SotT Dynasty Rankings Runningback (2009) (1 Viewer)

[Moe Green]

not to throw water on the fire here, but is Steven Jackson really worthy of the #2 spot?! how so?

lets see now, aside from one good year , 2006, where he rushed for 1528 yards and 13 tds , 4.4 avg, and another 90 receptions, he's been very plain jane in every other NFL season in which he's played.

2004, 134 att, 673 yards 4 tds. 5.0 avg.

2005, 254 att,1046 yards, 8 td, 4.1 avg per carry.., 43 rec for 320 yards. 2 rec td.

2007, 237/1002/5, 38/271/1, 4.2 avg

2008, 192/774/5, 34/314/1, 4.0 avg.



given the state of the Rams at this time, I wouldn't touch Sjax if you paid me..I can sort of see your point about his

ability if it wasn't for his a) injuries, b) lousy, aging offensive players around him, c) has had only 1 good season and only 1 pro bowl visit.

hate to say it, but, big guys that run upright don't last long in the NFL.

Sjax is really nothing special, I wouldn't even rank him among the top 20 RB's..

SJax is definitely among the top 20 RBs, but I agree that he is vastly overrated as a FF RB1. Bad team and he seems to get injured every year. And some people in here are ranking him around 1.02 or 1.03. No thanks, there are better options that early in a draft.

 

[renesauz]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

Also for the record...we aren't that far apart. Somebody half a thread ago suggested he was #2 based on the talent to be the best while at the same time acknowledging he is highly unlikely to reach his potential in 09 on such a lousy team. To me...that is ridiculous. The top rankings, especially at RB, should go to those with an outstanding chance to be #1 this year.

We're constantly debating how much year 2 matters in rankings, and year 3+.

My point is that year 3+ should NOT be even in the discussion for everydown workhorse backs, and that year 2 should be only a minor factor when discussing/ranking the most expensive, top shelf fantasy RB1's (it's far more significant for fantasy RB2s and 3s).

Personally, I have trouble putting S-Jax higher then RB7 or so for 2009 (at least right now) for all the reasons already discussed by others. So, with that in mind, I have a hard time putting him higher then RB5 or so for dynasty, regardless of his talent.

My argument however, is less about the specific ranking and more about how that ranking is justified.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

And interesting enough, Turner's situation during the '08 offseason is similar to S-Jax's going into this offseason. The Falcons were widely presumed to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL, with a despicable O-Line and very little chance for a RB to have a major impact in an atrocious offense. And Turner isn't as talented as S-Jax, nor does he have an impact in the passing like S-Jax does.

 

[az_prof]

Michael Bush at 88 is way, way off. Did you guys watch him play? He was the best back in Oakand in 08. He may not get to start next year but there is a good chance he will be traded somewhere he will have a chance to compete and in any case he is very young and entering his third contractual year, so it won't be long before he gets a chance. He proved that he deserves a chance to be a featured back and all the talk about running tall and weak was....weak and wrong.

 

[renesauz]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

And interesting enough, Turner's situation during the '08 offseason is similar to S-Jax's going into this offseason. The Falcons were widely presumed to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL, with a despicable O-Line and very little chance for a RB to have a major impact in an atrocious offense. And Turner isn't as talented as S-Jax, nor does he have an impact in the passing like S-Jax does.

Did people really see the Falcons O-line as this terrible a year ago? Plus, the Falcons did a lot of things to improve. Also, few (that I remember) were pimping Turner as the #2 back. I don't really see the situations as all that similar at all. To be fair, a lot can happen between now and next August. Additions/subtractions to the team could necessitate a bump up or down. Right now, we can only go with what we know right now. Besides, even most of us knocking him still consider him a top ten back. The arguments with Turner were all over the map. It's his immense talent that has him in that top ten. It's the very ugly situation that pulls him to the lower half of the top ten (at least IMO).

 

[renesauz]

Michael Bush at 88 is way, way off. Did you guys watch him play? He was the best back in Oakand in 08. He may not get to start next year but there is a good chance he will be traded somewhere he will have a chance to compete and in any case he is very young and entering his third contractual year, so it won't be long before he gets a chance. He proved that he deserves a chance to be a featured back and all the talk about running tall and weak was....weak and wrong.

Definately too low.

