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!
I think so, lazyike.He was the #5 QB in 07. #9 in 09. So clearly, he's a top 10 Fantasy QB. The question will be how quickly he can jump back in. He'll be working hard with the QB coach he's hired and you'd think he'll be beyond motivated missing these games. I think a top 10 pace (not actually cracking the top 10 of course) once he's back is optimistic but not unrealistic.J
I think this one could be argued either way. Yes, he was Top 10 in two seasons. But he wasn't Top 10 in four seasons.But put another way, since coming into the league in 2004, Roethlisberger ranks 10th in terms of fantasy ppg for QBs that played in at least 25 games.I would call him Top 10, but he doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. If his performance takes a hit at all (rust, players don't respect him, loss of Holmes, reemergence of the running game, etc.), then he'd be on the outside looking in in my book.
I see a lot of people underrating Ben Roethlisberger in here.Bruce Arians came to town in 2007 and turned Pittsburgh into a passing offense. Over the last 3 years, Ben Roethlisberger has averaged more points per game than Philip Rivers, Matt Schaub, and Brett Favre. He's 8th over that span, and one of the guys ahead of him (Kurt Warner) just retired, while another (Donovan McNabb) just switched teams. In 2007, he was 5th in PPG (minimum 4 games played), and just a hundredth of a point behind #4 (Drew Brees). In 2009, he was 3rd in PPG. That's a pair of top-5 finishes in the 3 years since Bruce took over. Now talk in Pittsburgh is about how Ben Roethlisberger showed up more focused and in better shape than he has at any point in his career. Personally, I think top 10 is a slam dunk, and top 5 is a very real possibility.David Yudkin said:
While what you say is accurate, it should also be know that the difference between ranking 8th and ranking 12th for the guys on your list over the past 3 seasons was less than half a fantasy point per game. And the ranked 13th was David Garrard.As I said, Big Ben could make a run at ranking in the Top 5-10 range, but ANY drop off and he might not even rank as a fantasy QB1. Does the loss of Holmes have ZERO impact on Roethlisberger?
This might be a difficult question to answer because it revolves completely around hypotheticals, but if BB was not suspended and was gearing up for a full 16 games, where do you think his ADP would have been around?
Probably in the 8-10 range, but again that tier of guys could be interchangeable from say QB 7-13 with only a slight variation in scoring.Explained better in words than numbers, he would be a decent QB option but not a fantasy difference maker like the big guys.
Once again, Roofles averages more points per game over the last 3 years than Rivers, Schaub, and Favre. Everyone seems to be taking a top 10 finish for those guys (especially the first two) as fait accompli at this point. Also, I don't get the point of mentioning that Garrard is 13th, since Roofles is closer to Peyton Manning than he is to David Garrard (and Schaub/Rivers/Favre are all closer to David Garrard than Roofles is).From a less objective and more subjective standpoint, I personally don't believe Ben's numbers from 2008 have much (if any) relevance going forward. The entire offense was lackadaisical and "off" that entire season, and Ben's numbers were so far out of line with anything he had ever done in his entire playing history except for the Motorcycle Accident season. Ben's had a TD% over 5% in 4 out of his 6 seasons, but it was 3.8% in 2006 (motorcycle accident) and 3.6% in 2008. Ben's had a comp% over 62% in 4 out of his 6 seasons, but it was 59.7% in 2006 and 59.9% in 2008. Ben's averaged an Adjusted YPA of 8.2 better in 4 out of his 6 seasons, but it was 6.1 in 2006 and 6.3 in 2008. Ben's had a QB rating of 98 or better in 4 out of 6 seasons, but it was 75.4 in 2006 and 80.1 in 2008. We're talking about numbers that are radically out of line with everything else he's done in his career. I'm not saying that they were aberrational and hold no predictive power simply because I now have the benefit of hindsight- I said before last season (i.e. immediately after the 2008 season) that I believed they held no predictive power... and sure enough, Ben went out and returned to his career norms across the board in 2009. So that's partly where I'm coming from when I talk about how underrated Ben is. If you throw out 2008 because you believe it holds no real predictive power, then Ben's at 21.8 points per game in 2007 and 2009, which would land him solidly between Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers at 4th, more than 2 PPG ahead of current #6 Kurt Warner.Obviously not everyone is going to agree with essentially just ignoring a season and pretending it didn't happen, but as I said, I simply don't believe it holds any meaningful predictive power to Ben's performance in 2010. Neither do I believe that his pre-2007 (i.e. pre-Arians) stats hold much predictive power, either. With that in mind, yeah, I think Ben Roethlisberger is ludicrously underrated this season.
