almost identically so it's pretty much a coin toss as to who will finish higher, IMO. I'm honestly not trying to bash Deuce here...just arguing that I don't believe he is a much safer choice than Willis.
RB is often dominated by young players (with 2004 being a notable exception) so I don't think his lack of experience is that big of a knock. I also don't think McGahee is just hype. I watched every down he played last year and I saw a RB who can lead the league in rushing some day. I think McGahee is the more talented RB of the two and I think he's in a system that will feed him the ball over and over again. His TD potential puts him ever so slightly ahead of Deuce, who has the edge in receiving ability.So then if you have them rated identically, you would rather take the guy who has started 12 games over the guy who has played 40+, and been top 7 twice already over a season?Looks like someone is taking the 'hyped' player over the proven player.
gllll peas
Joe T
Footballguy
will you just admit you are a homer so we can move on here?RB is often dominated by young players (with 2004 being a notable exception) so I don't think his lack of experience is that big of a knock. I also don't think McGahee is just hype. I watched every down he played last year and I saw a RB who can lead the league in rushing some day. I think McGahee is the more talented RB of the two and I think he's in a system that will feed him the ball over and over again. His TD potential puts him ever so slightly ahead of Deuce, who has the edge in receiving ability.So then if you have them rated identically, you would rather take the guy who has started 12 games over the guy who has played 40+, and been top 7 twice already over a season?Looks like someone is taking the 'hyped' player over the proven player.
wilked
Footballguy
You're right, McGahee is also proven. He has proven that if you give him 25 carries within the 5, he can score 10 TDsRB is often dominated by young players (with 2004 being a notable exception) so I don't think his lack of experience is that big of a knock. I also don't think McGahee is just hype. I watched every down he played last year and I saw a RB who can lead the league in rushing some day. I think McGahee is the more talented RB of the two and I think he's in a system that will feed him the ball over and over again. His TD potential puts him ever so slightly ahead of Deuce, who has the edge in receiving ability.So then if you have them rated identically, you would rather take the guy who has started 12 games over the guy who has played 40+, and been top 7 twice already over a season?Looks like someone is taking the 'hyped' player over the proven player.
Good luck getting those carries again next year
I suppose everyone who drafts at Antsports is also a homer? and everyone else on staff who has McGahee ranked highly? my position is hardly out of the ordinary.will you just admit you are a homer so we can move on here?RB is often dominated by young players (with 2004 being a notable exception) so I don't think his lack of experience is that big of a knock. I also don't think McGahee is just hype. I watched every down he played last year and I saw a RB who can lead the league in rushing some day. I think McGahee is the more talented RB of the two and I think he's in a system that will feed him the ball over and over again. His TD potential puts him ever so slightly ahead of Deuce, who has the edge in receiving ability.So then if you have them rated identically, you would rather take the guy who has started 12 games over the guy who has played 40+, and been top 7 twice already over a season?Looks like someone is taking the 'hyped' player over the proven player.
thanks.glll at ITS.Good luck getting those carries again next year
bagger.
The One Play Quiz
i'm jumping in here late, but the position of the majority is not always correct. in fact i would find that the position of the majority is less correct than that of the few.that was actually what fbg.com was founded on.I suppose everyone who drafts at Antsports is also a homer? and everyone else on staff who has McGahee ranked highly? my position is hardly out of the ordinary.will you just admit you are a homer so we can move on here?RB is often dominated by young players (with 2004 being a notable exception) so I don't think his lack of experience is that big of a knock. I also don't think McGahee is just hype. I watched every down he played last year and I saw a RB who can lead the league in rushing some day. I think McGahee is the more talented RB of the two and I think he's in a system that will feed him the ball over and over again. His TD potential puts him ever so slightly ahead of Deuce, who has the edge in receiving ability.So then if you have them rated identically, you would rather take the guy who has started 12 games over the guy who has played 40+, and been top 7 twice already over a season?Looks like someone is taking the 'hyped' player over the proven player.
personally, if you give me two backs and i have to pick one...and one has a proven history and the other does not, i would be doing myself a disservice to pick the back based on "hype" (aka pure speculation) over the back based on speculation based on past performance.
if you are going to pick one back in the first round and these are your two choices, you are taking a lot more risk with mcgahee...with that there can be no doubt. uncertainty is risk and there is more uncertainty with mcgahee. maybe mcgahee will outperform deuce, but you took more risk than you should to do it.
fwiw, i have deuce #8 and mcgahee #9 in my projections.