 

[benm3218]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

And interesting enough, Turner's situation during the '08 offseason is similar to S-Jax's going into this offseason. The Falcons were widely presumed to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL, with a despicable O-Line and very little chance for a RB to have a major impact in an atrocious offense. And Turner isn't as talented as S-Jax, nor does he have an impact in the passing like S-Jax does.

Did people really see the Falcons O-line as this terrible a year ago? Plus, the Falcons did a lot of things to improve. Also, few (that I remember) were pimping Turner as the #2 back. I don't really see the situations as all that similar at all. To be fair, a lot can happen between now and next August. Additions/subtractions to the team could necessitate a bump up or down. Right now, we can only go with what we know right now. Besides, even most of us knocking him still consider him a top ten back. The arguments with Turner were all over the map. It's his immense talent that has him in that top ten. It's the very ugly situation that pulls him to the lower half of the top ten (at least IMO).

You for some reason are like my nemesis... I can't stop arguing with you. I do not think many people thought Turner had/has "immense" talent. Most were greatly surprised by what he did.

So it would not be such a surprise to see a guy with true immense talent like Sjax do great this new year.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

And interesting enough, Turner's situation during the '08 offseason is similar to S-Jax's going into this offseason. The Falcons were widely presumed to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL, with a despicable O-Line and very little chance for a RB to have a major impact in an atrocious offense. And Turner isn't as talented as S-Jax, nor does he have an impact in the passing like S-Jax does.

Did people really see the Falcons O-line as this terrible a year ago?

Yes. They were bottom 3 in the NFL with the Rams & Niners. They could neither pass block nor run block.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Michael Bush at 88 is way, way off. Did you guys watch him play? He was the best back in Oakand in 08. He may not get to start next year but there is a good chance he will be traded somewhere he will have a chance to compete and in any case he is very young and entering his third contractual year, so it won't be long before he gets a chance. He proved that he deserves a chance to be a featured back and all the talk about running tall and weak was....weak and wrong.

Definately too low.

Yes, I can see that. Now, 3 weeks later, he's coming off a 180-yard game and no longer banished to fullback. I'd pick him out as too low now too.

 

[treat88]

I do not think many people thought Turner had/has "immense" talent. Most were greatly surprised by what he did. So it would not be such a surprise to see a guy with true immense talent like Sjax do great this new year.

Seriously? He is/was very highly thought of.His situation was in question heading into 08 not his talent.Personally I think he is equally as talented as S-Jax in terms of rushing abilities. Obviously S-Jax is the better receiver.Scoring systems will dictate which goes first. S-Jax in PPR. Turner in traditional.In terms of NFL value for me it's Tuner by a mile.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

And interesting enough, Turner's situation during the '08 offseason is similar to S-Jax's going into this offseason. The Falcons were widely presumed to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL, with a despicable O-Line and very little chance for a RB to have a major impact in an atrocious offense. And Turner isn't as talented as S-Jax, nor does he have an impact in the passing like S-Jax does.

True, although I did say maybe.

 

[-OZ-]

Great discussion here guys. Thanks!

For the record, I see what renesauz is saying, but I just think he's taking it too far. I would say that taking a shorter term approach to workhorse RBs makes sense, but not that redraft should be way, way more important that 2+ years out for them, which is what I think you said.

FWIW, I own Jackson and would only trade him for ADP, MJD and maybe Turner. But he's ahead of Forte, DeAngelo and everyone else for the next 2-3 years, IMO.

And interesting enough, Turner's situation during the '08 offseason is similar to S-Jax's going into this offseason. The Falcons were widely presumed to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL, with a despicable O-Line and very little chance for a RB to have a major impact in an atrocious offense. And Turner isn't as talented as S-Jax, nor does he have an impact in the passing like S-Jax does.

Did people really see the Falcons O-line as this terrible a year ago?

Yes. They were bottom 3 in the NFL with the Rams & Niners. They could neither pass block nor run block.

True, although when they're trying to protect Joey Harrington, Redman and Leftwich and the top RB is a 32 year old Warrick Dunn, it becomes apparent that the OLine was blamed more than it should have been.

 

[renesauz]

You for some reason are like my nemesis... I can't stop arguing with you.

I do not think many people thought Turner had/has "immense" talent. Most were greatly surprised by what he did.

