Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
In the 4 years since Rudi became a starter, and based on season-ending VBD score :2003 - Manning 53, Rudi 222004 - Manning 150, Rudi 682005 - Rudi 84, Manning 342006 - Manning 120, Rudi 54.Average : Manning 89.3, Rudi 57Bumping my own post to see if someone (Yudkin) can post some value comparisons forRudi and Manning over the last few years to see what we find.thanks
Rudi was not the starter in 2003. He started a few games but was second fiddle to Dillion the first half of the year.
<_< This is one of those pieces of the puzzle we need if we're going to be able to quantify the safety of the Manning pick vs the production level. Though I might be hesitant to use a straight last starter baseline if that is what is being used as that gets to be less accurate the further down the position list you go, which means that top RB who dropped a bit would show a bigger value drop than he probably should. The 24th RB is worth more than the 36th WR in a start 2 RB, 3 WR league, even though both have the same VBD value, just because there are more WRs you can plug in for that 36th guy who will score comparably. MT was talking about a 2/3 drafted players baseline having shown some good results and said in PM he'd start a thread to discuss it. Might be interesting if I can find the time later to see what kind of results you get doing that with the 2/3 drafted baseline.
Reading this post reminded me of an upside that I know I've discussed on this topic before, but don't think I've seen mentioned. There's an argument that can be made that taking Manning very early has some upside in that you can often get a quality RB in the first few picks of round 3. Let's say someone bucked the system and took him at 1.3. They may be able to get RBs in some years in the 2nd and at 3.3 that are of enough low risk they don't require spending middle round picks on backups that they wouldn't have spent if they'd taken 1st and 2nd round RBs. But waiting until 1.5 or 1.7 or 1.10 to take Manning may put you in a more exposed position. I'm not saying that by itself is enough to make Manning worth taking at 1.1 or 1.2, but I think the impact it has on your draft is worth mentioning. Some years more than others might allow you to get max value out of your middle rounds even if you take Manning, but only if you take him very early as opposed to middle-late 1st.
The year that Manning threw 48 TD passes (2004?), a friend of mine selected Manning in 3 different big money leagues (all of which used a live auction draft). He won the Super Bowl in all 3 leagues. He paid up for Manning, thought that he was primed for a huge statistical year, had to allocate fewer $$ to the RB position and he nailed it. Also this was not 6 TD pass league
My bad. Should have said a viable or draftable player.David Yudkin said:Rudi was not the starter in 2003. He started a few games but was second fiddle to Dillion the first half of the year.Evilgrin 72 said:In the 4 years since Rudi became a starter, and based on season-ending VBD score :2003 - Manning 53, Rudi 222004 - Manning 150, Rudi 682005 - Rudi 84, Manning 342006 - Manning 120, Rudi 54.Average : Manning 89.3, Rudi 57joey said:Bumping my own post to see if someone (Yudkinjoey said:) can post some value comparisons forRudi and Manning over the last few years to see what we find.thanks
I ended up with Rudi on a lot of my teams that year off of waivers, but that was not a year he was really drafted coming off a season with 17 carries for 67 rushing yards.My bad. Should have said a viable or draftable player.David Yudkin said:Rudi was not the starter in 2003. He started a few games but was second fiddle to Dillion the first half of the year.Evilgrin 72 said:In the 4 years since Rudi became a starter, and based on season-ending VBD score :2003 - Manning 53, Rudi 222004 - Manning 150, Rudi 682005 - Rudi 84, Manning 342006 - Manning 120, Rudi 54.Average : Manning 89.3, Rudi 57joey said:Bumping my own post to see if someone (Yudkinjoey said:
To this end, I plugged Dodds' projections and my scoring system into the draft dominator and did a "my team mock draft." The way I use DD is as follows :Each year, I go back and look at the previous 3 years' drafts in my league and look at who was available with each of my picks (e.g. QB2, RB15, WR6) I average that and compare it to current year VBD to try to fit the pieces together as best I can regarding who will be on the board at my next pick. When my pick comes up, I change the VBD baselines to reflect who will be there when I next pick (again e.g. QB2, RB15, WR6.) I find that a rolling baseline as such gives you a much better indicator of value. So, when my pick #5 comes up, Manning's baseline is Palmer, Alexander's is Edge, and Chad Johnson's is Marvin Harrison.GregR said:SSOG said:
All in all though, good post, this is the kind of stuff we need to do to go from untested hypothesis to a tested result.
