The Official Staff/Messageboard Survivor Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

As to Steven Jackson, it's clear from reading the message boards lately that some don't see Jackson's 2004 outlook the way I do. However, I believe that worst case, i.e., Faulk is healthy all season, Jackson gets 125-150 touches and a half dozen touchdowns; much of it coming in a few select weeks which ideally helps more in a Survivor format than in others.

Your worst case scenario for Jackson is 125-150 touches and a half dozen TDs? I don't think that's a very realistic worst case.

BFred,Funny, you didn't quote the part of my response where I said:

As to Steven Jackson, it's clear from reading the message boards lately that some don't see Jackson's 2004 outlook the way I do......Again, I recognize that some don't see SJ getting much run at all in 2004, and in that case, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I wasn't asked to draft a team based on consensus expectations, I was asked to draft a team based on my own projections, and that's what I expect from Jackson this year.And FYI, according to Xpertleagues, Steven Jackson is being drafted on average in the 10th round (10.1).

That's because I wasn't talking about your best case scenario. I'm a big believer in taking players with a high expected value, based on how likely I think they are to reach their upside, and how likely I think they are to hit their worst case numbers. For that to work, I try to be completely honest about their worst case scenario, even if I like the player. I don't think that's what you've done. To me, Jackson's worst case scenario is a handful of carries throughout the year as he sits on the bench learning, and I think that's more likely than you seem to. We can agree to disagree on how likely that is, in fact, that's where most people's rankings differ, but I think you're dead wrong about his worst case scenario. I'm not picking on you or your pick - in fact, I think he's a fine pick in the 11th. But the most important thing to come out of these drafts is the discussion, and I think a discussion of the term "worst case" is very relevant to drafting and player projections.

Hey BFred,I should correct myself. You're right, SJ's "worst case" is far less impressive than the 600 yards and half dozen TDs I suggest. Certainly it's POSSIBLE that Faulk stays healthy and Lamar Gordon gets the RB2 role. So from that angle, Jackson could, worst case, give me virtually nothing. However, I honestly don't see that as remotely likely, and thus, I discount that as much if not more than I would the notion that Jackson would start all 16 games (b/c Faulk gets hurt in preseason) and is a top 10 stud.

 

[LHUCKS]

Wheatley always looks good when he runs.Wheatley has less quality competition.

You're kidding right, LHUCKS. You can't be serious with both of those comments.

I'm dead serious.You'd rather have Amos/####-brick/Fargas than Hearst/Bell????

I think all the backs in Oakland are crappy, Wheatley included. And that's coming from a Raider fan. There's just as much competition for Wheatley in Oakland as there is Griffin in Denver.

Fair enough, we simply have different opinions on these situations...which at this point is premature anyhow given the circumstances.

 

[radballs.]

Poor league 2 is already far, far behind.

 

[BassNBrew]

clear winners of rounds 11-14:

Fro - continues to dominate with huge value picks. Atrain, Calico, and Wilkins are all great at this point in the draft. Yes I am a believer that Atrain will continue to contribute in Chicago.

Shick - solidifies his team with 3 good mid-level receivers and a solid D. He didn't reach for a D like some staff did.

Joffer and Unlucky grabbed the qb's they needed. Unlucky's team is starting to look very good at this point. I like Joffer's Reggie Williams pick as he seems the most logical rookie WR to produce this season.

I like Pickles two non-defense picks.

Clear losers these rounds: Jason and Chase.

I’m am amazed at Jason’s and Chase’s picks. They both had clear needs and instead wasted several picks in these rounds when there was clearly value available. I would like to hear the reasoning for grabbing not one, but two defenses significantly early. You guys must have run different numbers than I did, so I’d love to hear the rationale of that.

I think Chase killed his chances in these four rounds:

Patriots

Q. Griffin

Rams

Desmond Clark



Wood went:

Stephen Jackson

Dolphins

Eagles

Marcus Pollard

Wow. Those rounds will come back to haunt those two teams. Obviously, Jason has a lot more confidence in his WR 3 combo of Ashley Lelie and Brandon Loyd than I do. I’m seeing a lot of trouble in his WR unit as a whole yet he’s adding 2 D’s a questionable RB 4 and a TE who is seeing decreasing playing time.