So it would not be such a surprise to see a guy with true immense talent like Sjax do great this new year.

Part of the problem here is that we aren't as far apart as it seems. It wouldn't surprise me either to see him do great. I simply see 5-6 more RB's with either a better shot to be #1, or are significantly safer as a top ten bet.The debate really isn't about talent. Were all teams/situations equal, he's a no-brainer top 2-3 with a very strong argument for #1.

What I've argued is that for the very top RB's, who are both the most expensive players in dynasty AND have the shortest shelf lives....the emphasis MUST be greatly on THIS year. And when you put most of your focus on THIS year...situation becomes almost as important as talent.

NOTE: Further down the list, talent dominates, especially when talking about non-featured backs.

 

[travdogg]

Michael Bush at 88 is way, way off. Did you guys watch him play? He was the best back in Oakand in 08. He may not get to start next year but there is a good chance he will be traded somewhere he will have a chance to compete and in any case he is very young and entering his third contractual year, so it won't be long before he gets a chance. He proved that he deserves a chance to be a featured back and all the talk about running tall and weak was....weak and wrong.

Definately too low.

Yes, I can see that. Now, 3 weeks later, he's coming off a 180-yard game and no longer banished to fullback. I'd pick him out as too low now too.

Yeah, 88th is too low, but I didn't think he was Oakland's best back this year. He had 1 huge game against a very disinterested Tampa defense who was giving up games like that to every RB they faced the last couple weeks, including both Panthers backs in the same game.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You for some reason are like my nemesis... I can't stop arguing with you.

I do not think many people thought Turner had/has "immense" talent. Most were greatly surprised by what he did.

So it would not be such a surprise to see a guy with true immense talent like Sjax do great this new year.

Part of the problem here is that we aren't as far apart as it seems. It wouldn't surprise me either to see him do great. I simply see 5-6 more RB's with either a better shot to be #1, or are significantly safer as a top ten bet.The debate really isn't about talent. Were all teams/situations equal, he's a no-brainer top 2-3 with a very strong argument for #1.

What I've argued is that for the very top RB's, who are both the most expensive players in dynasty AND have the shortest shelf lives....the emphasis MUST be greatly on THIS year. And when you put most of your focus on THIS year...situation becomes almost as important as talent.

NOTE: Further down the list, talent dominates, especially when talking about non-featured backs.

Well, as has been said, that last point is one big reason I think you're ranking is different than the people you're debating with. We're talking about a dynasty league here, one that goes on for years. You have a top pick in a league that is set to go on for years. That is an extremely valuable pick, and you seem to want to squander all the value of that pick on caring about only 1 year.If age didn't matter, Priest would've been the number 1 overall pick towards the end of his career while he was still putting up numbers, and Brian Westbrook may very well be the number 1 pick right now.

Also, you mentioned guys who were safer to finish in the top 10, but unless you're predicting him to get hurt I don't see how you can really find a list of people that are safer to finish in that area than Sjax. He's a borderline top 5 PPG scorer in the worst offense situation imaginable. So many of these other guys have situations that are predicated on the guys around them continuing to be just as good as they are. We've already seen Sjax's floor, because the guys around him can't get any worse.

And again, this is the NFL, where situations change from season to season for no apparent reason all the time. As has been mentioned, we saw it this year with a couple teams like Atlanta, and we'll likely see it again next year with a handful more teams.

 

[benm3218]

You for some reason are like my nemesis... I can't stop arguing with you.

I do not think many people thought Turner had/has "immense" talent. Most were greatly surprised by what he did.

So it would not be such a surprise to see a guy with true immense talent like Sjax do great this new year.

Part of the problem here is that we aren't as far apart as it seems. It wouldn't surprise me either to see him do great. I simply see 5-6 more RB's with either a better shot to be #1, or are significantly safer as a top ten bet.The debate really isn't about talent. Were all teams/situations equal, he's a no-brainer top 2-3 with a very strong argument for #1.

What I've argued is that for the very top RB's, who are both the most expensive players in dynasty AND have the shortest shelf lives....the emphasis MUST be greatly on THIS year. And when you put most of your focus on THIS year...situation becomes almost as important as talent.

NOTE: Further down the list, talent dominates, especially when talking about non-featured backs.