Really? He was 3rd in PPG last season. The only guys who were bigger fantasy difference makers were Brees and Rodgers.
So I'm assuming the following QB's are being ranked above BB (in no particular order) if BB is in the 8-10 range:Manning
He can return to the team after the completion of their week 4 game. Pittsburgh is on bye week 5. That gives him two weeks of reps.
Sounds like you know the Steelers...what do you then make of this interview Arians gave last month?Bruce Arians Interview; 8/3
What do I think of an offensive coordinator that says the team is going to have a 4000 yard passer, a 1500 yard running back, three guys, including a tight end, who catch 100 balls, an increased focus on the run, an increased commitment to the pass, etc., etc.?Not much.
He may well be a clown, but if that's the case, doesn't it sound like he's going to wear his own clown suit and not someone elses?
Yudkin is right. In most leagues you can take a QB that slips (say, Eli Manning) and Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger is a serviceable member of that second or third tier. Play the matchups.
Yeah, I've got no idea what this means. I've bolded the essential info again. Handoffs aplenty in Steeler land this year, and zero chance Heath Miller gets 100 receptions.
I guess I'm taking the word of the guy who actually calls the plays versus his employer who hired him to call plays. "We want to keep our passing game right where it was and just improve those situations that are critical running areas.”HQ certainly has the power to fire the guy making the play calls, but they don't call the plays. This kinda sounds like Arians is content to be his own man (clown) and let the chips falls where they may.
I suppose it's possible the entire offseason's worth of roster moves and the total revamping of the offense could all be an elaborate smokescreen, but it seems unlikely.Coaches say all kinds of #### this time of year. Much more attention should be paid to the direction the team is actually heading on the field and in the locker room.Anyway, enough on this. Draw your own conclusions. If you choose to draw them from the mad ravings of an emasculated OC, then may God be with you.
So why was he garbage in '06 and '08?
The 500 yard game with season all but over dumped things upside down. That game didn't count for 80% of most teams, I'd bet, because Big Ben probably didn't lead his fantasy teams into the playoffs in the first place.But SSOG's 20-20 hindsight numbers are always gospel...
re: SSOG's dynasty thread where Steelers were "all-in" behind Big Ben, and this is like a slap in the face of that theory?
I don't know what that thread or that theory are about at all, so no help there. But what I said above has nothing to do with the Steelers and their support of Big Ben. They're just not "all in" on being a pass happy offense that sissies up and can't get it done on 4th and inches.
Ben Roethlisberger was QB8 in PPG prior to his 500 yard performance in week 15, just 0.02 ppg behind QB7 Philip Rivers. But you were on a roll, so please don't let reality intrude on an otherwise perfectly good tirade.
What does PPG have to do with anything? If you started Big Ben the first 14 weeks of the season, you didn't sniff the playoffs?
Give me Ben's backup, and Ben + Dixon scored 269.1 points through week 14, which would rank him 9th. Ben's ADP was the 13th QB off the board. So you're telling me that if you drafted a QB as the 13th QB off the board, and he performed as the 9th QB off the board, that you probably didn't even sniff the playoffs? What a freaking joke. If Ben was your starting QB, then that means you went heavy on the RBs/WRs/TEs early in the draft (since you're the last guy in the league drafting a starting QB), and that RB/WR/TE corps should be able to EASILY carry you into the playoffs if your QB (that you drafted as the last starting QB off the board) is putting up production comparable to Philip Rivers'.Guess the Brett Favre and Philip Rivers owners didn't even sniff the playoffs, either, since Favre only outscored Ben+Dixon by 0.2 points and Rivers only outscored him by 2.2 points (oh yeah, that 2.2 points made all the difference between making the playoffs and not even being close enough to get a whiff of them). No, most leagues send 6 teams to the playoffs, and the only 6 teams that could have possibly made it any league are the 6 teams that wound up with Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Schaub, or Romo. And never mind the possibility that one team owned two of those players, because if that happened I'm sure only 5 teams would make the playoffs in that league.Are you even being serious here, or are you just trying to get a reaction? Are you just too lazy to do the research so you're hoping to provoke me into doing it for you? Because I'm a pretty nice guy, you really don't have to make ridiculous statements to get me to look up numbers for you. All you have to do is ask nicely.