Chase would have been better served as well grabbing a WR 5 intead of D2 here and he did the same as Jason in grabbing a RB 4 who will likely put up a lot of zeros. He also grabbed an overrated TE.

Wow.

I feel I won rounds 11-14 in a landslide here. I got 2 of the best 3 defenses and landed Roy Williams and Kevin Johnson (Possibly both WR#1 on their teams).Gimme some love Joe T....

Funniest commentary moments here:

- Joffer's team goes from a 9.5% chance to win to an 8.5% chance to win with two average picks in rounds 13 and 14. Hmmmm, Seems to me the commentary is finally coming around to seeing that you need at least some QBs on your roster. hard to believe a team could slip that far when we are drafting backups, kickers and defenses now.

- Although I am not a huge fan of Colin Dowling's overall team, I love the fact it consistently gets 1s and 2s in the commentary. I hate to break the news to everyone. It isn't that bad of a team at all. He is stocked at RB (if Chris Brown is the starter in Tennessee). He first gets ripped that his team is awful and now gets horrible grades because of a week 10 bye week problem that is a long ways off. And not to keep picking on Joffer, but isn't half of his roster off on week 10 too? Maybe Colin is planning on just being better than him to advance?

Anyway I am good with no love from Joe T here. We will know the real score soon. The rest of this draft will be posted no later than Monday. My full blown statistical simulation will appear Tuesday morning. And then EVERYONE will know the true grades here.

and despite no love from Joe T, I recognize that he has one of the better teams in Survivor I. Not the best (those spots are locked up by the staff), but a good effort.

Re: Joffer - I notice some rounding issues coming into play with the system I was using, especially rounding off to the nearest half. Keep in mind, these percentages are weighting the quality of the draft. I convert this to odds in 100 to advance to the merge at the end.Re: Colin - From the commentary...Maybe Rice has one more year left, but I don't understand the logic behind matching the bye of your WR3 with the same bye as your WR1 and RB1. Then the problem is further compounded by selecting a TE1 with the same week 10 bye. If this team is still around at week 9, Colin better hope for a 40+ point cushion going into week 10. Grade 1.. Notice I didn't mention his QB2 with the same bye. Other people had a little more leeway to match byes, Colin didn't when he was just adding his 3rd WR in round 11.

Re: Love for Dodds - I think you got it in the commentary. Did you want me to expand the scale for your awesome picks?

 

[bostonfred2]

I should correct myself. You're right, SJ's "worst case" is far less impressive than the 600 yards and half dozen TDs I suggest. Certainly it's POSSIBLE that Faulk stays healthy and Lamar Gordon gets the RB2 role. So from that angle, Jackson could, worst case, give me virtually nothing. However, I honestly don't see that as remotely likely, and thus, I discount that as much if not more than I would the notion that Jackson would start all 16 games (b/c Faulk gets hurt in preseason) and is a top 10 stud.

Here's a ballpark at how I see his value:Every running back has about a 1 in 5 chance of getting hurt for a significant amount of time. Faulk maybe a little more because of his knee. If he does go down, Jackson is probably the full time starter. So there's about a 15% chance he's a worthwhile starter for the full season. His value as a starter would be about 250 fantasy points. If Jackson is good enough to get into games while Faulk is healthy, he may get those 125-150 carries you're talking about. That's optimistic, but let's use those numbers. Call that 100 fantasy points - 640 yards, 6 TDs. I'd say he's got about a 1 in 3 chance of hitting those numbers, we'll call it 35% to make it round. That leaves a 50% chance that his value is, effectively, 0. 15% x 250 + 35% x 100 + 50% x 0 ~= 75If you put him at 75 fantasy points on your cheatsheet, with a 15% chance of high upside potential, you can see certain things about him. If you're looking for a RB3, he's a terrible one. If you're looking for upside potential, he's got a good shot at having it. To me, that's a very valuable tool, and it's how I envision players when I'm drafting. It's also why I like Bell as early as I do - based on everything I've read and seen, even the training camp reports, I now believe he has about a 50% chance of starting most of the season, maybe a little more.