Well, as has been said, that last point is one big reason I think you're ranking is different than the people you're debating with. We're talking about a dynasty league here, one that goes on for years. You have a top pick in a league that is set to go on for years. That is an extremely valuable pick, and you seem to want to squander all the value of that pick on caring about only 1 year.If age didn't matter, Priest would've been the number 1 overall pick towards the end of his career while he was still putting up numbers, and Brian Westbrook may very well be the number 1 pick right now.

Also, you mentioned guys who were safer to finish in the top 10, but unless you're predicting him to get hurt I don't see how you can really find a list of people that are safer to finish in that area than Sjax. He's a borderline top 5 PPG scorer in the worst offense situation imaginable. So many of these other guys have situations that are predicated on the guys around them continuing to be just as good as they are. We've already seen Sjax's floor, because the guys around him can't get any worse.

And again, this is the NFL, where situations change from season to season for no apparent reason all the time. As has been mentioned, we saw it this year with a couple teams like Atlanta, and we'll likely see it again next year with a handful more teams.

You stated this so much better than I have been. Good post.Renesauz - I think the problem I have and maybe even flaw in many dynasty leaguers thinking, is that like FB said above, "we've seen Jackson's floor", and it was still pretty darn good. When I look at his ability and knowing just like Atlanta or the Dolphins, that situations can change in 1 year. I could never trade Jackson for most of the people you'd likely rank as better. ALL the great players are gone in a dynasty league. I am willing to take another year of Jackson's floor if I have to in a dynasty league (although I don't actually own him.... Trying to trade for him) because I can see what even a slight change could bring for him. He could go from a so so fantasy player to a super stud. I personally just couldn't trade that for most of the people you'd rank as better.

Here is how I'd rank my dynasty RB's right now:

Peterson

MJD

Gore

Jackson

Forte

Chris Johnson

Westbrook

F&L is a lot smarter than me and thinks Jackson is #2... So, I tend to go along with him in an argument on the topic.

But, outside of the above names there I wouldn't even consider picking someone in front of Jackson, and if I did have him I couldn't trade him for anyone I named below him, and in fact if I already owned him I probably wouldn't trade him for Gore either...

 

[renesauz]

Again...we aren't as far apart as you're making it out to be.

Personally...I'm not spending top 3 money on ANY player I don't expect to be top three right now. Similarly, I'll never spend top 10 money on a player who I don't expect to be a top ten back right now. The window for RB's is too short, and too easily truncated by injury to spend top ten money based on year 2 expectations. Now...when I have 2 or 3 backs I expect similar production from, year 2 is certainly a good tiebreaker. I never said year 2+ isn't a factor, but it should NOT be the first, most important factor. In these discussions about Jackson, his supporters seem to default to the future too quickly and easily as a justification for #2.

I love his talent, and loathe his situation. I'm spending top 10 money on him because he's proven he can do that. I'm not spending top 3 money on him because he has ZERO help to get there.

Again, year 2+ still matters, it's simply secondary when discussing top 10. Year 3+ should not even enter the discussion on every-down backs except as a deep tiebreaker (IE: "he's 25, so I'll put him ahead of this other guy who's 28 since I can't see any other real difference")

 

[renesauz]

Renesauz - I think the problem I have and maybe even flaw in many dynasty leaguers thinking, is that like FB said above, "we've seen Jackson's floor", and it was still pretty darn good. When I look at his ability and knowing just like Atlanta or the Dolphins, that situations can change in 1 year. I could never trade Jackson for most of the people you'd likely rank as better. ALL the great players are gone in a dynasty league. I am willing to take another year of Jackson's floor if I have to in a dynasty league (although I don't actually own him.... Trying to trade for him) because I can see what even a slight change could bring for him. He could go from a so so fantasy player to a super stud. I personally just couldn't trade that for most of the people you'd rank as better. Here is how I'd rank my dynasty RB's right nowetersonMJDGore JacksonForteChris JohnsonWestbrookF&L is a lot smarter than me and thinks Jackson is #2... So, I tend to go along with him in an argument on the topic. But, outside of the above names there I wouldn't even consider picking someone in front of Jackson, and if I did have him I couldn't trade him for anyone I named below him, and in fact if I already owned him I probably wouldn't trade him for Gore either...

