Rookie Evaluation (1 Viewer)

[moderated]

Andre Roberts

Aaron Hernandez

Anthony dixon (6th round draft pick)

All ranked above spiller in waldmans rookie rankings.

Nothing wrong with doubting a guy but that's beyond ridiculous. It isn't like buffalo went out on a limb, spiller was given a high grade by every team.

 

[MAC_32]

Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony dixon (6th round draft pick)All ranked above spiller in waldmans rookie rankings.Nothing wrong with doubting a guy but that's beyond ridiculous. It isn't like buffalo went out on a limb, spiller was given a high grade by every team.

I think Waldman's valuation is closer to reality than 'every team,' Spiller has a lot of potential but like so many other prospects this year he has some substantial questions he needs to answer. I think he has a better chance of being the next McFadden than the next Chris Johnson.Ranking him below Roberts and Hernandez is really going out on a limb, but I'll join him re Anthony Dixon. A guy that gets forgotten about because he didn't run a 4.4-4.5 40. Silliness.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony dixon (6th round draft pick)All ranked above spiller in waldmans rookie rankings.Nothing wrong with doubting a guy but that's beyond ridiculous. It isn't like buffalo went out on a limb, spiller was given a high grade by every team.

If you find it beyond ridiculous, ignore it and make your decision. Again, my rankings are backed by the work provided in the publication. If you disagree with them, pick Spiller and enjoy the fact that you got someone you value highly and see if it works out.Before I even came to FBGs, I used to read posts from folks in the Shark Pool and elsewhere saying similar things about my higher (and often much higher) rankings of Ahmad Bradshaw, Matt Forte, Mike Bell, and several others while downgrading others. I like Spiller more than McFadden, but I don't think he has the between the tackles skills of other players I ranked ahead of him. I also don't think Spiller's speed will be as great of a difference maker on a consistent basis unless he can learn to run inside. Chris Johnson's speed would not be a difference-making characteristic in the NFL if he ran with the same decision-making and vision as McFadden early in his career. I would agree that most teams probably gave Spiller a high grade, it is not a fact that all of them did. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Honestly, I looked at Spiller's grade in my RSP in February and knew I'd get this response. I called it the cringe factor. I look at the grades I give and cringe that I'm going to get the "his grade on player x is beyond ridiculous," because the hype the player seems to be high. But that's part of the process. I neither trying to follow the herd or deviate from it. I'm staying true to my process. If I'm wrong, then I learn from it. If I try to cheat up or down to meet expectations of the group then I do people a disservice who are trying to see what I truly think based on my process. That's the crux of why people have been getting the Rookie Scouting Portfolio since 2006. If I continued to make horrible evaluations across the board, then I'd be offering the RSP to fewer people every year. It hasn't been the case though. I'm going to have players I rated highly and they don't come through: Xavier Omon, Cedric Peerman (so far), Sam Hurd, and Charles Sharon are four prominent examples. However, that is what comes with evaluating players with an extensive process and ranking them without looking at what others are doing. If you want a ranking that takes a variety of sources under consideration, I highly recommend Sigmund Blooms', Bloom 100 series. He looks at what everyone thinks, watches some games himself, and then melds their opinions with his. It's a great draft tool if you're looking for that perspective. Although I know there are people who use my rankings exclusively, I expect most people to use my rankings as part of their process of forming their own opinion in combination with other sources. What I take pride in about the RSP is that I don't look at other sources, which means while I will have hits and misses that differ from the norm because my rankings aren't created by group-think. This is not to disparage Bloom's work or anyone else, it's just a different way of looking at it. Its the differences in opinion that often help you come to stronger decisions.

 

[Balco]

There is not one team/analyst that has been right on every player, or has ranked the players properly. It is easy to discredit someone by saying "Well Buffalo took him in the 1st round" or "Mike Maycok said", or "I will take a gm's analysis over yours". And it is very annoying.

Many sites just rehash what they hear about a player. The great thing about Waldman, and Bloom, and several posters on this site is that they actually watch the games, and they break down plays. I want to get as much info on a player as possible, but not from websites, not from most college announcers who have no idea what is going on. I want people to tell me something about a player based on what they see on tape. Saying, "Tim Tebow will stink because he is a product of the system" does nothing for me. Saying, "Tim Tebow will stink because it takes him5 seconds to get off a pass, and he locks on one receiver and does not go through his progressions based on the what I have seen" does.

I might not agree with all of their rankings, but at least they are actually watching the guys play, and breaking down the games.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony dixon (6th round draft pick)All ranked above spiller in waldmans rookie rankings.Nothing wrong with doubting a guy but that's beyond ridiculous. It isn't like buffalo went out on a limb, spiller was given a high grade by every team.

If you find it beyond ridiculous, ignore it and make your decision. Again, my rankings are backed by the work provided in the publication. If you disagree with them, pick Spiller and enjoy the fact that you got someone you value highly and see if it works out.Before I even came to FBGs, I used to read posts from folks in the Shark Pool and elsewhere saying similar things about my higher (and often much higher) rankings of Ahmad Bradshaw, Matt Forte, Mike Bell, and several others while downgrading others. I like Spiller more than McFadden, but I don't think he has the between the tackles skills of other players I ranked ahead of him. I also don't think Spiller's speed will be as great of a difference maker on a consistent basis unless he can learn to run inside. Chris Johnson's speed would not be a difference-making characteristic in the NFL if he ran with the same decision-making and vision as McFadden early in his career. I would agree that most teams probably gave Spiller a high grade, it is not a fact that all of them did. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Honestly, I looked at Spiller's grade in my RSP in February and knew I'd get this response. I called it the cringe factor. I look at the grades I give and cringe that I'm going to get the "his grade on player x is beyond ridiculous," because the hype the player seems to be high. But that's part of the process. I neither trying to follow the herd or deviate from it. I'm staying true to my process. If I'm wrong, then I learn from it. If I try to cheat up or down to meet expectations of the group then I do people a disservice who are trying to see what I truly think based on my process. That's the crux of why people have been getting the Rookie Scouting Portfolio since 2006. If I continued to make horrible evaluations across the board, then I'd be offering the RSP to fewer people every year. It hasn't been the case though. I'm going to have players I rated highly and they don't come through: Xavier Omon, Cedric Peerman (so far), Sam Hurd, and Charles Sharon are four prominent examples. However, that is what comes with evaluating players with an extensive process and ranking them without looking at what others are doing. If you want a ranking that takes a variety of sources under consideration, I highly recommend Sigmund Blooms', Bloom 100 series. He looks at what everyone thinks, watches some games himself, and then melds their opinions with his. It's a great draft tool if you're looking for that perspective. Although I know there are people who use my rankings exclusively, I expect most people to use my rankings as part of their process of forming their own opinion in combination with other sources. What I take pride in about the RSP is that I don't look at other sources, which means while I will have hits and misses that differ from the norm because my rankings aren't created by group-think. This is not to disparage Bloom's work or anyone else, it's just a different way of looking at it. Its the differences in opinion that often help you come to stronger decisions.

I appreciate Matt's hard work studying the tape. It takes a lot of time. Projecting rookies before the draft is very difficult, especially projecting/rating so many players. On Spiller, I do think he will be productive, but I have a tough time thinking he will be primary ball carrier as many believe. In fact, I think the drafting of Spiller makes Fred Jackson (and possibly Lynch) a great value in fantasy drafts. I expect Spiller to contribute in so many ways (returns, receiving, and rushing) just due to the innovation of Chan Gailey. Gailey is great at utilizing talent, but it may not translate to fantasy success.

 

[Matt Waldman]

There is not one team/analyst that has been right on every player, or has ranked the players properly. It is easy to discredit someone by saying "Well Buffalo took him in the 1st round" or "Mike Maycok said", or "I will take a gm's analysis over yours". And it is very annoying.Many sites just rehash what they hear about a player. The great thing about Waldman, and Bloom, and several posters on this site is that they actually watch the games, and they break down plays. I want to get as much info on a player as possible, but not from websites, not from most college announcers who have no idea what is going on. I want people to tell me something about a player based on what they see on tape. Saying, "Tim Tebow will stink because he is a product of the system" does nothing for me. Saying, "Tim Tebow will stink because it takes him5 seconds to get off a pass, and he locks on one receiver and does not go through his progressions based on the what I have seen" does.I might not agree with all of their rankings, but at least they are actually watching the guys play, and breaking down the games.

