So many FFer's got no faith in McFadden ! :nono: (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

As I said, I would be surprised if McFadden comes even close to ADP's numbers. I think he will have a very average season fantasy wise and if you are in a league that is heavy on TD's there are a few other backs that I would rather have then him.

ADP had one of the best rookie rushing seasons in league history, the benchmark for ANY rookie this year shouldn't be whether they come close to what ADP did; few in the history of the game have.

 

[sholditch]

OK, I'll try one more time for our little friend:

If you have a conference with only 1-2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the rest are sprinkled somewhere between 25-100, chances are that those two teams will be able to beat the tar out of their conference opponents, on both sides of the ball, because they will be way better than them both offensively and defensively. Thus, those two teams would benefit statistically on both offense and defense, and be able to regularly post 45-10 victories.

In the SEC, you usually have anywhere between 5-8 teams ranked in the top 25. Last year we ended with 5 in the top 25. This was widely considered a down year for the SEC, as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina are historically better. But we'll go with five. When there are five teams in the top 25, and probably another 3 in the top 50 (three other SEC teams received votes for the AP top 25), then it's a lot more likely that the top 25 teams meet more often. In a conference with two there is really only one chance for really good in-conference competition. In a conference with 5-8 really tough teams, the stats start to even out more, because more often than not, teams are playing teams that are evenly matched on both sides of the ball. Therefore, you see a lot less 45-10 games and a lot more 35-27 games, which brings down the statistics of both teams in the tough matchups. How, you ask? Well, because the latter games are more common, teams are not able to lay monstrous 40-point thrashings on their opponents, not because they are worse than the team that plays pansy opponents, but in spite of them being far better.

The reason I mentioned USC is because they play in a conference that normally only fields two teams in the top 25. Thus, they usually enjoy one of the statistically best defenses. Same with Ohio State. They ranked number 1 in total defense last year, and number 2 in 2006. Now, what happened to them in the title game the last two years? They got their asses handed to them twice in a row by SEC teams that they were statistically better than. Embarassed. Caught with their pants down. Sent crying home to mommy. I don't remember the player, but a Florida Gator said it best in 2006 when he said "Half the teams in the SEC could have come in and beaten them the way we did."

Now, do you need further explanation?

 

[rufan]

It's not worth going back and forth on this. But lets just say that you don't really understand how rankings work if you are trying to use that as an argument against SEC offensive players.

You are right, there is no point going back and forth, because you are not providing any arguments other than to attack me. I understand how rankings work, I have been following college football for a long time. It is you that have provided no counter points, and that highlights the fact that you have no argument.

 

[sholditch]

OK, I'll try one more time for our little friend:If you have a conference with only 1-2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the rest are sprinkled somewhere between 25-100, chances are that those two teams will be able to beat the tar out of their conference opponents, on both sides of the ball, because they will be way better than them both offensively and defensively. Thus, those two teams would benefit statistically on both offense and defense, and be able to regularly post 45-10 victories.In the SEC, you usually have anywhere between 5-8 teams ranked in the top 25. Last year we ended with 5 in the top 25. This was widely considered a down year for the SEC, as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina are historically better. But we'll go with five. When there are five teams in the top 25, and probably another 3 in the top 50 (three other SEC teams received votes for the AP top 25), then it's a lot more likely that the top 25 teams meet more often. In a conference with two there is really only one chance for really good in-conference competition. In a conference with 5-8 really tough teams, the stats start to even out more, because more often than not, teams are playing teams that are evenly matched on both sides of the ball. Therefore, you see a lot less 45-10 games and a lot more 35-27 games, which brings down the statistics of both teams in the tough matchups. How, you ask? Well, because the latter games are more common, teams are not able to lay monstrous 40-point thrashings on their opponents, not because they are worse than the team that plays pansy opponents, but in spite of them being far better.The reason I mentioned USC is because they play in a conference that normally only fields two teams in the top 25. Thus, they usually enjoy one of the statistically best defenses. Same with Ohio State. They ranked number 1 in total defense last year, and number 2 in 2006. Now, what happened to them in the title game the last two years? They got their asses handed to them twice in a row by SEC teams that they were statistically better than. Embarassed. Caught with their pants down. Sent crying home to mommy. I don't remember the player, but a Florida Gator said it best in 2006 when he said "Half the teams in the SEC could have come in and beaten them the way we did."Now, do you need further explanation?