 

[LHUCKS]

Let's say just for kicks that he does get 600 yards and a couple of TDs...you'd rather have him over a solid WR or TE or top Defense?

You show me a solid WR this late.I grabbed a TE I liked.I think I've cornered the market on stud Ds. How many more should I take?Obviously, if you like QG this was a great pick. If you don't, this was a bad pick. I don't see a ton of value in going back and forth as to whether or not Griffin will start. Everyone says you need to take risks to win a competitive league--this was an extremely low value risk (just cost me a 12th rounder) with very high upside. I'm happy with that.

Solid WRs:Johnnie MortonTerry GlennKevin DysonTyrone CalicoKevin JohnsonRoy WilliamsSolid is relative, but all of these guys are a better survivor pick than is Griffin, especially since you already have two solid backs.

 

[Joe T]

:rotflmao: David - Yeah. You have a strong roster now top to bottom. I guess I just didn't really like any of the teams that grabbed two D's here. Your 3 picks are good, but adding Defense 2 still doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I would have liked it a lot more had you gone Wheatley there or grabbed TE instead, but that is nitpicking hindsight.You are now solid at RB, QB, WR, and D. Your only needs left are TE, K and RB 4 and I guess you see value there later.After looking at the first 14 rounds, I like Fro's and Shick's chances the best at this point. They've built great teams. Using Fro's question, I'm not sure I would trade with either of them, but I do like their teams a hell of a lot.

 

[Unlucky]

I'm a firm believer that D's are highly unpredictable in this scoring system. You basically get 0 points for points and yards against unless you post a shutout or hold teams under 200 total yards. That is very rare. The rest is based on turnovers, TDs, and sacks. Sacks may be somewhat predictable. Turnovers less so, and TDs are nearly impossible. Combine that with the fact that Ds don't get hurt, and there's no reason to take any prior to your last two picks.Here's my take on all the teams so far:Shick! - Question marks at QB, but it's likely at least of them plays well. Shipp's "benching" hurts at this point as he only has 2 starting RBs. At least they are good starting RBs. He's got pretty solid WRs, however two are off week 8. The TEs should be a strong point. Overall: 6 out of 10. Unlucky - QB has been solidified with Manning and the Miami QBs. RB isn't deep unless George or Bettis get significant carries. Each should get some playing time each week, and that will go a long way to determining how effective the RBs are. The WRs are a bit shaky - some good potential, but some big risks. All 5 so far have different bye weeks. The TEs are the true strength here, and should provide a big advantage over the opponents each week. Overall: 8Jason Wood - QB is loaded with Cpep. RB is solid, Buckhalter should get enough touches to give Wood 3 RB scores each week. I have some major questions about the WRs: Boldin, A. Johnson, A. Lelie, and B. Lloyd. I could easily see none of these guys in the top 15. I think Lelie is overrated and Lloyd just won't be all that good. Lloyd and Johnson are off week 7, which will produce a horrible WR score for Wood. Pollard as the only TE so far is trouble - Clark and Wayne have eaten into Pollard's numbers, which will likely never approach his great season a few years back. Overall: 6.5Mr. Pickles - QB is mediocre at best. I don't like Harrington, even with his better weapons. Brad Johnson could be in big trouble if McCardell holds out. The RBs will be good if Davis gets enough of the workload. Alstott and Wheatley should get touches. Wheatley was great value in round 13. The WRs are a strong group, with C. Johnson, Coles, R. Smith, Stallworth, and M. Robinson. A lot of big play and big game potential, and no shared bye weeks. Heap is an elite TE. I don't like the D picks at all - could have grabbed another TE or QB that may have boosted this team more. Overall: 7.5David Dodds - QB will be at least good. Not much has changed in Seattle, so Hasselbeck should be a top 10 QB. I think Bledsoe has something left, but Boller is a waste of a roster spot. I'm not too high on the RB group as a whole, but as long as Staley and Westbrook get a lot of touches, this group will put up points. I have some issues with both of these RBs, but they look OK for now. The WRs are solid with the addition of R. Williams and K. Johnson. Both should contribute some decent points. I don't like Warrick at all, but it wasn't bad value there. With no TEs on board yet, this will be a weak spot. D's were taken too early, although he at least took some good ones. I think this team would be much better if he went with Buckhalter or Winslow over Boller. Overall: 7.5Joffer - The OAK QBs should put up some good numbers, but we'll have to see who the other QBs are. I like the potential of the RB corp - Alexander, Bell/Hearst, O. Smith, and Suggs. I don't like Suggs all that much, but William Green sucks. O. Smith will get some touches and I think he'll be the #2 RB behind Bennett. There could be a few really nice games from him. A lot of depth here. With 3 very good WRs, this team should be good. I'm not too high on Givens or Reggie Williams, but the quality of the top 3 is undeniable. Crumpler and Vanderjagt give Joffer some goods points out of the TE and K spot. Overall: 8I'll do the other 6 teams in a bit.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Solid WRs:Johnnie MortonTerry GlennKevin DysonTyrone CalicoKevin JohnsonRoy Williams