Exactly - and we're all going to have differences in how we value things. One of us might value certain type of athleticism over certain types of technique. I try to go through the pains of showing how I weight everything in my scoring so you can do some of your own thinking. For example if you think I'm wrong about Spiller's vision, you can take the points I deducted and add them back to that score to see what his grade would have been if I saw what you saw (and it turns out you were right).

 

[moderated]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.

Andre Roberts

Aaron Hernandez

Anthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)

The above guys might get one shot to show what they can do, if they don't produce they aren't even in the NFL down the road. Spiller will get multiple times to show what he can do even if he starts slow, plus he has been highly regarded since coming out of high school (5 star recruit) and produced in college as well.

Dismissing Spiller because McFadden hasn't produced is fine to a degree, but not to the degree where it makes sense to rank scrubs ahead of him.

Also even though McFadden has performed as poorly as anyone could have imagined he still holds value, so even if the worst case scenario happens to Spiller he'll still have value.

with all due respect, ranking those guys above Spiller makes absolutely no sense. It's a good attention grabbing ranking which is probably the intention, but the logic used to back it up has been suspect at best.

Taking the high pedigree comparisons (Bush/4.24/McFadden/Felix Jones) and selectively picking the worst possible one to compare him to is cherry picking at its best and negligent at its worst.

But to each their own, if people seriously want to give credence to that kind of off the wall ranking/logic then be my guest.

 

[nlgb1]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)The above guys might get one shot to show what they can do, if they don't produce they aren't even in the NFL down the road. Spiller will get multiple times to show what he can do even if he starts slow, plus he has been highly regarded since coming out of high school (5 star recruit) and produced in college as well.Dismissing Spiller because McFadden hasn't produced is fine to a degree, but not to the degree where it makes sense to rank scrubs ahead of him.Also even though McFadden has performed as poorly as anyone could have imagined he still holds value, so even if the worst case scenario happens to Spiller he'll still have value.with all due respect, ranking those guys above Spiller makes absolutely no sense. It's a good attention grabbing ranking which is probably the intention, but the logic used to back it up has been suspect at best.Taking the high pedigree comparisons (Bush/4.24/McFadden/Felix Jones) and selectively picking the worst possible one to compare him to is cherry picking at its best and negligent at its worst.But to each their own, if people seriously want to give credence to that kind of off the wall ranking/logic then be my guest.

watch hours of game tape, then maybe people will give credence to your kind of "off the wall rankings/logic". criticizing someone for having a unique opinion is just rediculous

 

[moderated]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)The above guys might get one shot to show what they can do, if they don't produce they aren't even in the NFL down the road. Spiller will get multiple times to show what he can do even if he starts slow, plus he has been highly regarded since coming out of high school (5 star recruit) and produced in college as well.Dismissing Spiller because McFadden hasn't produced is fine to a degree, but not to the degree where it makes sense to rank scrubs ahead of him.Also even though McFadden has performed as poorly as anyone could have imagined he still holds value, so even if the worst case scenario happens to Spiller he'll still have value.with all due respect, ranking those guys above Spiller makes absolutely no sense. It's a good attention grabbing ranking which is probably the intention, but the logic used to back it up has been suspect at best.Taking the high pedigree comparisons (Bush/4.24/McFadden/Felix Jones) and selectively picking the worst possible one to compare him to is cherry picking at its best and negligent at its worst.But to each their own, if people seriously want to give credence to that kind of off the wall ranking/logic then be my guest.

watch hours of game tape, then maybe people will give credence to your kind of "off the wall rankings/logic". criticizing someone for having a unique opinion is just rediculous

i think Matt knows a lot about football, much more then me, but when one has a view that is so far off the wall from the pros (NFL front offices), to not re-evaluate that view is a bit foolish.Going so far off the wall as to suggest a 6th round pick (Dixon) has a better chance to pan out then a top 10 pick (Spiller) just doesn't make sense, but then again i've had discussions with otherwise intelligent people who insisted they would rather have a pair of 2's then aces in poker because they always lose with aces.He is in the public eye, so it might make sense to make some outlandish predictions and then if it pans out bump the thread to show the genius. And if it ends up going down as ridiculous which it most likely will it will all be forgotten and fade into the sunset.It's a hero call in a sense without much downside since no one will remember when the guys ranked ahead of Spiller are riding the pine or bagging groceries.

 

[EBF]

I like reading Matt's stuff and I respect his opinion. On the other hand, I do think he has a tendency to get a little carried away with players that he has a strong reaction to, either positively or negatively.

Draft position is far and away the best indicator of a player's chances of success. For example, a random first round pick has roughly a 30-40% chance of becoming a quality NFL starter whereas a random 5th-7th round pick might have a ~5% chance of doing the same. When you rank a 5th-7th round talent over a 1st or 2nd round guy, you're betting against the odds. As is the case in Vegas, you might win one or two bets against the house, but if you make a habit of getting your money in bad, you'll eventually go broke.

Having a guy like Demaryius Thomas rated below guys like Riley Cooper and Blair White doesn't really jive for me. One was a first round pick and the first player chosen at his position. The others will be lucky to even make an NFL roster. Matt has several of these "statement" rankings. I don't doubt that some of them will end up being great calls in the long run, but placing so many bets against the house virtually ensures that you'll be wrong more than you're right.

When I read anyone's stuff, I like to look at areas where their opinions strongly differ from the consensus. Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I don't. Either way, it's nice to get a different perspective outside of the company line. Not many people have the courage to rank Spiller outside the top 5 RBs. That's something I can respect, even if I don't agree with every bold call (or even most of them).

 

[munchkin]

Matt in your RSP, you gave Mike Williams an overall score of 53, but there is a lot of hype building around this guy as evidenced in this thread WR Mike Williams, the new Tampa Bay WR -- not BMW Is this hype justified, or simply fantasy footballers looking for a sleeper to get excited about? Any thoughts or insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

The talent is there, but like Cornelius Ingram, who I gave a low grade to last year, its mostly about how well he maximizes it. My take in the RSP is pretty much how I feel now:He's talented. He could be a big-time player, but his issues make him a boom-bust player. This is very similar to the start of Antonio Bryant's career. He has never been a guy you could rely on year after year. Only in the past two years has he gotten his head together. Combined with inconsistency that often stems from poor effort, he's a swing for the fences guy. If you want to take the chance on him, great. I'd rather have Benn and I think Stroughter has a better track record to outwork a guy like Williams. I just happen to approach guys like Williams and Ingram with extreme caution because if you don't show the effort in college football, it's not a good sign when it really gets hard.

The advantage to taking a player like Williams (in a League with smaller rosters) is that you should know pretty quickly whether you can cut him and move on to another player; if you get his upside, great, if not he is not chewing up a valuable roster spot. Personally, I'd rather have one or two William's on my roster than a similar number of Austin Collie's, particularly in a non-PPR League. I am not saying that Collie doesn't have nice value but he likely will never have great value. Players like he and Cotchery certainly take on greater value in start three WR/flex leagues but in a standard scoring League starting two WR's they are nice depth but nothing more. (In standard scoring Leagues Collie had two really nice games, weeks 5 qnd 15.)If a Williams pans out great, if not, you can move on and rotate that roster spot to fill a need. Matt, I agree drafting Benn in a similar position on the board to Williams makes the most sense but particularly in smaller leagues I feel you have to take a couple of shots on upside guys.

 

[lyon812]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)The above guys might get one shot to show what they can do, if they don't produce they aren't even in the NFL down the road. Spiller will get multiple times to show what he can do even if he starts slow, plus he has been highly regarded since coming out of high school (5 star recruit) and produced in college as well.