Not providing arguments?? Are you freaking kidding me??

 

[One]

OK, I'll try one more time for our little friend:If you have a conference with only 1-2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the rest are sprinkled somewhere between 25-100, chances are that those two teams will be able to beat the tar out of their conference opponents, on both sides of the ball, because they will be way better than them both offensively and defensively. Thus, those two teams would benefit statistically on both offense and defense, and be able to regularly post 45-10 victories.In the SEC, you usually have anywhere between 5-8 teams ranked in the top 25. Last year we ended with 5 in the top 25. This was widely considered a down year for the SEC, as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina are historically better. But we'll go with five. When there are five teams in the top 25, and probably another 3 in the top 50 (three other SEC teams received votes for the AP top 25), then it's a lot more likely that the top 25 teams meet more often. In a conference with two there is really only one chance for really good in-conference competition. In a conference with 5-8 really tough teams, the stats start to even out more, because more often than not, teams are playing teams that are evenly matched on both sides of the ball. Therefore, you see a lot less 45-10 games and a lot more 35-27 games, which brings down the statistics of both teams in the tough matchups. How, you ask? Well, because the latter games are more common, teams are not able to lay monstrous 40-point thrashings on their opponents, not because they are worse than the team that plays pansy opponents, but in spite of them being far better.The reason I mentioned USC is because they play in a conference that normally only fields two teams in the top 25. Thus, they usually enjoy one of the statistically best defenses. Same with Ohio State. They ranked number 1 in total defense last year, and number 2 in 2006. Now, what happened to them in the title game the last two years? They got their asses handed to them twice in a row by SEC teams that they were statistically better than. Embarassed. Caught with their pants down. Sent crying home to mommy. I don't remember the player, but a Florida Gator said it best in 2006 when he said "Half the teams in the SEC could have come in and beaten them the way we did."Now, do you need further explanation?

Not providing arguments?? Are you freaking kidding me??

Worked for me.

 

[rufan]

OK, I'll try one more time for our little friend:If you have a conference with only 1-2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the rest are sprinkled somewhere between 25-100, chances are that those two teams will be able to beat the tar out of their conference opponents, on both sides of the ball, because they will be way better than them both offensively and defensively. Thus, those two teams would benefit statistically on both offense and defense, and be able to regularly post 45-10 victories.In the SEC, you usually have anywhere between 5-8 teams ranked in the top 25. Last year we ended with 5 in the top 25. This was widely considered a down year for the SEC, as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina are historically better. But we'll go with five. When there are five teams in the top 25, and probably another 3 in the top 50 (three other SEC teams received votes for the AP top 25), then it's a lot more likely that the top 25 teams meet more often. In a conference with two there is really only one chance for really good in-conference competition. In a conference with 5-8 really tough teams, the stats start to even out more, because more often than not, teams are playing teams that are evenly matched on both sides of the ball. Therefore, you see a lot less 45-10 games and a lot more 35-27 games, which brings down the statistics of both teams in the tough matchups. How, you ask? Well, because the latter games are more common, teams are not able to lay monstrous 40-point thrashings on their opponents, not because they are worse than the team that plays pansy opponents, but in spite of them being far better.The reason I mentioned USC is because they play in a conference that normally only fields two teams in the top 25. Thus, they usually enjoy one of the statistically best defenses. Same with Ohio State. They ranked number 1 in total defense last year, and number 2 in 2006. Now, what happened to them in the title game the last two years? They got their asses handed to them twice in a row by SEC teams that they were statistically better than. Embarassed. Caught with their pants down. Sent crying home to mommy. I don't remember the player, but a Florida Gator said it best in 2006 when he said "Half the teams in the SEC could have come in and beaten them the way we did."Now, do you need further explanation?