I'm not saying the majority is correct. But, my position hardly seems all that biased when taken in context with how McGahee is being ranked by everybody else.heck, half the rankings at ITS have him in their top 8. yet, JoeT and wilked are here crusading against our ranking?
Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll
Footballguy
Actually, this is indeed aTOTAL COP-OUT. Injury risk is part of the game. It's what can seperate one player from another. McGahee is a definite injury risk. Why should someone else have to guard against injury. You're the one who made the bold statement on McGahee's TD production. I believe your initial post setting the over and under went something like this "If the over/under on McGahee's TD total in 2005 is 12, I'm betting the over." I don't recall you putting any qualifiers on it. If you think McGahee is gonna score 12 TDs then the risk of injury should be on you, not on the guy betting against you. If you're gonna have a stipultation at least give the guy odds, or give him a stipulation like McGahee can't have more than 20 carries inside the 5. I mean because that's what I based my projections on.
. The fact wilked is even willing to concede an injury clause is, well, a gift.
?
IMO, a homer would be someone who has a dramatically inflated opinion of a player who plays on their favorite team. Since my ranking of McGahee is right in line with many objective rankings, I'd hardly think the homer insults are warranted here.
your main argument against Mcgahee appears to be that his TD/game ratio won't remain as high as it was in 2004 so his overall production will drop as a result. but, that assumes that everything else will remain the same (i.e., YPC and receiving totals). I believe those figures will improve, and I don't believe his TD/game will drop off as much as you are suggesting. That is where we differ. Hardly seems worthy of a 10-page thread.If he reaches 12 TDs or more, do you think he's capable of finishing in the #5 to #8 range among RBs?
Last edited by a moderator:
wilked
Footballguy
RD:Have I not proven to you that McGahee's TD total last year was an outlier, based only upon his extraordinary (read: unprecedented) amount of carries within the 5? I think I remember you throwing in a good posting. Given that, how can you not reduce some TDs from your previous estimate? Given this, then, how can he not drop in your ranking?
It is ok to drop him a few spots, nothing wrong with gaining insight and adjusting your numbers as a result
that was good posting, and I'm not above adjusting my rankings when someone makes a compelling argument.but, I'm assuming McGahee will have 4 additional starts in 2005 compared to 2004. I also think he'll score a couple long TDs as well. 12+ TDs hardly seems all that unreasonable to me. That, along with an increased role in the passing game and a higher YPC should lead to a very productive season.
I think the difference between 5 and 8 is pretty insignificant. So, to me anyway, this seems like much ado about nothing.I can understand Deuce being ranked ahead of McGahee. But, I'm just not sold on the other candidates like Portis, Lewis, Davis, and Barber. Seems like if any of them were in the #5 or #6 spot, we could have a similar debate on each of them being overrated.
bagger.
The One Play Quiz
how does jp losman starting factor into this?if he can't produce do mcgahee's #s go up or down?
i don't think it is as easy as saying mcgahee plays more games, let's straight line his numbers up over 4 games. likewise, with henry still in buffalo there is still a possibility that he gets about the same # of carries as last year limiting mcgahee's # of carries past 320 or so.
i projected to score more TDs, rush for more yards, and have a better YPC than last year, and he is still only #9 in my rankings. this is because i don't see the bills going for more than 1,800 rushing yards as a team, and mcgahee won't get 400 of those.
1,300 yards rush, 14 TDs, 175 yards rec, 0 TDs is a pretty solid line for him. and that's the #9 rb.