Hernandez a "scrub journeyman"? Heh. While I can understand being a little sour on Dixon, if Hernandez and Roberts had gone to more favorable situations, they'd be ranked fairly highly. If Gronk hadn't been picked up by the Patriots, Hernandez would have a strong argument as the top TE drafted at the end of the first round. If Roberts was in Tampa, he might be everyone's favorite early second-round pick to outperform Benn. Neither of them look to be "one shot to show what they can do" talents. Regardless, the point is that if you're projecting fantasy value, and feel Spiller isn't going to amount to anything more than Reggie Bush in fantasy terms, then why wouldn't he be ranked low?

 

[Matt Waldman]

I can see why some may think I'm trying to make a statement in some way, but I'm not. While I definitely enjoy positive feedback and the opportunities to talk and write about football that come with it, I do this because I love learning about the game. If you knew me, you'd know the idea of me being a genius is pretty hilarious. I just work hard and this process is a way for me to learn. Sure I get paid, but if it were my only job I'd be in a heap of trouble. In essence, I think you guys are way overanalyzing my motivations and I think the cynicism of me trying to market it this way while understandable in today's world, is a little sad. But I think it comes from misunderstanding the process I take. What I do its too meticulous to adjust because of some marketing strategy. What's funny to me is that if I didn't look at the scoring carefully and see what opportunities each player had to reasonably improve his grade and incorporate those possible points into his ranking, I probably would have had Spiller ranked even lower.

I don't spend thousands of hours watching games, slowing things down, rewinding, and writing down as much as I can to support what I see only to play the odds or make some outlandish pick. I create this publication before the draft and I have no idea what round these guys are going to go, so the idea of adjusting my ranking based on word on the street eliminates the integrity of the process. Making that kind of adjustment without good reasons, reasons that I cannot see from the game or from some information that has game examples would be foolish.

I would additionally counter that it's foolish to think I should try to re-evaluate my rankings based on what the NFL thinks if the NFL doesn't provide anything to show their grade or support it so I can re-evaluate. I would also argue that while the odds might help with predicting success based on round, why would I simply overlook what I watch with my own two eyes based on round? What do I learn from that? What does a reader of my publication learn from it?

The last thing I want to say is that I appreciate the level of respect used even in the severest criticism in this thread. It has helped me find something I can do to improve the RSP next year:

Create a section that explains in better detail how to use the rankings. Knowing that I rank these players prior to the draft, I though it would be more intuitive for me readers to look at the rankings and make adjustments based on draft position. If I have someone ranked low who is draft high, it means I think he has more downside than his status suggests. If I have a player ranked higher than his draft status, then he's worth considering as an undervalued guy. Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

 

[Balco]

I don't spend thousands of hours watching games, slowing things down, rewinding, and writing down as much as I can to support what I see only to play the odds or make some outlandish pick. I create this publication before the draft and I have no idea what round these guys are going to go, so the idea of adjusting my ranking based on word on the street eliminates the integrity of the process. Making that kind of adjustment without good reasons, reasons that I cannot see from the game or from some information that has game examples would be foolish.I would additionally counter that it's foolish to think I should try to re-evaluate my rankings based on what the NFL thinks if the NFL doesn't provide anything to show their grade or support it so I can re-evaluate. I would also argue that while the odds might help with predicting success based on round, why would I simply overlook what I watch with my own two eyes based on round? What do I learn from that? What does a reader of my publication learn from it?

I think some might not have known the first paragraph. And I completely agree with the 2nd paragraph. You watch games with your eyes, you are not basing your rankings on what others say, but what you see. Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?Like I said, I disagree with some of your picks, (Thomas specifically) but not the way you determined your rankings. I haven't posted many of my game breakdowns, but when I have, I get the same responses if I have a differing opinion on a "marquee" player (i.e. I thought Louis Murphy looked better than Percy Harvin as a receiver, and that Brandon Spikes, Duke Robinson, and Lagarette Blount did not look particularly well).

 

[az_prof]

First, there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's rankings, as long as you have something to contribute beyond "but he was drafted in the x round". Matt has some outlier predictions, as does EBF (Dwyer). While the odds of Dixon or Dwyer becoming superstars is slim based on draft position, neither of them knew where those players would be drafted when they did their initial rankings. I am sure both would acknowledge that the odds that those players will become superstars now are not as large as they thought before, but this is where such rankings can be useful. I wouldn't draft either guy in the first round but when I get to the end of the second or third round of my rookie draft I MIGHT look at some of their outlier predictions, then look at some tape of the players myself, and decide if I see the same potential. If I do, I could snag a great sleeper.

The truth is that if you were to look at the draft board of every NFL team you would find a handful of these outlier rankings. When the Vikings took TJax in the second round a few years ago it surprised a lot of people because most thought they could get him later. But they saw franchise QB talent in him and worried that if they waited and if just one other team felt the same, they might lose him. Most people feel the same about Denver drafting Tebow so high this year, especially with Clausen still on the board.

If you want to be safe you COULD just create your cheat sheet based on where players were drafted in the NFL draft. That would be safe. But you will miss out on a lot of great players that way. The NFL draft is not the Bible.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I don't spend thousands of hours watching games, slowing things down, rewinding, and writing down as much as I can to support what I see only to play the odds or make some outlandish pick. I create this publication before the draft and I have no idea what round these guys are going to go, so the idea of adjusting my ranking based on word on the street eliminates the integrity of the process. Making that kind of adjustment without good reasons, reasons that I cannot see from the game or from some information that has game examples would be foolish.I would additionally counter that it's foolish to think I should try to re-evaluate my rankings based on what the NFL thinks if the NFL doesn't provide anything to show their grade or support it so I can re-evaluate. I would also argue that while the odds might help with predicting success based on round, why would I simply overlook what I watch with my own two eyes based on round? What do I learn from that? What does a reader of my publication learn from it?

I think some might not have known the first paragraph. And I completely agree with the 2nd paragraph. You watch games with your eyes, you are not basing your rankings on what others say, but what you see. Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?Like I said, I disagree with some of your picks, (Thomas specifically) but not the way you determined your rankings. I haven't posted many of my game breakdowns, but when I have, I get the same responses if I have a differing opinion on a "marquee" player (i.e. I thought Louis Murphy looked better than Percy Harvin as a receiver, and that Brandon Spikes, Duke Robinson, and Lagarette Blount did not look particularly well).

You're so right, it comes with the territory. It doesn't anger me that people criticize the picks. That's the fun of the draft, people making picks, etc. I just equally enjoy the opportunity to defend/explain how I do it. I completely understand anyone disagreeing with them.

 

[werdnoynek]

I think some of us forget that no one (that I'm aware of) can see into the future. While you have a right to your opinion, saying some one's rankings and evaluations are ridiculous is ridiculous. There's no right or wrong. Waldman doesn't need to explain himself, its all in the RSP, if you don't agree with it stick to your own evaluations. No one knows how these kids are going to pan out. His guess is as good as yours. I just don't really see a point to posting the "ridiculousness" of someone's opinions because they're just opinions. So he doesn't like spiller... so what. I don't like carrots.