Johnnie Morton: Fourth best option on KC. At 33, he's not getting better. I could see him losing some time to Dante Hall, or even Boerigter.Terry Glenn: 750 yards on a team that couldn't run the ball OR have a legitimate number one WR. With the additions of Jones and Johnson, Glenn's going to do worse this year.Kevin Dyson: Do I really need to go here?Tyrone Calico: Third WR on the team. 297 yards last year.Kevin Johnson: Third team in three years. That's probably a sign. BTW, the Ravens aren't exactly a passing team.Roy Williams: Do I really need to go here, part 2? The number 2 WR on Detroit last year caught less than 300 yards. Hakim will take a lot of looks as the number 3 WR.Don't worry, the two WRs I picked up aren't any worse than this bunch.This is a good thing to keep in mind for all drafters: After about 40 WRs or so, there's just not a whole lot separating all the WR2s on teams.

 

[BassNBrew]

Does anyone else think Bennett/Calico at WR is a strong play if you're OK on the byes with your other WRs? That Dallas combo last year definately helped many teams in the $15K Contest. At WR4/WR5, I would suspect they'd post a score for your survivor team 75% of the time.

 

[Unlucky]

Tyrone Calico: Third WR on the team. 297 yards last year.Roy Williams: Do I really need to go here, part 2? The number 2 WR on Detroit last year caught less than 300 yards. Hakim will take a lot of looks as the number 3 WR.

Chase - I expect better out of you. Calico was a rookie last year. You throw out 297 like that's all you project for him this season. Plus, he's fighting for the #2 spot and in all likelyhood, he'll have a bunch of better games than Bennett. He did score 4 TDs last year. I've got Calico for 765 and 6, which is solid.How do you know Roy Williams won't be the best WR in Detroit? I've got him for 743 and 5, which is again, "solid". What does the WR2 stats in Detroit from last year have to do with Williams this season?Grade: 1, for poor use of statistics.

 

[LHUCKS]

Solid WRs:Johnnie MortonTerry GlennKevin DysonTyrone CalicoKevin JohnsonRoy Williams

Johnnie Morton: Fourth best option on KC. At 33, he's not getting better. I could see him losing some time to Dante Hall, or even Boerigter.Terry Glenn: 750 yards on a team that couldn't run the ball OR have a legitimate number one WR. With the additions of Jones and Johnson, Glenn's going to do worse this year.Kevin Dyson: Do I really need to go here?Tyrone Calico: Third WR on the team. 297 yards last year.Kevin Johnson: Third team in three years. That's probably a sign. BTW, the Ravens aren't exactly a passing team.Roy Williams: Do I really need to go here, part 2? The number 2 WR on Detroit last year caught less than 300 yards. Hakim will take a lot of looks as the number 3 WR.Don't worry, the two WRs I picked up aren't any worse than this bunch.This is a good thing to keep in mind for all drafters: After about 40 WRs or so, there's just not a whole lot separating all the WR2s on teams.