I'd slide Forte and Johnson ahead of him right now. Westbrook's age would keep me from bumping Westy ahead of him, although in a redraft league I'd be flipping a coin. That would put him....6th. See..we really aren't that far apart

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson.

I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

 

[Max Power]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson. I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

Not even Jones Drew? I guess I'm in the camp that thinks MJD is in for a couple HUGE yearsETA: Talent wise, I think he very close. Situation IMO is much better

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson.

I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

IMO, ppg is more important than final overall ranking.

Jackson has a VERY high ppg floor. Injuries at the RB position are very common... you have to get the guy that scores the most when he does play.

Who is safe from injury at RB? Peterson? nope. Westbrook? nope. Forte? played hurt this year, just as likely to miss time next year, imo. Turner? Missed time in San Diego as a part timer. Deangelo? Missed 3 games in his rookie season. MJD is about the healthiest fantasy RB1, missing I think only 1 game in 3 years, though he hasn't been the bell cow yet.

As several have stated, this year was Jackson's FLOOR. Top 5 production in the worst possible situation.

There is no safe bet at RB, at least as far as injury goes.

The risk-averse will have Jackson outside of the top 5, and that is fine. There are several RBs that can be put in Jackson's tier. I like him at or near the top of that tier due to both a higher floor and a higher ceiling.

 

[gonzobill5]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

 

[Q-Bert]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

Right, but it is not like 2007 was exactly the same as 2006. In 2007, two of KC's all pro offensive lineman retired and their starting fullback left as a free agent. Those factors had a bigger impact on LJ's 2007 production than the 416 carries he had in 2006.

 

[gonzobill5]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

I've seen the studies and wouldn't buy that logic for a nickel. Workhorse type backs are likely to get injured for any number of reasons. I don't think the # of carries they had the previous year is one of them.

 

[puckalicious]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

I'll see your sample size of 1, and raise you with Eddie George. He had 403 carries in 2000 and played the whole season for the 3 following seasons. Based on my cherry picking, RB's with 400 carries ALWAYS return healthy.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

I'll see your sample size of 1, and raise you with Eddie George. He had 403 carries in 2000 and played the whole season for the 3 following seasons. Based on my cherry picking, RB's with 400 carries ALWAYS return healthy.

Well Mr. Wit, as i mentioned, people have been through this much more deliberately before, I was just citing one of the examples. If you're interested, there is a thread that goes on for pages with data on EVERY rb that has reached near that amount of carries and came to the same conclusion. It's not my intention to bring another 10 page discussion thread into here to respond to one minor point, which is why I limited it to a mere example of the whole picture.If you'd like to see it with a full sample size, you're more than welcome to read through it.

 

[puckalicious]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

I'll see your sample size of 1, and raise you with Eddie George. He had 403 carries in 2000 and played the whole season for the 3 following seasons. Based on my cherry picking, RB's with 400 carries ALWAYS return healthy.

Well Mr. Wit, as i mentioned, people have been through this much more deliberately before, I was just citing one of the examples. If you're interested, there is a thread that goes on for pages with data on EVERY rb that has reached near that amount of carries and came to the same conclusion. It's not my intention to bring another 10 page discussion thread into here to respond to one minor point, which is why I limited it to a mere example of the whole picture.If you'd like to see it with a full sample size, you're more than welcome to read through it.

Wasn't trying to be snippy! I've read the info you refer to, and have my own spreadsheet of data regarding the topic. You are right, this thread is getting way off topic with the # of carries arguments. I promise to knock it off.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

I'll see your sample size of 1, and raise you with Eddie George. He had 403 carries in 2000 and played the whole season for the 3 following seasons. Based on my cherry picking, RB's with 400 carries ALWAYS return healthy.

Well Mr. Wit, as i mentioned, people have been through this much more deliberately before, I was just citing one of the examples. If you're interested, there is a thread that goes on for pages with data on EVERY rb that has reached near that amount of carries and came to the same conclusion. It's not my intention to bring another 10 page discussion thread into here to respond to one minor point, which is why I limited it to a mere example of the whole picture.If you'd like to see it with a full sample size, you're more than welcome to read through it.

There's actually not much of a difference between rb's who had 400 plus carries and rb's who had fewer carries when it comes to injuries the following season. Every rb gets hurt. It's just how things work. We tend to focus on some magic number when the numbers indicate that magic cutoff doesn't seem to show much of an impact.