 

[bigern1000]

I can see why some may think I'm trying to make a statement in some way, but I'm not. While I definitely enjoy positive feedback and the opportunities to talk and write about football that come with it, I do this because I love learning about the game. If you knew me, you'd know the idea of me being a genius is pretty hilarious. I just work hard and this process is a way for me to learn. Sure I get paid, but if it were my only job I'd be in a heap of trouble. In essence, I think you guys are way overanalyzing my motivations and I think the cynicism of me trying to market it this way while understandable in today's world, is a little sad. But I think it comes from misunderstanding the process I take. What I do its too meticulous to adjust because of some marketing strategy. What's funny to me is that if I didn't look at the scoring carefully and see what opportunities each player had to reasonably improve his grade and incorporate those possible points into his ranking, I probably would have had Spiller ranked even lower. I don't spend thousands of hours watching games, slowing things down, rewinding, and writing down as much as I can to support what I see only to play the odds or make some outlandish pick. I create this publication before the draft and I have no idea what round these guys are going to go, so the idea of adjusting my ranking based on word on the street eliminates the integrity of the process. Making that kind of adjustment without good reasons, reasons that I cannot see from the game or from some information that has game examples would be foolish.I would additionally counter that it's foolish to think I should try to re-evaluate my rankings based on what the NFL thinks if the NFL doesn't provide anything to show their grade or support it so I can re-evaluate. I would also argue that while the odds might help with predicting success based on round, why would I simply overlook what I watch with my own two eyes based on round? What do I learn from that? What does a reader of my publication learn from it? The last thing I want to say is that I appreciate the level of respect used even in the severest criticism in this thread. It has helped me find something I can do to improve the RSP next year: Create a section that explains in better detail how to use the rankings. Knowing that I rank these players prior to the draft, I though it would be more intuitive for me readers to look at the rankings and make adjustments based on draft position. If I have someone ranked low who is draft high, it means I think he has more downside than his status suggests. If I have a player ranked higher than his draft status, then he's worth considering as an undervalued guy. Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

For someone like myself, who is in the initial stages of learning and evaluating collegiate talent for the large amount of Dynasties I have gotten involved with over the last couple of years, being able to take time to sit down and digest the information provided in the RSP is as much of an educational experience as I can give to myself. In conjunction with that, I am constantly reading through and also evaluating opinions of folks like EBF, Bloom, and many others who are able to take that same amount of time and effort, and formulating my own opinions based on that information. I'm probably one of the low men on the totem pole here in my knowledge and ability to evaluate, so I rely on the points and counterpoints brought up by everyone here to really make this the best experience I can.I can somewhat find a similar mindset in my ability to evaluate talent in a much less popular mainstream sport, bowling. I've been a coach for over 20 years and have helped groom a lot of bowlers who have gone on to much more success that I could have ever imagined. When I look a a bowler for the first time, and watch him/her throw a number of shots, I can come up with an opinion of their level of talent and their ability to be able to success on a variety of lane conditions, with different types of equipment, and also their mental makeup as to how I see them make adjustments, shoot spares, react to bad breaks and errant shots, etc. However, I know that perhaps some of those opinions are going to be looked at with a little bit of disdain by other bowlers and coaches, and I can very easily take in those opinions to see how my thoughts lie. In a very similar fashion, Matt is going to be spot on in a great deal of circumstances, but even he will admit that there are some players that he might not have the correct opinion on. So guys, keep it all coming. It's a great educational experience for me and everyone's takes on players I definitely take in an absorb in order to become as great a talent evaluator as I can be...

 

[Matt Waldman]

First, there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's rankings, as long as you have something to contribute beyond "but he was drafted in the x round". Matt has some outlier predictions, as does EBF (Dwyer). While the odds of Dixon or Dwyer becoming superstars is slim based on draft position, neither of them knew where those players would be drafted when they did their initial rankings. I am sure both would acknowledge that the odds that those players will become superstars now are not as large as they thought before, but this is where such rankings can be useful. I wouldn't draft either guy in the first round but when I get to the end of the second or third round of my rookie draft I MIGHT look at some of their outlier predictions, then look at some tape of the players myself, and decide if I see the same potential. If I do, I could snag a great sleeper. The truth is that if you were to look at the draft board of every NFL team you would find a handful of these outlier rankings. When the Vikings took TJax in the second round a few years ago it surprised a lot of people because most thought they could get him later. But they saw franchise QB talent in him and worried that if they waited and if just one other team felt the same, they might lose him. Most people feel the same about Denver drafting Tebow so high this year, especially with Clausen still on the board. If you want to be safe you COULD just create your cheat sheet based on where players were drafted in the NFL draft. That would be safe. But you will miss out on a lot of great players that way. The NFL draft is not the Bible.

Russ Lande, former scout and frequent guest on the Audible who does work for The Sporting News and has his own publication has outlier players. He had higher rankings for Bulger and Brady than the group-think. He also has Jonathan Crompton much higher than the group-think and realized it would be the case but his reasonings are very good regardless of whether I agree with him. Lande also tells a great story about how scouts had Anquan Boldin as a top-3 player in the draft until he ran a slow 40 time and they dropped his grade by a few rounds! I asked him about Cedric Peerman as well. he said he liked Peerman but didn't get a chance to learn why he didn't catch on initially other than the logjam in Baltimore and the turmoil in Cleveland. Speaking of Peerman, I buy the Sporting News after I finish the RSP and Peerman was actually rated as the 4th back on their list.

 

[moderated]

Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

I read the whole post and respect your views but quoted the above because this is kind of the crux of my issue.I understand you think Dixon is better value relative to where you can draft him vs spiller which makes sense, but as you said you wouldn't draft Dixon over spiller, therefore he shouldn't be ranked above spiller in your fbg rookie rankings on the site.For example if you were in a no trade league and it was your pick would you really take Dixon/Hernandez/or Roberts over spiller?

 

[nlgb1]

any thoughts on andre roberts? from the few clips ive seen, his hands/size/quickness/rac ability remind me a ton of greg jennings.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

I read the whole post and respect your views but quoted the above because this is kind of the crux of my issue.I understand you think Dixon is better value relative to where you can draft him vs spiller which makes sense, but as you said you wouldn't draft Dixon over spiller, therefore he shouldn't be ranked above spiller in your fbg rookie rankings on the site.For example if you were in a no trade league and it was your pick would you really take Dixon/Hernandez/or Roberts over spiller?

You're taking what I said a bit out of context. I wouldn't draft Dixon over Spiller when I know that I value Dixon more than the consensus and take advantage of that fact. In a league where I know that Spiller is rated higher, why would I not milk Dixon's value if I think he's going to be a better player over time? That's just not good drafting. Since I like Hernandez, Dixon, and Roberts, drafting Spiller because that's his ADP doesn't make sense. I'd rather trade down, get more picks and get who I value or draft Spiller and trade him for more picks.In a no trade league, I'd take those three players over Spiller if there were no trades allowed at all because I believe I'd rather take a guy that I think has a future as the next Dallas Clark or Hines Ward than a B-level Reggie Bush.

 

[moderated]

Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?

Because that gives you more information about a player and one should always be willing to adjust their opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info.These NFL scouts miss, but far less then you or I would. They have access to far more then we the general public do. They have basically seen every play of most of these guys and are paid for their ability to evaluate talent and how it will translate to the NFL.Not using that information doesn't make much sense.

 

[Matt Waldman]

any thoughts on andre roberts? from the few clips ive seen, his hands/size/quickness/rac ability remind me a ton of greg jennings.

That's the player I've compared him to. We'll see if he adjusts quickly in camp. I never anticipate any player to do that though, especially the way the NFL likes to see if their bigger investments work out within a reasonable amount of time. Doucet's allotted time is still reasonable. Breaston has looked good enough to still be in favor. Roberts will probably earn time as a No.4 and return specialist. If Doucet/Breaston struggle or get hurt, Roberts has the talent to push for more time. I expect his development to be like the average starting receiver: take 2-4 years to fully mature and the team to embrace his skills.

 

[Balco]

Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?

Because that gives you more information about a player and one should always be willing to adjust their opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info.These NFL scouts miss, but far less then you or I would. They have access to far more then we the general public do. They have basically seen every play of most of these guys and are paid for their ability to evaluate talent and how it will translate to the NFL.

Not using that information doesn't make much sense.

Don't you think that is debateable? I don't care where a player goes. Like Matt just said, it just means that I will trade down for the players I like.

 

[moderated]

Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

I read the whole post and respect your views but quoted the above because this is kind of the crux of my issue.I understand you think Dixon is better value relative to where you can draft him vs spiller which makes sense, but as you said you wouldn't draft Dixon over spiller, therefore he shouldn't be ranked above spiller in your fbg rookie rankings on the site.For example if you were in a no trade league and it was your pick would you really take Dixon/Hernandez/or Roberts over spiller?