OK, that's really not a fair comparison, then. Bump Johnson's average value # from 57 to 68.7.I ended up with Rudi on a lot of my teams that year off of waivers, but that was not a year he was really drafted coming off a season with 17 carries for 67 rushing yards.My bad. Should have said a viable or draftable player.David Yudkin said:Rudi was not the starter in 2003. He started a few games but was second fiddle to Dillion the first half of the year.Evilgrin 72 said:In the 4 years since Rudi became a starter, and based on season-ending VBD score :2003 - Manning 53, Rudi 222004 - Manning 150, Rudi 682005 - Rudi 84, Manning 342006 - Manning 120, Rudi 54.Average : Manning 89.3, Rudi 57joey said:Bumping my own post to see if someone (Yudkinjoey said:
I believe his passing stats will improve based upon offseason movements by the Colts.They lost a couple of defensive starters and backups in free agency-Cato June and Nick Harper.Didn't add anyone significant until the 3rd round...Hughes(who I love in the Cover 2 scheme)But they added a slot Wr in Gonzo and Ugoh for future LT or RT.The defense was bad last year and got worse. They will need to pass to keep up with opposing offenses and now have more weapons to do so.
thanks for this info, fellas. Very interesting to see those numbers.Of course that's only 1 piece of the puzzle since the main point is what do you*after* you take one of those guys in the first round. Like I posted earlier,I'd prefer a draft that starts with Rudi (if Safety and Reliability is a concern...call it a Honda or Toyota DraftOK, that's really not a fair comparison, then. Bump Johnson's average value # from 57 to 68.7.I ended up with Rudi on a lot of my teams that year off of waivers, but that was not a year he was really drafted coming off a season with 17 carries for 67 rushing yards.My bad. Should have said a viable or draftable player.David Yudkin said:Rudi was not the starter in 2003. He started a few games but was second fiddle to Dillion the first half of the year.Evilgrin 72 said:In the 4 years since Rudi became a starter, and based on season-ending VBD score :2003 - Manning 53, Rudi 222004 - Manning 150, Rudi 682005 - Rudi 84, Manning 342006 - Manning 120, Rudi 54.Average : Manning 89.3, Rudi 57joey said:Bumping my own post to see if someone (Yudkinjoey said:) can post some value comparisons forRudi and Manning over the last few years to see what we find.thanks
) cuz I like the value at QB in rounds6-9. Manning/Edge/Deuce/Evans doesn't sound as good to me as Rudi/Holt/Benson/Evans/Bulger(or Kitna)but that's just me.
While I concur that the defensive seems worse than last year, Manning accounted for 35 TD last year and was roughly around 100 yards from his career high in yaradage. Besides his 49 TD year, in 01, 02, 03, and 05 he did not have more than 30 TD.I personally have a hard time predicting a QB to have more than 4400 yards and 35 total TD. But maybe that's just me.
this was the argument i was having with people who after his record year were acting like 40 TDs was a lock for him. it is EXTREMELY difficult to hit that number and manning will likely be closer to 30 again this year despite what rationalization anyone wants to give.
This was exactly the exercise I was suggesting. I'm not sure how you mistook that unless you assumed that by injuries that occurred during the year you thought I was talking about injuries that occurred while sitting at home watching the NFL draft or something. Although, perhaps my mistake is simply in assuming that by quoting my post, it also means you took the time to read it
.Anyhow, on that point, granted when I did the exercise myself I was using more traditional scoring and lineup requirements. Generally, I don't think it's a good idea to start a thread with a point based on a rarely used scoring format, else I've got a thread to start about how undervalued Reggie Bush is because he scored a lot of points in my league where we get 1000 points per reception...With the standard scoring numbers I ran, Manning only sniffed the top 5 in his 2004 year, which basically falls in line with exactly what I was saying - that to justify the draft position a QB would have to put up a near record-breaking year, something Manning did that year. If you want to count on something that happens twice a decade if we're lucky, and has never ever been repeated by the same player in the history of the NFL - be my guest.As for the side-swipe about "league-wide" finish compared to positional finish, that point was clearly directed at a poster other than you, as cleverly hidden by the way that I posted it right underneath a quote from another poster.