We might as well start a study showing the number of touchdowns in year n negatively affecting their touchdown numbers in year n+1.

If Turner falls to single digit touchdowns next year we'll know why.

 

[puckalicious]

Then what are the guys who came up with this theory think the reason is for it?

A lot of carries = a lot of hits = wear & tear. Body breaks down and future injuries are incurred.

I think that is the simple explanation. If a guy had 370 carries last year, he's going to get a lot this year and that leads to more opportunities to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Always thought this was a classic case of correlation not implying cause & effect. We want to draft guys who touch the ball a lot, don't we?

Well, people have been through this before. Many of the guys that had a lot of carries in year X had far worse performance or got injured in year X+1 despite getting far fewer carries that year.Larry Johnson is always the prime example for this study. He had 416 carries in 2006 in 16 games, or 26 carries per game.

In 2007 he had his worst season ever, at 3.5ypc (almost a full yard behind his second worst season ever), and then got hurt. But the kicker is that all this happened through only 158 carries in 8 games, or 19 carries per game.

I'll see your sample size of 1, and raise you with Eddie George. He had 403 carries in 2000 and played the whole season for the 3 following seasons. Based on my cherry picking, RB's with 400 carries ALWAYS return healthy.

Well Mr. Wit, as i mentioned, people have been through this much more deliberately before, I was just citing one of the examples. If you're interested, there is a thread that goes on for pages with data on EVERY rb that has reached near that amount of carries and came to the same conclusion. It's not my intention to bring another 10 page discussion thread into here to respond to one minor point, which is why I limited it to a mere example of the whole picture.If you'd like to see it with a full sample size, you're more than welcome to read through it.

There's actually not much of a difference between rb's who had 400 plus carries and rb's who had fewer carries when it comes to injuries the following season. Every rb gets hurt. It's just how things work. We tend to focus on some magic number when the numbers indicate that magic cutoff doesn't seem to show much of an impact.

We might as well start a study showing the number of touchdowns in year n negatively affecting their touchdown numbers in year n+1.

If Turner falls to single digit touchdowns next year we'll know why.

This guy gets it. That being said, expecting Turner to repeat his #'s next year seems possible, but not likely. I'd say he's safe as a top-10 RB though.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson.

I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

IMO, ppg is more important than final overall ranking.

Jackson has a VERY high ppg floor. Injuries at the RB position are very common... you have to get the guy that scores the most when he does play.

Who is safe from injury at RB? Peterson? nope. Westbrook? nope. Forte? played hurt this year, just as likely to miss time next year, imo. Turner? Missed time in San Diego as a part timer. Deangelo? Missed 3 games in his rookie season. MJD is about the healthiest fantasy RB1, missing I think only 1 game in 3 years, though he hasn't been the bell cow yet.

As several have stated, this year was Jackson's FLOOR. Top 5 production in the worst possible situation.

There is no safe bet at RB, at least as far as injury goes.

The risk-averse will have Jackson outside of the top 5, and that is fine. There are several RBs that can be put in Jackson's tier. I like him at or near the top of that tier due to both a higher floor and a higher ceiling.

This is pretty much my line of thinking too.

S-Jax is a stud player and an elite talent. Those guys have to be ranked high even in situations that are far from ideal (i.e. MJD and Calvin Johnson in 2007 and early 2008 or Andre Johnson with David Carr).

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson. I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

We're always on the same page, buddy. I'm just glad I don't play against you in my league because we'd always be fighting over the same players. I, too, have S-Jax and would not trade him for any RB other than Peterson. He's a prime buy-low right now, but my guess is S-Jax owners aren't selling.

 

[Horses Mouth]

I, too, have S-Jax and would not trade him for any RB other than Peterson.

then why do you have MJD over SJax?TIER TWO2. Maurice Jones-Drew, JAX | Age: 24.4 | Value Score: 923. Steven Jackson, STL | Age: 26.1 | Value Score: 91

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I, too, have S-Jax and would not trade him for any RB other than Peterson.

then why do you have MJD over SJax?TIER TWO2. Maurice Jones-Drew, JAX | Age: 24.4 | Value Score: 923. Steven Jackson, STL | Age: 26.1 | Value Score: 91

First of all, they're ranked about as close as can be. Secondly, I don't do the rankings exactly the same way I'd run my team, or they'd be extremely skewed towards guys I like and against guys I don't like. I love MJD as a player and always have, but I'm invested in S-Jax and would not trade him for MJD while his value is down. I wouldn't trade Chris Johnson for Frank Gore either, but I'm not sure it's fair to rank him like that.