You're taking what I said a bit out of context. I wouldn't draft Dixon over Spiller when I know that I value Dixon more than the consensus and take advantage of that fact. In a league where I know that Spiller is rated higher, why would I not milk Dixon's value if I think he's going to be a better player over time? That's just not good drafting. Since I like Hernandez, Dixon, and Roberts, drafting Spiller because that's his ADP doesn't make sense. I'd rather trade down, get more picks and get who I value or draft Spiller and trade him for more picks.In a no trade league, I'd take those three players over Spiller if there were no trades allowed at all because I believe I'd rather take a guy that I think has a future as the next Dallas Clark or Hines Ward than a B-level Reggie Bush.

Fair enough, not sure why you've already resigned spiller to the worst possible outcome in his range, but I think you have to consider the possibility you might be wrong on him.If his high range is 4.24 and his low range McFadden I think you have to place him somewhere in the middle, to just automatically assume he's the low range is a bit presumptuous.

 

[nlgb1]

Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

I read the whole post and respect your views but quoted the above because this is kind of the crux of my issue.I understand you think Dixon is better value relative to where you can draft him vs spiller which makes sense, but as you said you wouldn't draft Dixon over spiller, therefore he shouldn't be ranked above spiller in your fbg rookie rankings on the site.For example if you were in a no trade league and it was your pick would you really take Dixon/Hernandez/or Roberts over spiller?

You're taking what I said a bit out of context. I wouldn't draft Dixon over Spiller when I know that I value Dixon more than the consensus and take advantage of that fact. In a league where I know that Spiller is rated higher, why would I not milk Dixon's value if I think he's going to be a better player over time? That's just not good drafting. Since I like Hernandez, Dixon, and Roberts, drafting Spiller because that's his ADP doesn't make sense. I'd rather trade down, get more picks and get who I value or draft Spiller and trade him for more picks.In a no trade league, I'd take those three players over Spiller if there were no trades allowed at all because I believe I'd rather take a guy that I think has a future as the next Dallas Clark or Hines Ward than a B-level Reggie Bush.

Fair enough, not sure why you've already resigned spiller to the worst possible outcome in his range, but I think you have to consider the possibility you might be wrong on him.If his high range is 4.24 and his low range McFadden I think you have to place him somewhere in the middle, to just automatically assume he's the low range is a bit presumptuous.

jeez dude, just accept the fact that his opinion is different than yours

 

[Balco]

And just for the record, I really like Spiller. I think talent wise, he is the best back in the class.

 

[nlgb1]

any thoughts on andre roberts? from the few clips ive seen, his hands/size/quickness/rac ability remind me a ton of greg jennings.

That's the player I've compared him to. We'll see if he adjusts quickly in camp. I never anticipate any player to do that though, especially the way the NFL likes to see if their bigger investments work out within a reasonable amount of time. Doucet's allotted time is still reasonable. Breaston has looked good enough to still be in favor. Roberts will probably earn time as a No.4 and return specialist. If Doucet/Breaston struggle or get hurt, Roberts has the talent to push for more time. I expect his development to be like the average starting receiver: take 2-4 years to fully mature and the team to embrace his skills.

i agree, with dynasty rookie drafts i tend to draft solely on a players ability/character. "good situations" are fools gold, and the cream usually rises to the top IMO

 

[Matt Waldman]

Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?

Because that gives you more information about a player and one should always be willing to adjust their opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info.These NFL scouts miss, but far less then you or I would. They have access to far more then we the general public do. They have basically seen every play of most of these guys and are paid for their ability to evaluate talent and how it will translate to the NFL.Not using that information doesn't make much sense.

Moderated, this might be the crux of the problem. Do you know a scout? Do you know exactly what scouts do? Have you ever even listened to former scout Daniel Jeremiah's podcasts? Scouts do not watch every play. They watch samples of plays. They also have subjective criteria that differs from team to team, scout to scout. How do I know this? I have talked with former scouts, listened to former scouts explain the process to the general public, and talked with people who rate NFL players for a living as freelancers who also have spoken to scouts. Just like any industry, some scouts are excellent at what they do. Some are hacks. This industry doesn't even have a basic qualifying method to say they have a minimum baseline of knowledge so in this case its not even as well trained as other industries. The point you keep hammering home that I disagree with is the "why not adjust opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info," is that I'm not going to go back and spend two months re-evaluating a half a dozen or so players for the RSP after the draft and re-adjust. What info am I getting? That the some unnamed scout who doesn't provide his work to the public says he has a 1st round grade? The RSP is a snapshot. Plus, you're smart enough to make those adjustments yourself and realize what I provide is a pre-draft snap shot. My rankings at FBGs will change as we get more news and opportunities to see that player develop. The point of the RSP is to the show the work and rank based on it. I don't hear you disagreeing with my low ranking of McFadden from a few years ago although he was an equally high-rated guy that I rated lower than most. I know for a fact this situation is the same as Spiller's and therefore you would have to make the same argument with me that McFadden's low ranking would have been equally ridiculous.

 

[Balco]

any thoughts on andre roberts? from the few clips ive seen, his hands/size/quickness/rac ability remind me a ton of greg jennings.

That's the player I've compared him to. We'll see if he adjusts quickly in camp. I never anticipate any player to do that though, especially the way the NFL likes to see if their bigger investments work out within a reasonable amount of time. Doucet's allotted time is still reasonable. Breaston has looked good enough to still be in favor. Roberts will probably earn time as a No.4 and return specialist. If Doucet/Breaston struggle or get hurt, Roberts has the talent to push for more time. I expect his development to be like the average starting receiver: take 2-4 years to fully mature and the team to embrace his skills.

i agree, with dynasty rookie drafts i tend to draft solely on a players ability/character. "good situations" are fools gold, and the cream usually rises to the top IMO

Only way to draft, IMO. Talent should take precedent over opportunity, because talent wins out in the end. Everyone gets an opportunity, some just have to wait a little longer. Roberts is a nice prospect who can be had pretty late in rookie drafts.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Would I draft Anthony Dixon above Spiller? No. But I would consider other position players over Spiller and then wait to get Dixon at a reasonable value.

I read the whole post and respect your views but quoted the above because this is kind of the crux of my issue.I understand you think Dixon is better value relative to where you can draft him vs spiller which makes sense, but as you said you wouldn't draft Dixon over spiller, therefore he shouldn't be ranked above spiller in your fbg rookie rankings on the site.For example if you were in a no trade league and it was your pick would you really take Dixon/Hernandez/or Roberts over spiller?

You're taking what I said a bit out of context. I wouldn't draft Dixon over Spiller when I know that I value Dixon more than the consensus and take advantage of that fact. In a league where I know that Spiller is rated higher, why would I not milk Dixon's value if I think he's going to be a better player over time? That's just not good drafting. Since I like Hernandez, Dixon, and Roberts, drafting Spiller because that's his ADP doesn't make sense. I'd rather trade down, get more picks and get who I value or draft Spiller and trade him for more picks.In a no trade league, I'd take those three players over Spiller if there were no trades allowed at all because I believe I'd rather take a guy that I think has a future as the next Dallas Clark or Hines Ward than a B-level Reggie Bush.

Fair enough, not sure why you've already resigned spiller to the worst possible outcome in his range, but I think you have to consider the possibility you might be wrong on him.If his high range is 4.24 and his low range McFadden I think you have to place him somewhere in the middle, to just automatically assume he's the low range is a bit presumptuous.

What range are you talking about with 4.24? 40-time? There's far more to rating a back than 40-time. I think you need to re-read what I've been talking about here. I haven't resigned Spiller to the lowest possible range, I just think other backs have more NFL upside, which puts Spiller lower on the list. He's still scored with a number that shows he's at this point an RBBC back. I think you're assuming far more about what I'm doing than what's being said. For example, if you think player A is good, but his upside number is lower than two other players, then why would that be the "worst possible outcome?" If I rated Spiller based on his worse possible score, he'd probably be 5-10 spots lower. I think you need to understand that I consider the possibility that I might be wrong with any player. However, why should I think I'm wrong about a player at this stage? Because NFL scouts who don't publish their work and have different levels of training depending on the team and their experience? I don't think so. I'd rather wait a few years and stick to the integrity of my process and adjust from there.