We obviously have differeng opinions on these WRs, but a couple of major points.-Morton's '03 stats improved on his '02 stats, and Boerigter sucks.-Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value, I don't care who is throwing the ball-Roy Williams is an upside pick and was great value for Dodds, he could have Moss-like rookie numbers or he could put up bad WR#2 numbers-KJ is the #1 on his team, again I don't care how bad the offense is-Calico is another upside pick-Glenn got 750 yards last year and is a lock to get that again, which makes him plenty more valuable than GriffinAs for your comment about getting two solid WRs later....you should have went one deeper at WR instead of wasting a pick on a RB that has close to zero chance of contributing.

 

[LHUCKS]

Tyrone Calico: Third WR on the team. 297 yards last year.Roy Williams: Do I really need to go here, part 2? The number 2 WR on Detroit last year caught less than 300 yards. Hakim will take a lot of looks as the number 3 WR.

Chase - I expect better out of you. Calico was a rookie last year. You throw out 297 like that's all you project for him this season. Plus, he's fighting for the #2 spot and in all likelyhood, he'll have a bunch of better games than Bennett. He did score 4 TDs last year. I've got Calico for 765 and 6, which is solid.How do you know Roy Williams won't be the best WR in Detroit? I've got him for 743 and 5, which is again, "solid". What does the WR2 stats in Detroit from last year have to do with Williams this season?Grade: 1, for poor use of statistics.

Thank you.Now who else besides Chase wants their rounds 11-14 picked apart. Chase's rounds were too easy. Anybody?

 

[bostonfred2]

I'm a firm believer that D's are highly unpredictable in this scoring system. You basically get 0 points for points and yards against unless you post a shutout or hold teams under 200 total yards. That is very rare. The rest is based on turnovers, TDs, and sacks. Sacks may be somewhat predictable. Turnovers less so, and TDs are nearly impossible. Combine that with the fact that Ds don't get hurt, and there's no reason to take any prior to your last two picks.

I disagree. The predictors for defensive turnovers in this scoring system are the quality of the D line, ballhawking/penetration skills of players behind the D line, defensive coaching philosophy, and the QBs they face. Ds that get lots of pressure are good for sacks and INTs. Ds that face bad QBs are good for sacks and INTs. Ds with good athletes in the secondary, and to a lesser extent at linebacker, are good for INTs and TDs. Kick returners are also important. Ds that give up few yards and points can also be good if they can get you a shutout or two over the course of the season. It might not be as predictable as in the Greek/Phenoms leagues, but it's close.

 

[LHUCKS]

I'm a firm believer that D's are highly unpredictable in this scoring system. You basically get 0 points for points and yards against unless you post a shutout or hold teams under 200 total yards. That is very rare. The rest is based on turnovers, TDs, and sacks. Sacks may be somewhat predictable. Turnovers less so, and TDs are nearly impossible. Combine that with the fact that Ds don't get hurt, and there's no reason to take any prior to your last two picks.

I disagree. The predictors for defensive turnovers in this scoring system are the quality of the D line, ballhawking/penetration skills of players behind the D line, defensive coaching philosophy, and the QBs they face. Ds that get lots of pressure are good for sacks and INTs. Ds that face bad QBs are good for sacks and INTs. Ds with good athletes in the secondary, and to a lesser extent at linebacker, are good for INTs and TDs. Kick returners are also important. Ds that give up few yards and points can also be good if they can get you a shutout or two over the course of the season. It might not be as predictable as in the Greek/Phenoms leagues, but it's close.

Surprise, surprise I'm in agreement with Fred again.