Again, thanks for the insulting tone. I understand that defensive (and offensive) rankings can be inflated based on the competition. That has very little relevance to my point that the schedule that Arkansas played last year was not HEAD AND SHOULDERS above some of the other backs. They played 4 top 25 opponents, which by anybody's standards is tough. However, outside those 4 games (and I'll throw in Kentucky too), the rest was pretty weak.

 

[rufan]

Not providing arguments?? Are you freaking kidding me??

My reply was to Switz about him not providing arguments.

 

[treat88]

It's a little off topic, but I think McFadden will have a career very much like Robert Smith.

Similar builds, speed, production etc.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's a little off topic, but I think McFadden will have a career very much like Robert Smith.

Similar builds, speed, production etc.

That's the guy that I've been comparing him to all along as well.Which I view as a good thing. Had Smith not torn his ACL early in his career, he'd have gotten a lot more love. Once he learned that it was okay to run out of bounds, his career numbers improved significantly.

I expect McFadden's TD numbers to be more in the 8-12 per year range though.

 

[treat88]

It's a little off topic, but I think McFadden will have a career very much like Robert Smith.

Similar builds, speed, production etc.

That's the guy that I've been comparing him to all along as well.Which I view as a good thing.

Absolutely. Minus the health issues Smith was dynamic.It will be interesting to see how McFadden holds up in the NFL. That's my only real concern with him. Talent is not in question.

 

[TLEF316]

Due to pre-season draft pick trades I ended up with the top 4 picks in this year's draft. I didn't draft McFad.

I don't follow college football, so I have to go on what I hear or read. This is what I learned...

He is a Raider (Al Davis drafted him)

Can't break the arm tackles of college kids.

Yardage accumulation was in spread offense against college kids, who most are not even in football now.

Skinny WR legs with no power.

Tries to hard to bounce runs to the outside.

Can't run up the middle.

As a Raider he is on a team with a big ? at QB who has no WRs... 8+ in the box.

Oh, I heard he runs fast.

And finally, it is just too much of a coincidence that his name, McFad, would be too prefect to use in the future as a synonym for, "The next great over-hyped rookie player."

Von

WOW, why wouldn't you take him in the top four if just to trade. I am curious as to the four that you drafted.

seriously. I'm very down on Mcfadden, but to not take him when you have the top 4 picks is one of the dumbest things i've ever seen. The only possible explanation would be if you are in a start 2QB league, which makes Ryan an automatic choice. And even then, you still have to take someone like Rice,Johnson, jones or smith over Mcfadden (assuming you grab stewart and Mendenhall with the other 2 picks)His speed makes his upside far too high to make a decision like that.

 

[sholditch]

OK, I'll try one more time for our little friend:If you have a conference with only 1-2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the rest are sprinkled somewhere between 25-100, chances are that those two teams will be able to beat the tar out of their conference opponents, on both sides of the ball, because they will be way better than them both offensively and defensively. Thus, those two teams would benefit statistically on both offense and defense, and be able to regularly post 45-10 victories.In the SEC, you usually have anywhere between 5-8 teams ranked in the top 25. Last year we ended with 5 in the top 25. This was widely considered a down year for the SEC, as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina are historically better. But we'll go with five. When there are five teams in the top 25, and probably another 3 in the top 50 (three other SEC teams received votes for the AP top 25), then it's a lot more likely that the top 25 teams meet more often. In a conference with two there is really only one chance for really good in-conference competition. In a conference with 5-8 really tough teams, the stats start to even out more, because more often than not, teams are playing teams that are evenly matched on both sides of the ball. Therefore, you see a lot less 45-10 games and a lot more 35-27 games, which brings down the statistics of both teams in the tough matchups. How, you ask? Well, because the latter games are more common, teams are not able to lay monstrous 40-point thrashings on their opponents, not because they are worse than the team that plays pansy opponents, but in spite of them being far better.The reason I mentioned USC is because they play in a conference that normally only fields two teams in the top 25. Thus, they usually enjoy one of the statistically best defenses. Same with Ohio State. They ranked number 1 in total defense last year, and number 2 in 2006. Now, what happened to them in the title game the last two years? They got their asses handed to them twice in a row by SEC teams that they were statistically better than. Embarassed. Caught with their pants down. Sent crying home to mommy. I don't remember the player, but a Florida Gator said it best in 2006 when he said "Half the teams in the SEC could have come in and beaten them the way we did."Now, do you need further explanation?