 

[gheemony]

Could those critiquing Matt's evaluation start by stating whether they have read the RSP 2010 and past RSPs? Some of the comments suggest that the poster hasn't looked at the RSP. Your criticisms are more credible if you do.

 

[moderated]

Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?

Because that gives you more information about a player and one should always be willing to adjust their opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info.These NFL scouts miss, but far less then you or I would. They have access to far more then we the general public do. They have basically seen every play of most of these guys and are paid for their ability to evaluate talent and how it will translate to the NFL.Not using that information doesn't make much sense.

Moderated, this might be the crux of the problem. Do you know a scout? Do you know exactly what scouts do? Have you ever even listened to former scout Daniel Jeremiah's podcasts? Scouts do not watch every play. They watch samples of plays. They also have subjective criteria that differs from team to team, scout to scout. How do I know this? I have talked with former scouts, listened to former scouts explain the process to the general public, and talked with people who rate NFL players for a living as freelancers who also have spoken to scouts. Just like any industry, some scouts are excellent at what they do. Some are hacks. This industry doesn't even have a basic qualifying method to say they have a minimum baseline of knowledge so in this case its not even as well trained as other industries. The point you keep hammering home that I disagree with is the "why not adjust opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info," is that I'm not going to go back and spend two months re-evaluating a half a dozen or so players for the RSP after the draft and re-adjust. What info am I getting? That the some unnamed scout who doesn't provide his work to the public says he has a 1st round grade? The RSP is a snapshot. Plus, you're smart enough to make those adjustments yourself and realize what I provide is a pre-draft snap shot. My rankings at FBGs will change as we get more news and opportunities to see that player develop. The point of the RSP is to the show the work and rank based on it. I don't hear you disagreeing with my low ranking of McFadden from a few years ago although he was an equally high-rated guy that I rated lower than most. I know for a fact this situation is the same as Spiller's and therefore you would have to make the same argument with me that McFadden's low ranking would have been equally ridiculous.

i know zero scouts, i get a good idea of what they were thinking based on where they draft players in the NFL draft.yes, i am a draft position fan, i think it is the best way to predict future performance. if someone disagrees with that then i guess there is no way to see eye to eye.you definitely know the prospects better then me and understand how to evaluate them better. At the same time i think the nfl scouts probably know better. i take your word that they don't see every play, but they do have access to more information then any of us not directly involved with nfl teams.When it is widely accepted that spiller was the top RB prospect by almost all draft analysts and was backed up by him going in the top 10 i take notice. Yes it's an inexact science and there are many misses, but that doesn't mean they don't know the process of evaluating better then most.If Dixon ends up being better then Spiller then i will officially give up my title of Nostradamus of FF to you. i doubt that scenario will play out but if so I will remove my self proclaimed title from my sig.

 

[gheemony]

If the scouts are so smart, why did McFadden go 4th and Pierre Thomas in the 6th round? Why can't Matt be right that Spiller is McFadden and Dixon is Pierre Thomas? Either of you may be right or wrong, but to say the other is ridiculous because they disagree is, well, ridiculous.

 

[moderated]

If the scouts are so smart, why did McFadden go 4th and Pierre Thomas in the 6th round? Why can't Matt be right that Spiller is McFadden and Dixon is Pierre Thomas? Either of you may be right or wrong, but to say the other is ridiculous because they disagree is, well, ridiculous.

why can't a pair of 2's beat a pair of aces?They can, but betting on them at even money is a bad move.i'd rather bet on the favorite, and in the long run i guarantee betting on the 1st round picks over the later round picks will prevail.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?

Because that gives you more information about a player and one should always be willing to adjust their opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info.These NFL scouts miss, but far less then you or I would. They have access to far more then we the general public do. They have basically seen every play of most of these guys and are paid for their ability to evaluate talent and how it will translate to the NFL.Not using that information doesn't make much sense.

Moderated, this might be the crux of the problem. Do you know a scout? Do you know exactly what scouts do? Have you ever even listened to former scout Daniel Jeremiah's podcasts? Scouts do not watch every play. They watch samples of plays. They also have subjective criteria that differs from team to team, scout to scout. How do I know this? I have talked with former scouts, listened to former scouts explain the process to the general public, and talked with people who rate NFL players for a living as freelancers who also have spoken to scouts. Just like any industry, some scouts are excellent at what they do. Some are hacks. This industry doesn't even have a basic qualifying method to say they have a minimum baseline of knowledge so in this case its not even as well trained as other industries. The point you keep hammering home that I disagree with is the "why not adjust opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info," is that I'm not going to go back and spend two months re-evaluating a half a dozen or so players for the RSP after the draft and re-adjust. What info am I getting? That the some unnamed scout who doesn't provide his work to the public says he has a 1st round grade? The RSP is a snapshot. Plus, you're smart enough to make those adjustments yourself and realize what I provide is a pre-draft snap shot. My rankings at FBGs will change as we get more news and opportunities to see that player develop. The point of the RSP is to the show the work and rank based on it. I don't hear you disagreeing with my low ranking of McFadden from a few years ago although he was an equally high-rated guy that I rated lower than most. I know for a fact this situation is the same as Spiller's and therefore you would have to make the same argument with me that McFadden's low ranking would have been equally ridiculous.

i know zero scouts, i get a good idea of what they were thinking based on where they draft players in the NFL draft.yes, i am a draft position fan, i think it is the best way to predict future performance. if someone disagrees with that then i guess there is no way to see eye to eye.you definitely know the prospects better then me and understand how to evaluate them better. At the same time i think the nfl scouts probably know better. i take your word that they don't see every play, but they do have access to more information then any of us not directly involved with nfl teams.When it is widely accepted that spiller was the top RB prospect by almost all draft analysts and was backed up by him going in the top 10 i take notice. Yes it's an inexact science and there are many misses, but that doesn't mean they don't know the process of evaluating better then most.If Dixon ends up being better then Spiller then i will officially give up my title of Nostradamus of FF to you. i doubt that scenario will play out but if so I will remove my self proclaimed title from my sig.

Keep the sig even if I turn out to be correct. I think the most satisfying thing is that we've established that you are a draft position fan and play the odds and I prefer to learn as much as I can about the players and share what I can. Good discussion through.

 

[Unwrittenlaw]

Matt: Do you believe Spiller's stock was raised partly because of his special teams abilities? which won't be helpful at all in most FF leagues?

 

[moderated]

Matt: Do you believe Spiller's stock was raised partly because of his special teams abilities? which won't be helpful at all in most FF leagues?

it definitely boosted his draft position, but even without ST ability he would have been a 1st round pick, it isn't like it boosted his stock by a whole round or two.

 

[moderated]

Why would you change your mind after seeing where a team takes a player?

Because that gives you more information about a player and one should always be willing to adjust their opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info.These NFL scouts miss, but far less then you or I would. They have access to far more then we the general public do. They have basically seen every play of most of these guys and are paid for their ability to evaluate talent and how it will translate to the NFL.Not using that information doesn't make much sense.