 

[Joe T]

Solid WRs:Johnnie MortonTerry GlennKevin DysonTyrone CalicoKevin JohnsonRoy Williams

Johnnie Morton: Fourth best option on KC. At 33, he's not getting better. I could see him losing some time to Dante Hall, or even Boerigter.Terry Glenn: 750 yards on a team that couldn't run the ball OR have a legitimate number one WR. With the additions of Jones and Johnson, Glenn's going to do worse this year.Kevin Dyson: Do I really need to go here?Tyrone Calico: Third WR on the team. 297 yards last year.Kevin Johnson: Third team in three years. That's probably a sign. BTW, the Ravens aren't exactly a passing team.Roy Williams: Do I really need to go here, part 2? The number 2 WR on Detroit last year caught less than 300 yards. Hakim will take a lot of looks as the number 3 WR.Don't worry, the two WRs I picked up aren't any worse than this bunch.This is a good thing to keep in mind for all drafters: After about 40 WRs or so, there's just not a whole lot separating all the WR2s on teams.

I tend to disagree with all of this, but especially the T. Glenn part.Guy put up better numbers than Burress last year on a terrible offense. The offense should get better at RB and have better QB play. There will not be as many over throws of sure touchdowns when Glenn beats his defender this year.I like Glenn to improve this year. But if he gives me last years numbers I will be satisfied. 13 Fantasy PPG's is a lot more than Griffin will be putting up this year.Edit: sorry Glenn did not put up better numbers than Burress.Burress was taken by Chase at 8.06:Last year - 60/860/4 for 14.3 FPPGGlenn taken at 13.10:last year - 52/754/5 13.4 FPPGTHAT'S VALUE #####!

 

[LHUCKS]

Solid WRs:Johnnie MortonTerry GlennKevin DysonTyrone CalicoKevin JohnsonRoy Williams

Johnnie Morton: Fourth best option on KC. At 33, he's not getting better. I could see him losing some time to Dante Hall, or even Boerigter.Terry Glenn: 750 yards on a team that couldn't run the ball OR have a legitimate number one WR. With the additions of Jones and Johnson, Glenn's going to do worse this year.Kevin Dyson: Do I really need to go here?Tyrone Calico: Third WR on the team. 297 yards last year.Kevin Johnson: Third team in three years. That's probably a sign. BTW, the Ravens aren't exactly a passing team.Roy Williams: Do I really need to go here, part 2? The number 2 WR on Detroit last year caught less than 300 yards. Hakim will take a lot of looks as the number 3 WR.Don't worry, the two WRs I picked up aren't any worse than this bunch.This is a good thing to keep in mind for all drafters: After about 40 WRs or so, there's just not a whole lot separating all the WR2s on teams.

I tend to disagree with all of this, but especially the T. Glenn part.Guy put up better numbers than Burress last year on a terrible offense. The offense should get better at RB and have better QB play. There will not be as many over throws of sure touchdowns when Glenn beats his defender this year.I like Glenn to improve this year. But if he gives me last years numbers I will be satisfied. 13 Fantasy PPG's is a lot more than Griffin will be putting up this year.

Keep the validation coming

 

[radballs.]

I'm a firm believer that D's are highly unpredictable in this scoring system.  You basically get 0 points for points and yards against unless you post a shutout or hold teams under 200 total yards.  That is very rare.  The rest is based on turnovers, TDs, and sacks.  Sacks may be somewhat predictable.  Turnovers less so, and TDs are nearly impossible.  Combine that with the fact that Ds don't get hurt, and there's no reason to take any prior to your last two picks.

I disagree. The predictors for defensive turnovers in this scoring system are the quality of the D line, ballhawking/penetration skills of players behind the D line, defensive coaching philosophy, and the QBs they face. Ds that get lots of pressure are good for sacks and INTs. Ds that face bad QBs are good for sacks and INTs. Ds with good athletes in the secondary, and to a lesser extent at linebacker, are good for INTs and TDs. Kick returners are also important. Ds that give up few yards and points can also be good if they can get you a shutout or two over the course of the season. It might not be as predictable as in the Greek/Phenoms leagues, but it's close.