I played fantasy football last year. While my brain cells are dying fast, they're not dying THAT fast. Big Ben was a 50-50 shot to put up winning Qb #'s last year. His lousy games/DNP's (that happened every other week) were killers. If you passed on a stud QB to draft Big Ben, you got your lunch eaten, and you had extra time in the off season to calculate PPG and speculate about how it all went wrong...Stats should be easily available to bear this out... Shouldn't be too hard to find out which teams started PITTSBURGH QB's 13/14 weeks and made their league playoffs?SIC 'EM, SSOG!
I have no idea how I'd find that information, but I can do you one better. Apparently nobody could have sniffed the playoffs with Roethlisberger/Dixon last year. In you opinion, which QBs could someone have "sniffed the playoffs" with?
Those that hit 16+ fantasy points 75% of the time instead of 50.
I'm looking for names. Most leagues send 6 teams to the playoffs, so I want you to name me 6 QBs I could have "sniffed the playoffs with" last year. That's all I'm asking for- 6 names. If you can provide more, that'd be great (since, let's be honest, it's just stupid to claim that only the 6 teams that started those 6 QBs made the playoffs), but really 6 is all that I need.
I play in a total points league so there aren't any playoffs but I won with Big Ben and the occasional Culter start thrown in.
What is this refering to him as "Roofles" all the time? IMO it just distracts from any point you are trying to make.
Maybe it's Roofies from the "rape" accusations. If not, I don't get it either....
I've been calling him that since his rookie year. It started because I didn't know how to spell his name. It continues because it's a lot quicker and easier to type than Roethlisberger, and because typing "Roethlisberger" tends to make any comparisons look whacky because his name is so much longer than everyone else's, all of his data winds up shifted an extra half inch to the right.
Ok fair enough.I was thinking about Ben and how this season will play out in Pittsburgh and I can't help but to think of Eli Manning last year with the Giants. Both teams struggled to run the ball and both defenses were not nearly as effective as they have been in years past. It was a perfect storm for Eli to post career bests and Ben also had his best year as well, even though he did have more td's in a prior year. I can't help but to think that Pittsburgh's defense is going to be much improved with Smith and Palamalu healthy and I wonder how that will effective their offensive mindset this year if they have the lead. Obviously it comes down to if they can run the ball effectively but i still am a little worried at Big Ben's prospects to put up elite numbers again this season.Earlier in this thread someone said that the owner came out and said he wants to return to Steeler football. I keep imagining Bill Cowher giving the ball to Jerome Bettis 20 times in the 4th quarter to close out games. Now I know they don't have Bettis or Cowher anymore but the backs they have are capable to move the chains. Also, if that defense returns to being great, I worry that Pittsburgh won't throw nearly enough times for Ben to put up the kind of numbers needed to put him up there with the best fantasy qb's.
It is quicker and easier than, Big Ben, Roeth or even Roth? If you want to continue to do it, fine, but it does not come across as being professional IMO.
It's a nickname. We're on a message board. I'm making posts under an anonymous acronym. My avatar is a crying cartoon elephant. Seemed like an appropriate place to use a nickname for a player. Being professional is all well and good, but if this doesn't qualify as a casual atmosphere, then I don't know what does. Ultimately, my points will stand on their own merits whether I'm calling Roethlisberger "Roofles" or Steve Smith (Car) "Smiff" or Kellen Winslow "Sgt. Kellen Winslow, Jr." or using any of my other favorite player nicknames. If it was impacting the clarity of my message, I guess I could see the point, but I'm pretty sure everyone knew full well who I was talking about. Hell, I've been calling him that for 5 years, and I have to say you're the first person who's criticized my professionalism as a result.Just in reply to "why so serious?"I guess the only answer is, be more serious if you want people to take you more seriously.It's a nickname. We're on a message board. I'm making posts under an anonymous acronym. My avatar is a crying cartoon elephant. Seemed like an appropriate place to use a nickname for a player. Being professional is all well and good, but if this doesn't qualify as a casual atmosphere, then I don't know what does. Ultimately, my points will stand on their own merits whether I'm calling Roethlisberger "Roofles" or Steve Smith (Car) "Smiff" or Kellen Winslow "Sgt. Kellen Winslow, Jr." or using any of my other favorite player nicknames. If it was impacting the clarity of my message, I guess I could see the point, but I'm pretty sure everyone knew full well who I was talking about. Hell, I've been calling him that for 5 years, and I have to say you're the first person who's criticized my professionalism as a result.