 

[renesauz]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson.

I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

We're always on the same page, buddy. I'm just glad I don't play against you in my league because we'd always be fighting over the same players.

I, too, have S-Jax and would not trade him for any RB other than Peterson. He's a prime buy-low right now, but my guess is S-Jax owners aren't selling.

I understand the ppg argument...even respect it. ppg is a critical argument/indicator for a top 10-15 back. For a top 3...he should be everything. ppg, stability, safe, top 3 at seasons end.Top 3 RB's are the most expensive dynasty players in the game. They need to stay in the lineup. S-Jax has not been able to do that AND has a horrid team.

Put it this way....

You can usually trade the #2 Rb for another top ten back AND a top 15 WR.

Would you rather have your #2 ppg back for 9 games, or the #8 ppg back for 14-16 games AND a solid starting WR?

You can sub any top 30 RB in your lineup for the 12th, 15th ranked RB, so PPG is a very valid argument for them. PPG is a horrible argument for the #2 guy because you CAN'T adequately sub him with anything less then another top 15 back. And top 15 backs are too valuable to be kept as backups. That means a top 3 back should be of at least average durability.

Below average durability AND terrible situation dictates Jackson as a terrible top 3 RB choice, IMHO.

Again....I fully respect the ranking for anyone who believes he will stay top 5 overall (not just ppg) because his talent is high enough to justify that...I simply think that the reasoning some are using used to justify that ranking is faulty.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Say whatever you want about S Jax having a bad situation, but the fact is he was a top 5 RB in PPG this year with one of the worst situations in football. In dynasty, I own him and would not trade him straight up for any RB other than Peterson.

I think he is one of the prime buy lows this year in dynasty league because of the perception that he had a bad year. He had a bad ranking because of missed games, not because of his situation.

We're always on the same page, buddy. I'm just glad I don't play against you in my league because we'd always be fighting over the same players.

I, too, have S-Jax and would not trade him for any RB other than Peterson. He's a prime buy-low right now, but my guess is S-Jax owners aren't selling.

I understand the ppg argument...even respect it. ppg is a critical argument/indicator for a top 10-15 back. For a top 3...he should be everything. ppg, stability, safe, top 3 at seasons end.Top 3 RB's are the most expensive dynasty players in the game. They need to stay in the lineup. S-Jax has not been able to do that AND has a horrid team.

Put it this way....

You can usually trade the #2 Rb for another top ten back AND a top 15 WR.

Would you rather have your #2 ppg back for 9 games, or the #8 ppg back for 14-16 games AND a solid starting WR?

You can sub any top 30 RB in your lineup for the 12th, 15th ranked RB, so PPG is a very valid argument for them. PPG is a horrible argument for the #2 guy because you CAN'T adequately sub him with anything less then another top 15 back. And top 15 backs are too valuable to be kept as backups. That means a top 3 back should be of at least average durability.

Below average durability AND terrible situation dictates Jackson as a terrible top 3 RB choice, IMHO.

Again....I fully respect the ranking for anyone who believes he will stay top 5 overall (not just ppg) because his talent is high enough to justify that...I simply think that the reasoning some are using used to justify that ranking is faulty.

What we're saying is that S-Jax's past injuries do not correlate to future injuries. We see those injuries as being of the fluke variety (just as Adrian Peterson's college injuries were fluke-ish), and we don't see him as injury prone.See previous arguments by Lott's Fingertip, et al.

Injuries at the RB position are very common... you have to get the guy that scores the most when he does play.

Who is safe from injury at RB? Peterson? nope. Westbrook? nope. Forte? played hurt this year, just as likely to miss time next year, imo. Turner? Missed time in San Diego as a part timer. Deangelo? Missed 3 games in his rookie season. MJD is about the healthiest fantasy RB1, missing I think only 1 game in 3 years, though he hasn't been the bell cow yet.

As several have stated, this year was Jackson's FLOOR. Top 5 production in the worst possible situation.