Moderated, this might be the crux of the problem. Do you know a scout? Do you know exactly what scouts do? Have you ever even listened to former scout Daniel Jeremiah's podcasts? Scouts do not watch every play. They watch samples of plays. They also have subjective criteria that differs from team to team, scout to scout. How do I know this? I have talked with former scouts, listened to former scouts explain the process to the general public, and talked with people who rate NFL players for a living as freelancers who also have spoken to scouts. Just like any industry, some scouts are excellent at what they do. Some are hacks. This industry doesn't even have a basic qualifying method to say they have a minimum baseline of knowledge so in this case its not even as well trained as other industries. The point you keep hammering home that I disagree with is the "why not adjust opinions and thoughts after accumulating more info," is that I'm not going to go back and spend two months re-evaluating a half a dozen or so players for the RSP after the draft and re-adjust. What info am I getting? That the some unnamed scout who doesn't provide his work to the public says he has a 1st round grade? The RSP is a snapshot. Plus, you're smart enough to make those adjustments yourself and realize what I provide is a pre-draft snap shot. My rankings at FBGs will change as we get more news and opportunities to see that player develop. The point of the RSP is to the show the work and rank based on it. I don't hear you disagreeing with my low ranking of McFadden from a few years ago although he was an equally high-rated guy that I rated lower than most. I know for a fact this situation is the same as Spiller's and therefore you would have to make the same argument with me that McFadden's low ranking would have been equally ridiculous.

i know zero scouts, i get a good idea of what they were thinking based on where they draft players in the NFL draft.yes, i am a draft position fan, i think it is the best way to predict future performance. if someone disagrees with that then i guess there is no way to see eye to eye.you definitely know the prospects better then me and understand how to evaluate them better. At the same time i think the nfl scouts probably know better. i take your word that they don't see every play, but they do have access to more information then any of us not directly involved with nfl teams.When it is widely accepted that spiller was the top RB prospect by almost all draft analysts and was backed up by him going in the top 10 i take notice. Yes it's an inexact science and there are many misses, but that doesn't mean they don't know the process of evaluating better then most.If Dixon ends up being better then Spiller then i will officially give up my title of Nostradamus of FF to you. i doubt that scenario will play out but if so I will remove my self proclaimed title from my sig.

Keep the sig even if I turn out to be correct. I think the most satisfying thing is that we've established that you are a draft position fan and play the odds and I prefer to learn as much as I can about the players and share what I can. Good discussion through.

couldn't have said it better myself.by the same token i don't think having guys like Best ranked over Spiller is off at all, but when 2 guys play the same position and there draft position disparity is so different then the significantly higher drafted player is a LOT better gamble then the lower drafted one.

 

[lyon812]

If the scouts are so smart, why did McFadden go 4th and Pierre Thomas in the 6th round? Why can't Matt be right that Spiller is McFadden and Dixon is Pierre Thomas? Either of you may be right or wrong, but to say the other is ridiculous because they disagree is, well, ridiculous.

why can't a pair of 2's beat a pair of aces?They can, but betting on them at even money is a bad move.i'd rather bet on the favorite, and in the long run i guarantee betting on the 1st round picks over the later round picks will prevail.

This is untrue, though. You seem to be predicating your strategy on "Spiller was ranked highly and went in the Top 10." However, if you apply those criteria to the last decade, you wind up with far more failures than successes. All of the players listed before received significant hype, frequently when discussing their amazing athleticism or measurables, and were generally considered the best or second best prospect at their position.2001: Tomlinson--win!2002: David Carr (Or Harrington. Or Stallworth. Or William Green)2003: Charles Rogers (tremendous prospect)2004: Larry Fitzgerald--win!2005: A number of good players, though they've been inconsistent (A. Smith/R. Brown/C. Williams/B. Edwards/C. Benson)2006: Reggie Bush (top RB, everyone thought he should go #1 overall)2007: JaMarcus Russell (best pro day ever, consensus top QB)2008: Darren McFadden (top-rated RB)2009: Heyward-Bey (is Crabtree/DHB like Mathews/Spiller?)Despite your guarantee, there’s direct evidence that simply relying on hype and NFL draftniks will do nothing except give you a long string of fantasy failures. What you have above is a list of “1st round picks” or “players that scouts loved” or “picks that went highly in the first round” or “players with awesome skills”. That’s why it’s important to make your own judgments--and also why it’s important to listen to disparate points of view. Because if something seems to be an outlier, it makes a lot more sense to treat it seriously than to go, “well, a lot of NFL people think he’s an amazing prospect and he went in the first round,” because that gets NFL teams *and* fantasy teams in trouble.Draft position has meaning, sure. But oftentimes, it's misleading and wrong. How do you decide when it is? By analyzing the players and being willing to doubt the consensus.

 

[EBF]

Plenty of 1st round picks bust.

That doesn't change the fact that the success rate is better for 1st round picks than any other round.

People tend to cite guys like Tom Brady and Terrell Davis as evidence that pro scouts don't know what they're doing without acknowledging the countless late round picks who flame out completely. It's pretty simple...

On average, higher picks have a higher probability of becoming quality NFL players. This isn't even debatable.

 

[cr8f]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)The above guys might get one shot to show what they can do, if they don't produce they aren't even in the NFL down the road. Spiller will get multiple times to show what he can do even if he starts slow, plus he has been highly regarded since coming out of high school (5 star recruit) and produced in college as well.Dismissing Spiller because McFadden hasn't produced is fine to a degree, but not to the degree where it makes sense to rank scrubs ahead of him.Also even though McFadden has performed as poorly as anyone could have imagined he still holds value, so even if the worst case scenario happens to Spiller he'll still have value.with all due respect, ranking those guys above Spiller makes absolutely no sense. It's a good attention grabbing ranking which is probably the intention, but the logic used to back it up has been suspect at best.Taking the high pedigree comparisons (Bush/4.24/McFadden/Felix Jones) and selectively picking the worst possible one to compare him to is cherry picking at its best and negligent at its worst.But to each their own, if people seriously want to give credence to that kind of off the wall ranking/logic then be my guest.

watch hours of game tape, then maybe people will give credence to your kind of "off the wall rankings/logic". criticizing someone for having a unique opinion is just rediculous

i think Matt knows a lot about football, much more then me, but when one has a view that is so far off the wall from the pros (NFL front offices), to not re-evaluate that view is a bit foolish.Going so far off the wall as to suggest a 6th round pick (Dixon) has a better chance to pan out then a top 10 pick (Spiller) just doesn't make sense, but then again i've had discussions with otherwise intelligent people who insisted they would rather have a pair of 2's then aces in poker because they always lose with aces.He is in the public eye, so it might make sense to make some outlandish predictions and then if it pans out bump the thread to show the genius. And if it ends up going down as ridiculous which it most likely will it will all be forgotten and fade into the sunset.It's a hero call in a sense without much downside since no one will remember when the guys ranked ahead of Spiller are riding the pine or bagging groceries.

Go bac k and look at his projections from a few years ago. I use his report to pick players that fall. It's almost like people want one report they can follow without thinking and hit big. Use his report along with others and your own thinking.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.Andre RobertsAaron HernandezAnthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)

While I can understand you (and others) questioning Matt's ranking of Spiller, I fail to see how you can call a just drafted rookie a "scrub journeyman". In the specific case of Hernandez, this kid has monster upside and I will not be surprised to see him being a top 5 TE in time. I just think the term "scrub journeyman" is not correct when talking about any rookie because nobody knows how good any of these players will become. For reference, look back on a "scrub journeyman" like Tom Brady.

 

[Matt Waldman]

couldn't have said it better myself.by the same token i don't think having guys like Best ranked over Spiller is off at all, but when 2 guys play the same position and there draft position disparity is so different then the significantly higher drafted player is a LOT better gamble then the lower drafted one.

Maybe, except when the same draft analysts who talk to scouts or former scouts that have 2nd or 3rd round grades on guys like Dixon, Dwyer, and Starks. Combine that this individual draft has a surplus of talent at other positions deemed more important to draft early (DB, DE, and OL) and players at RB and WR slide a lot more than what they would in other drafts. Bloom calls it a shoots and ladders effect that a lot of people don't seem to understand. You have to look at each draft separately and not as a cumulative event. So in this case the disparity between a 1st and 6th round pick is IMO not as great as it would be in other drafts. Once again, there's the story of Anquan Boldin getting demoted from a top-3 overall draft grade to a 2nd/3rd round pick. Now a 1st to 3rd round pick isn't that great, but it is when you're talking top-3 overall. I doubt that this kind of reactionary thinking is as much of an anomaly as it appears. That said we have a philosophical difference about the draft and players, which is cool.

 

[lyon812]

i'm not saying Waldman should rank a guy high just because everyone else does, but to rank scrub journeyman over him who might not even be in the league in a few years is just a bit bizarre.