Why so serious?
I'd only say that yes, this all makes sense in a vacuum. But having followed the offensive drama surrounding the Steelers all off season, my local's view is considerably different. The people calling the shots wanted a new OC, and settled for an overhaul to maintain the appearance of coaching autonomy.I don't believe they're going to turn into the 80's Nebraska Cornhuskers or anything. But I do believe there will be enough of a push in the direction of the run that it'll make for a noticeable philosophical shift, and will probably make Roethlisberger a little dicier a wager as a starting FF QB week to week. I sincerely believe the people running the organization feel the team is stronger when the emphasis on the run is greater, and that they mean to pressure the coaches in this direction. From what I've seen, ownership is going to get what it wants. If you see it differently, by all means, gamble accordingly.
Thanks, you made these points much better than I could. Normally I ignore posts from those who use "cutesy" names, as it is a pretty good indication of the value of the opinion of the author. I guess I expect more from someone who holds himself out as a Dynasty expert and gives advice to others here and on his website.Just in reply to "why so serious?"I guess the only answer is, be more serious if you want people to take you more seriously.It's a nickname. We're on a message board. I'm making posts under an anonymous acronym. My avatar is a crying cartoon elephant. Seemed like an appropriate place to use a nickname for a player. Being professional is all well and good, but if this doesn't qualify as a casual atmosphere, then I don't know what does. Ultimately, my points will stand on their own merits whether I'm calling Roethlisberger "Roofles" or Steve Smith (Car) "Smiff" or Kellen Winslow "Sgt. Kellen Winslow, Jr." or using any of my other favorite player nicknames. If it was impacting the clarity of my message, I guess I could see the point, but I'm pretty sure everyone knew full well who I was talking about. Hell, I've been calling him that for 5 years, and I have to say you're the first person who's criticized my professionalism as a result.
Why so serious?
Not saying being taken seriously is better or worse. God knows I don't always act seriously here, and when I don't, I don't expect to be taken that way. But from the length of your posts, and the statistical data you seem to stuff them with, I'd expect you'd want people to read them. That you even see this as a question of your "professionalism" (?!) lends weight to that thought.
Yet I see "Roofles" and automatically give the rest a skip. I write the author off as a clown. Naturally, that's a me problem and not a you problem. But your idea that your "ideas will stand on their own merits" doesn't really hold water. Ideas only stand or fall in context in this medium.
Be serious, or be a goof. It's all good either way. But if you choose goof, there's no point in getting all indignant when you're treated like one.
Wouldn't dream of it. Bashing misplaced righteous indignation, however, just makes good sense.
I appreciate this post, and I see where you're coming from, but at the end of the day, I am what I am and I do what I do and people can either like me or dislike me or listen to me or ignore me as they see fit. I just found it a bit odd that someone was questioning my professionalism in a place where I'm identified by a meaningless acronym and a picture of a crying elephant. I would think either of those two items would set off the "professionalism alert" long before anyone read far enough to see me call him "Roofles".Just in reply to "why so serious?"I guess the only answer is, be more serious if you want people to take you more seriously.Not saying being taken seriously is better or worse. God knows I don't always act seriously here, and when I don't, I don't expect to be taken that way. But from the length of your posts, and the statistical data you seem to stuff them with, I'd expect you'd want people to read them. That you even see this as a question of your "professionalism" (?!) lends weight to that thought.Yet I see "Roofles" and automatically give the rest a skip. I write the author off as a clown. Naturally, that's a me problem and not a you problem. But your idea that your "ideas will stand on their own merits" doesn't really hold water. Ideas only stand or fall in context in this medium.Be serious, or be a goof. It's all good either way. But if you choose goof, there's no point in getting all indignant when you're treated like one.