I was touching on a couple of individual points that I had a heavy opinion on. Even with that said though, I'm not sure how something that only strengthens the "anti-Manning" side of the argument (the side I'm arguing) is detrimental to your point...
Which is basically exactly what I said, that good posts did end up coming out of the thread, but that the original post was extremely weakly formulated based on something that quite frankly (and this is not meant to be a knock on you personally because I know it is something you are far behind intellectually) is a 6th grade mistake. Funny that you're telling me to read things when you don't even seem to be reading what you quote.The first post was basically "hey guys why can't Manning be a top 5 pick when in this one isolated example he ends up providing equal total points through 3 rounds of a draft?"You took a RB who had never missed time to injury and happened to miss a ton of it last year and threw Manning in there instead and the numbers were STILL only equal. But that's beside the point, the real crime here is starting this discussion with what basically amounts to a useless example that we can draw up about any position or any player out there.I could just as easily make a post about how drafting Jason Elam in the top 3 in 2005 netted better results than drafting Priest Holmes top 3 which means that we shouldn't shun drafting a kicker in the top 5, and just because others jumped in and made some worthwhile points doesn't make my post any less ridiculous.If your goal was just to simulate discussion, just asking or leading with your VBD score example (though I still feel it is a poor idea to formulate a general thread on a less-used scoring system) would have been a much better kickoff than making up some useless, arbitrary example and then asking what's wrong with it.
Agreed. Wishing an outlier season ain't gonna make it happen, especially when there's a consistent track record like Manning's (excluding '04, of course). Now, it may be that all of the changes mentioned above have a positive effect on Manning's #s - something I'm not convinced of yet. I can recall some arguments a few years ago saying that changes to the Colts that were basically the opposite of those above would increase Manning's #s too. Maybe he'll hit 4800/38 or some such, but I wouldn't bet a whole lot on it. Too many things have to go right for him to buck history that much.However, I'd bet more on Manning to hit 4200/30 than I would on any single projection for any player. Someone brought up Rudi as an alternative to Manning for those in safe mode. I agree in to an extent - Rudi may be the safest bet besides Manning at that point, but I have nowhere near the same level of confidence that I do in Manning. And other than Rudi, who is going to be available at, say, 1.05 that you'd feel comfortable taking?Again, I'm not saying taking PM at 5 is a no-brainer. But I do think he's a viable play there & not a death knell to a team doing so. Just gotta think a little differently on your team's construction.this was the argument i was having with people who after his record year were acting like 40 TDs was a lock for him. it is EXTREMELY difficult to hit that number and manning will likely be closer to 30 again this year despite what rationalization anyone wants to give.
Dear God.#1 - Re-read the initial post. The numbers I provide there aren't an example of anything. They were run using Dodds' projections for the 2007 season. Using that as a baseline to project, I was illustrating how Manning could represent value at pick #5 according to the Draft Dominator in certain formats. I wasn't basing anything on a single arbitrary example.This was exactly the exercise I was suggesting. I'm not sure how you mistook that unless you assumed that by injuries that occurred during the year you thought I was talking about injuries that occurred while sitting at home watching the NFL draft or something. Although, perhaps my mistake is simply in assuming that by quoting my post, it also means you took the time to read it.Anyhow, on that point, granted when I did the exercise myself I was using more traditional scoring and lineup requirements. Generally, I don't think it's a good idea to start a thread with a point based on a rarely used scoring format, else I've got a thread to start about how undervalued Reggie Bush is because he scored a lot of points in my league where we get 1000 points per reception...
With the standard scoring numbers I ran, Manning only sniffed the top 5 in his 2004 year, which basically falls in line with exactly what I was saying - that to justify the draft position a QB would have to put up a near record-breaking year, something Manning did that year. If you want to count on something that happens twice a decade if we're lucky, and has never ever been repeated by the same player in the history of the NFL - be my guest.
As for the side-swipe about "league-wide" finish compared to positional finish, that point was clearly directed at a poster other than you, as cleverly hidden by the way that I posted it right underneath a quote from another poster.