Again, thanks for the insulting tone. I understand that defensive (and offensive) rankings can be inflated based on the competition. That has very little relevance to my point that the schedule that Arkansas played last year was not HEAD AND SHOULDERS above some of the other backs. They played 4 top 25 opponents, which by anybody's standards is tough. However, outside those 4 games (and I'll throw in Kentucky too), the rest was pretty weak.

Sorry, but someone comes around and says the SEC is nothing special, I get irked. By my count, DMC and Mendenhall each played 5 tough defenses, and Stewart played 2.

 

[rzrback77]

OK, I'll try one more time for our little friend:If you have a conference with only 1-2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the rest are sprinkled somewhere between 25-100, chances are that those two teams will be able to beat the tar out of their conference opponents, on both sides of the ball, because they will be way better than them both offensively and defensively. Thus, those two teams would benefit statistically on both offense and defense, and be able to regularly post 45-10 victories.In the SEC, you usually have anywhere between 5-8 teams ranked in the top 25. Last year we ended with 5 in the top 25. This was widely considered a down year for the SEC, as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina are historically better. But we'll go with five. When there are five teams in the top 25, and probably another 3 in the top 50 (three other SEC teams received votes for the AP top 25), then it's a lot more likely that the top 25 teams meet more often. In a conference with two there is really only one chance for really good in-conference competition. In a conference with 5-8 really tough teams, the stats start to even out more, because more often than not, teams are playing teams that are evenly matched on both sides of the ball. Therefore, you see a lot less 45-10 games and a lot more 35-27 games, which brings down the statistics of both teams in the tough matchups. How, you ask? Well, because the latter games are more common, teams are not able to lay monstrous 40-point thrashings on their opponents, not because they are worse than the team that plays pansy opponents, but in spite of them being far better.The reason I mentioned USC is because they play in a conference that normally only fields two teams in the top 25. Thus, they usually enjoy one of the statistically best defenses. Same with Ohio State. They ranked number 1 in total defense last year, and number 2 in 2006. Now, what happened to them in the title game the last two years? They got their asses handed to them twice in a row by SEC teams that they were statistically better than. Embarassed. Caught with their pants down. Sent crying home to mommy. I don't remember the player, but a Florida Gator said it best in 2006 when he said "Half the teams in the SEC could have come in and beaten them the way we did."Now, do you need further explanation?

Again, thanks for the insulting tone. I understand that defensive (and offensive) rankings can be inflated based on the competition. That has very little relevance to my point that the schedule that Arkansas played last year was not HEAD AND SHOULDERS above some of the other backs. They played 4 top 25 opponents, which by anybody's standards is tough. However, outside those 4 games (and I'll throw in Kentucky too), the rest was pretty weak.

They played five top 25 teams and two additional unranked bowl teams. Mississippi State was not weak.

 

[rufan]

They played five top 25 teams and two additional unranked bowl teams. Mississippi State was not weak.

They only played 4 teams that finished in the Top 25. Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Missouri. Am I missing one?

 

[rufan]

Sorry, but someone comes around and says the SEC is nothing special, I get irked. By my count, DMC and Mendenhall each played 5 tough defenses, and Stewart played 2.

Who said that the SEC was nothing special? Try reading my posts again, I said the SEC was the best conference in college football. But that does not change the fact that Arkansas's SCHEDULE was nothing special.

 

[switz]

Not providing arguments?? Are you freaking kidding me??

My reply was to Switz about him not providing arguments.

I made an argument, you didn't even acknowledge it.