There is no safe bet at RB, at least as far as injury goes.

I think that sums up the argument quite well. I agree that there's no such thing as a RB that is safe from injury, and I don't think S-Jax is any more likely to be injured in 2009 as any other RB in the league.Personally, I greatly prefer players with a high PPG. I can always plug somebody in, but I can't do much about a guy producing mediocre numbers on a weekly basis.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Top 15 RBs this year:

1. Williams, DeAnge CAR RB 286.50 - 20 TDs unlikely, healthy Stewart likely to steal carries more next year

2. Turner, Michael ATL RB 272.10 - nothing in the recieving game, injuries in the past

3. Forte, Matt CHI RB 241.50 - does he look like a franchise RB? Not to me...

4. Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 241.10 - STUD with injury history

5. Jones, Thomas NYJ RB 239.90 - old

6. Tomlinson, Ladai SDC RB 225.60 - old and nicked up

7. Slaton, Steve HOU RB 221.90 - not much upside over this year's production, IMO

8. Portis, Clinton WAS RB 218.50 - falling apart?

9. Jones-Drew, Maur JAC RB 216.90 - playmaker hasn't had a chance to carry load yet

10. Westbrook, Brian PHI RB 216.30 - nicked up annually

11. Johnson, Chris TEN RB 206.80 - smallish; might be the next Westy, might not get enough TDs

12. Jacobs, Brandon NYG RB 200.50 - injuries, rbbc

13. Lynch, Marshawn BUF RB 186.70 - didn't break out like was expected

14. Gore, Frank SFO RB 184.90 - very good, but.... injuries

15. Jackson, Steven STL RB 184.20 -

outside top 15, but part of the conversation - Marion Barber - injuries, possible rbbc

I'm just not seeing the sure things people are wanting at the top of the draft...

IMO, here are the guys that I think one can make an argument for being a top 5 dynasty RB:

Peterson, Turner, D.Williams, MJD, Forte, Gore, S.Jackson, Barber

If you like little guys, throw in Slaton and C.Johnson. If you like oldies, throw in LT and Westy.

Of the 1st group of 8, 3 (MJD, Williams, Forte) have not missed significant time. Point is, there are precious few sure things. Pick your poison.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Top 15 RBs this year:

1. Williams, DeAnge CAR RB 286.50 - 20 TDs unlikely, healthy Stewart likely to steal carries more next year

2. Turner, Michael ATL RB 272.10 - nothing in the recieving game, injuries in the past

3. Forte, Matt CHI RB 241.50 - does he look like a franchise RB? Not to me...

4. Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 241.10 - STUD with injury history

5. Jones, Thomas NYJ RB 239.90 - old

6. Tomlinson, Ladai SDC RB 225.60 - old and nicked up

7. Slaton, Steve HOU RB 221.90 - not much upside over this year's production, IMO

8. Portis, Clinton WAS RB 218.50 - falling apart?

9. Jones-Drew, Maur JAC RB 216.90 - playmaker hasn't had a chance to carry load yet

10. Westbrook, Brian PHI RB 216.30 - nicked up annually

11. Johnson, Chris TEN RB 206.80 - smallish; might be the next Westy, might not get enough TDs

12. Jacobs, Brandon NYG RB 200.50 - injuries, rbbc

13. Lynch, Marshawn BUF RB 186.70 - didn't break out like was expected

14. Gore, Frank SFO RB 184.90 - very good, but.... injuries

15. Jackson, Steven STL RB 184.20 -

outside top 15, but part of the conversation - Marion Barber - injuries, possible rbbc

I'm just not seeing the sure things people are wanting at the top of the draft...

I think this is a key point. If there were stud RBs/elite talents with no questions whatsoever about their role, talent, repeatability, health, etc., then I could see moving S-Jax down several spots. But I don't see any surefire studs that have it all over S-Jax.

 

[bluesclues]

In a PPR, Pierre Thomas is easily a top 15 RB even with a healthy Reggie Bush.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

In a PPR, Pierre Thomas is easily a top 15 RB even with a healthy Reggie Bush.

I love Pierre Thomas as much as the next guy, but there's no doubt his receptions go down when Bush is playing alongside him. Pierre is great, but his floor is lower than a lot of guys in the Top-20.

 

[gheemony]