I was touching on a couple of individual points that I had a heavy opinion on. Even with that said though, I'm not sure how something that only strengthens the "anti-Manning" side of the argument (the side I'm arguing) is detrimental to your point...Which is basically exactly what I said, that good posts did end up coming out of the thread, but that the original post was extremely weakly formulated based on something that quite frankly (and this is not meant to be a knock on you personally because I know it is something you are far behind intellectually) is a 6th grade mistake. Funny that you're telling me to read things when you don't even seem to be reading what you quote.The first post was basically "hey guys why can't Manning be a top 5 pick when in this one isolated example he ends up providing equal total points through 3 rounds of a draft?"
You took a RB who had never missed time to injury and happened to miss a ton of it last year and threw Manning in there instead and the numbers were STILL only equal. But that's beside the point, the real crime here is starting this discussion with what basically amounts to a useless example that we can draw up about any position or any player out there.
I could just as easily make a post about how drafting Jason Elam in the top 3 in 2005 netted better results than drafting Priest Holmes top 3 which means that we shouldn't shun drafting a kicker in the top 5, and just because others jumped in and made some worthwhile points doesn't make my post any less ridiculous.
If your goal was just to simulate discussion, just asking or leading with your VBD score example (though I still feel it is a poor idea to formulate a general thread on a less-used scoring system) would have been a much better kickoff than making up some useless, arbitrary example and then asking what's wrong with it.
CAVEAT: Starting lineup: 1 QB 1-2 RB 2-3 WR 1 TE 1 PK 1 DTMost league's require 2 starting RB's and 3 starting WR's. Having the flex option in the format you are drafting, and more importantly, starting one less RB/WR than required in a traditional set up will play in your favor for that draft. Unfortunately, the starting requirements in that mock will change the players drafted and limit the value of the exercise for your evaluation.
Yeah, we do all know how that turned out- Manning finished with a higher VBD than 6 of the 7 players selected between 6th and 12th. So even when Manning comes back down to earth, he's still a phenominal pick in the latter half of the first round.
Or the first half, for that matter.
No way. The VBD difference between landing the #1 overall player (Tomlinson) and the #4 overall player (Manning) last season was 144 points. The difference between #4 and #70 or so was about 120 points. The VBD from getting a top1 or top2 player is so extremely high that, imo, you *HAVE* to try to land that player... and that player is NEVER going to be Peyton Manning. Even when he had the greatest fantasy QB season in the history of fantasy QBs, he didn't break 200 points of VBD, so unless you think Manning's going to IMPROVE upon 2004, taking him in the top 3 is insane.The top 3-5 players should always be RBs. Always.
Blah, blah, blah...Scoring systems and roster configurations that don't subscribe to the same stupid RB-only leagues will return VBD heavily in Manning's favor. Just have to use some imagination to get out of this FF rut.
Better idea: when giving general fantasy advice, it's best to give it based on what is far and away the most common scoring system in fantasy football.
And, which system would that be?
Meh...just wake me whenever you find it.
1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 Def, 1 point per 10 rushing, 1 point per 20 passing, 6 points per all TDs. The vast majority of leagues are based on that, with small variations in theme (for instance, some have PPR, or 4 points per passing TD, or 1 point per 25 passing, or a flex starter, or no TE required, etc).
If this is the most common scoring system in fantasy football, then you gobble up all the running backs with the first 10 picks. Of course, it's a ######ed system. But, hey...we voted Bush into office, not once but twice, so it's not like it's beyond us not to think these things through sometimes.
Not to burst your bubble, but aside from the year that Manning threw 49 TDs, his next highest total in 8 other seasons is 33 back in 2000. And, aside from those 33 TDs and last year when he threw 31 TDs, he's thrown in the 20's 6 out of 9 seasons. Projecting 38 TDs is a bit lofty, even by Manning's standards. Your ceiling should be 32, not your floor. Again, if you want to project a significantly higher total than 8 of his 9 seasons, by all means, project away. It's just not logical and there's nothing to suggest an upward trend in the passing game.And to suggest there's a significant gap between Palmer and Manning also has no real basis as Palmer has been virtually on par with Manning the past 2 yrs.nittanylion said:
QFTMost people who take Manning that early overproject his stats. So by the numbers they are right that the value is there. The problem is that the numbers are wrong, given historical trends and what is probable to happen.