Do you expect more from Chris Wesseling, who routinely justifies low rankings of players with "because he's a doucher"? Do you expect more from Sigmund Bloom and Cecil Lammey, who have spent the last 4 years referring to Brandon Marshall as "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" or "E15"? For my money, we're talking about some of the best dynasty experts on the entire internet. If you ignore them simply because they make up a nickname or a colorful adjective, then you're really only hurting yourself.Is it professional to call Vincent Jackson "VJax"? How about to call Adrian Peterson "AD" or ADP (despite the fact that his middle name doesn't begin with a D)? How about Purple Jesus? What about calling Tomlinson LDT or LT2? Calling Chris Johnson CJ3, CJ2K, or Light Blue Jesus? Calling Darrell Revis "Revis Island"? Calling Mike Wallace "60 minutes" or Jonathan Stewart "Daily Show"? Is there a line to be drawn when it comes to nicknames and professionalism, or are all nicknames taboo? What percentage of the population has to use a nickname in order for it to be acceptable? How similar does a nickname have to be to a player's real name, either phonetically or in terms of spelling, for it to be professional?At the end of the day, I'm covering a hobby that people play in their free time based on a game that people watch on the TV in their free time. The entire idea is very meta and even, dare I say it, a little bit silly. I love it with a passion, but come on, the whole concept is a little bit absurd. As a result, I approach the whole subject with a little bit of levity, because unless you're playing in big money leagues trying to make a payday, we're talking about something that is supposed to be FUN. That's the whole purpose of fantasy football. So I have fun with it. If you choose to ignore me, that's absolutely your prerogative, and I'm sure there are plenty of web sites and writers out there who will gladly cater to your ultra-serious approach to the game. I'm going to keep on being a guy who makes an effort to not take myself or the game too seriously and who, yes, makes up a random nickname on extremely rare occasions.
Actually Chris was critical in the Dynasty thread of people calling Josh McDaniels, 'McFool" - so yes I would not expect him to use a cutesy nickname, and his doucher comments were before he got more involved at Rotoworld IIRC. And you talk about playing in big money leagues, which is odd for someone who only plays only in free leagues (perhaps that explains where you are coming from more than anything else).I appreciate this post, and I see where you're coming from, but at the end of the day, I am what I am and I do what I do and people can either like me or dislike me or listen to me or ignore me as they see fit. I just found it a bit odd that someone was questioning my professionalism in a place where I'm identified by a meaningless acronym and a picture of a crying elephant. I would think either of those two items would set off the "professionalism alert" long before anyone read far enough to see me call him "Roofles".Just in reply to "why so serious?"
I guess the only answer is, be more serious if you want people to take you more seriously.
Not saying being taken seriously is better or worse. God knows I don't always act seriously here, and when I don't, I don't expect to be taken that way. But from the length of your posts, and the statistical data you seem to stuff them with, I'd expect you'd want people to read them. That you even see this as a question of your "professionalism" (?!) lends weight to that thought.
Yet I see "Roofles" and automatically give the rest a skip. I write the author off as a clown. Naturally, that's a me problem and not a you problem. But your idea that your "ideas will stand on their own merits" doesn't really hold water. Ideas only stand or fall in context in this medium.
Be serious, or be a goof. It's all good either way. But if you choose goof, there's no point in getting all indignant when you're treated like one.
Do you expect more from Chris Wesseling, who routinely justifies low rankings of players with "because he's a doucher"? Do you expect more from Sigmund Bloom and Cecil Lammey, who have spent the last 4 years referring to Brandon Marshall as "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" or "E15"? For my money, we're talking about some of the best dynasty experts on the entire internet. If you ignore them simply because they make up a nickname or a colorful adjective, then you're really only hurting yourself.Is it professional to call Vincent Jackson "VJax"? How about to call Adrian Peterson "AD" or ADP (despite the fact that his middle name doesn't begin with a D)? How about Purple Jesus? What about calling Tomlinson LDT or LT2? Calling Chris Johnson CJ3, CJ2K, or Light Blue Jesus? Calling Darrell Revis "Revis Island"? Calling Mike Wallace "60 minutes" or Jonathan Stewart "Daily Show"? Is there a line to be drawn when it comes to nicknames and professionalism, or are all nicknames taboo? What percentage of the population has to use a nickname in order for it to be acceptable? How similar does a nickname have to be to a player's real name, either phonetically or in terms of spelling, for it to be professional?
At the end of the day, I'm covering a hobby that people play in their free time based on a game that people watch on the TV in their free time. The entire idea is very meta and even, dare I say it, a little bit silly. I love it with a passion, but come on, the whole concept is a little bit absurd. As a result, I approach the whole subject with a little bit of levity, because unless you're playing in big money leagues trying to make a payday, we're talking about something that is supposed to be FUN. That's the whole purpose of fantasy football. So I have fun with it. If you choose to ignore me, that's absolutely your prerogative, and I'm sure there are plenty of web sites and writers out there who will gladly cater to your ultra-serious approach to the game. I'm going to keep on being a guy who makes an effort to not take myself or the game too seriously and who, yes, makes up a random nickname on extremely rare occasions.