Andre Roberts

Aaron Hernandez

Anthony Dixon (6th round draft pick)

While I can understand you (and others) questioning Matt's ranking of Spiller, I fail to see how you can call a just drafted rookie a "scrub journeyman". In the specific case of Hernandez, this kid has monster upside and I will not be surprised to see him being a top 5 TE in time. I just think the term "scrub journeyman" is not correct when talking about any rookie because nobody knows how good any of these players will become. For reference, look back on a "scrub journeyman" like Tom Brady.

Exactly. It seems like a lot of the arguments, here and elsewhere, boil down to a certain dichotomy:

A. Prognosticators that look for players who fit their rules (he's a first round pick that scout's like, so he must be a good player/better pick)

B. Prognosticators that look for players who are the exceptions (just because he's an X round pick doesn't mean this specific player is a success or bust).

Many people will fail with strategy A when they draft highly touted, scout's dream prospects that struggle in the NFL.

Many people will fail with strategy B by taking players that seem promising based on film or stats, but lack the oomph (athleticism/size/talent/heart/speed/whatever) to succeed at the next level of play.

It's worth noting that both strategies are also successful in different ways. However, it seems both should agree that blindly taking NFL scouting/draft position as the sole indicator of a player's talent or potential for success is anything but a fool's errand, and that there are examples, every year, of these can't miss/awesome prospects doing nothing but leading to heartache for the teams (real and fantasy) that bought into the hype.

What I don't understand, however, is how people will believe fervently in NFL teams/scouts on one hand, then dismiss their superior level of knowledge in the next breath:

"The scouts had player X ranked as a first round talent, and he went in the Top 10, so he must be good."

"The scouts had player Y as a first round talent, but he dropped to the second/third, so he's going to bust."

There are simply too many variables in each draft to make those sort of sweeping generalizations.

 

[MAC_32]

It seems like a lot of the arguments, here and elsewhere, boil down to a certain dichotomy:

A. Prognosticators that look for players who fit their rules (he's a first round pick that scout's like, so he must be a good player/better pick)

B. Prognosticators that look for players who are the exceptions (just because he's an X round pick doesn't mean this specific player is a success or bust).

Many people will fail with strategy A when they draft highly touted, scout's dream prospects that struggle in the NFL.

Many people will fail with strategy B by taking players that seem promising based on film or stats, but lack the oomph (athleticism/size/talent/heart/speed/whatever) to succeed at the next level of play.

It's worth noting that both strategies are also successful in different ways. However, it seems both should agree that blindly taking NFL scouting/draft position as the sole indicator of a player's talent or potential for success is anything but a fool's errand, and that there are examples, every year, of these can't miss/awesome prospects doing nothing but leading to heartache for the teams (real and fantasy) that bought into the hype.

What I don't understand, however, is how people will believe fervently in NFL teams/scouts on one hand, then dismiss their superior level of knowledge in the next breath:

"The scouts had player X ranked as a first round talent, and he went in the Top 10, so he must be good."

"The scouts had player Y as a first round talent, but he dropped to the second/third, so he's going to bust."

There are simply too many variables in each draft to make those sort of sweeping generalizations.

In the end, the most successful owners find a balance between the two. For people like me that love to watch players develop I tend to target certain early round picks that my eyes agree with scouts on (i.e. Bradford, Best, and Bryant), I'll position myself in drafts to give me the best opportunity to get these guys. When it comes to the 'flier' rounds I put a lot more emphasis on what my eyes have seen than anything else (i.e. Wallace, Collie, Dillard, An Dixon, J Starks). I'll also do everything I can to not put myself in opportunities to get early round picks I don't believe in (i.e. McFadden, DHB, Beanie, Spiller), this doesn't necessarily mean outright passing on them regardless of who's on the board...but more like I'll trade for the best offer if there is not an equitable option available.

If you're going to go overboard with strategy A or strategy B it's better to go with strategy A but strategy C (the guy who utilizes both strategy A and B ideals) is usually the one best off. Know the players and don't let tunnel vision stray you one way or the other.

 

[Futeki]

If the scouts are so smart, why did McFadden go 4th and Pierre Thomas in the 6th round? Why can't Matt be right that Spiller is McFadden and Dixon is Pierre Thomas? Either of you may be right or wrong, but to say the other is ridiculous because they disagree is, well, ridiculous.

why can't a pair of 2's beat a pair of aces?They can, but betting on them at even money is a bad move.i'd rather bet on the favorite, and in the long run i guarantee betting on the 1st round picks over the later round picks will prevail.

This is untrue, though. You seem to be predicating your strategy on "Spiller was ranked highly and went in the Top 10." However, if you apply those criteria to the last decade, you wind up with far more failures than successes. All of the players listed before received significant hype, frequently when discussing their amazing athleticism or measurables, and were generally considered the best or second best prospect at their position.2001: Tomlinson--win!2002: David Carr (Or Harrington. Or Stallworth. Or William Green)2003: Charles Rogers (tremendous prospect)2004: Larry Fitzgerald--win!2005: A number of good players, though they've been inconsistent (A. Smith/R. Brown/C. Williams/B. Edwards/C. Benson)2006: Reggie Bush (top RB, everyone thought he should go #1 overall)2007: JaMarcus Russell (best pro day ever, consensus top QB)2008: Darren McFadden (top-rated RB)2009: Heyward-Bey (is Crabtree/DHB like Mathews/Spiller?)Despite your guarantee, there’s direct evidence that simply relying on hype and NFL draftniks will do nothing except give you a long string of fantasy failures. What you have above is a list of “1st round picks” or “players that scouts loved” or “picks that went highly in the first round” or “players with awesome skills”. That’s why it’s important to make your own judgments--and also why it’s important to listen to disparate points of view. Because if something seems to be an outlier, it makes a lot more sense to treat it seriously than to go, “well, a lot of NFL people think he’s an amazing prospect and he went in the first round,” because that gets NFL teams *and* fantasy teams in trouble.Draft position has meaning, sure. But oftentimes, it's misleading and wrong. How do you decide when it is? By analyzing the players and being willing to doubt the consensus.

You do realize those last three players are all Raiders picks. I would like to see where the other teams actually had those players ranked, but we will never know. It is true it only takes one team being an outlier to throw off the "scouts know best" mantra, but the Raiders need to be excluded in your argument.

 

[gianmarco]

I posted this in the pinned thread but thought I'd put it here too:Matt,I know you aren't very high on Spiller and we've seen it stated in various ways in different threads. I was reading through your evaluation of Spiller in the RSP and the one thing that stuck out to me is that you never once graded him with a "yes" on "Maintains balance when hit from an indirect angle".This particular portion of your evaluation is worth 7 pts (the maximum you give) so it's obviously a very important characteristic. However, in all but 1 of your write-ups, the "balance" portion is blank (which is where this falls under) so there's no explanation given for his deficiency in this area. In fact, if he were to have received these 7 pts, his rating would jump substantially. In the one game write-up that you did comment on balance, you wrote:

Good balance about four yards into a six-yard gain off RG where he ran into his own player trying to bounce a run in the hole to the outside. He kept his pads low and came out ofthe traffic with another two yards before he was dragged down with 4:25 in the half. Good balance to run through an LBs attempt to wrap him at the waist and then change directionto go back to the inside on a three-yard gain on a run that should have been a three-yard loss with 7:00 left.

The thing is, the one thing that is consistently mentioned as a strength of his (which I agree with) is his balance. In that area, you gave him a score of 1 out of 9, 2 out of 9, 1 out of 9, and 1 out of 9 in the 4 games you evaluated him in.I'm not saying this is completely unjustified, but for an elite prospect, for you to go against one of his heralded strengths and continue to dock him on a major category with a lack of explanation seems off to me.So what is it exactly that you saw or didn't see that caused you to rate him extremely poorly in terms of balance? If that score was adjusted and he moves from a score of 80 to 87, does that change your opinion of him in terms of his ranking?

 

[Matt Waldman]

See my response in the pinned thread