Surprise, surprise I'm in agreement with Fred again.

Get off his jock. j/k

 

[David Dodds]

Re: Love for Dodds - I think you got it in the commentary. Did you want me to expand the scale for your awesome picks?

Laughing. No I just found it hard to believe Joe T gave my four rounds (11-14) no mention when I think they were very strong. Then again he reached early for Jason Elam and loves Unlucky's 40+ year old backs. Maybe I don't need his love after-all.

 

[bostonfred2]

I'm a firm believer that D's are highly unpredictable in this scoring system.  You basically get 0 points for points and yards against unless you post a shutout or hold teams under 200 total yards.  That is very rare.  The rest is based on turnovers, TDs, and sacks.  Sacks may be somewhat predictable.  Turnovers less so, and TDs are nearly impossible.  Combine that with the fact that Ds don't get hurt, and there's no reason to take any prior to your last two picks.

I disagree. The predictors for defensive turnovers in this scoring system are the quality of the D line, ballhawking/penetration skills of players behind the D line, defensive coaching philosophy, and the QBs they face. Ds that get lots of pressure are good for sacks and INTs. Ds that face bad QBs are good for sacks and INTs. Ds with good athletes in the secondary, and to a lesser extent at linebacker, are good for INTs and TDs. Kick returners are also important. Ds that give up few yards and points can also be good if they can get you a shutout or two over the course of the season. It might not be as predictable as in the Greek/Phenoms leagues, but it's close.

Surprise, surprise I'm in agreement with Fred again.

Get off his jock. j/k

I hope you realize by now I'm just bostonfred's alias.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value, I don't care who is throwing the ball

Corey Bradford was the #1 this time last year in Houston....Colin

 

[LHUCKS]

Re: Love for Dodds - I think you got it in the commentary. Did you want me to expand the scale for your awesome picks?

Laughing. No I just found it hard to believe Joe T gave my four rounds (11-14) no mention when I think they were very strong. Then again he reached early for Jason Elam and loves Unlucky's 40+ year old backs. Maybe I don't need his love after-all.

Finally some quality Dodds' smack. I'm glad we're done with the grandfatherly website owner tone.

 

[Football Jones]

I think the Quentin Griffin pick by Chase is one of the best values in either draft. We're talking about the likely opening day starting RB for the Denver Broncos. To me, anyway, as time goes on this offseason, it's becoming even more evident Griffin will, indeed, begin the season as the #1 guy barring a poor performance or a far superior performance by one of the other RBs in training camp, & I can't see either of those scenarios taking place. I guess it's hard for most people to understand that. They just don't believe Griffin is a talented runner. Don't get me wrong, Tatum Bell might very well be the future, but I'm talking '04. Anyway, in the 12th round, I don't see how it's not a great value pick. Well...yes I do. If we all thought the same, we may as well not even have a draft, LOL. BTW, I realize I may be all wet in my evaluation of Q. I have a good feeling about it, though.

 

[radballs.]

Surprise, surprise I'm in agreement with Fred again.

Get off his jock. j/k

I hope you realize by now I'm just bostonfred's alias.

:rotflmao:

 

[LHUCKS]

Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value, I don't care who is throwing the ball

Corey Bradford was the #1 this time last year in Houston....Colin

Talk about a teeing it up for me...Don't tell me you're comparing the SD manure-for-depth WR situation, to Andre Johnson??Let me know if you are.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think the Quentin Griffin pick by Chase is one of the best values in either draft. We're talking about the likely opening day starting RB for the Denver Broncos. To me, anyway, as time goes on this offseason, it's becoming even more evident Griffin will, indeed, begin the season as the #1 guy barring a poor performance or a far superior performance by one of the other RBs in training camp, & I can't see either of those scenarios taking place. I guess it's hard for most people to understand that. They just don't believe Griffin is a talented runner. Don't get me wrong, Tatum Bell might very well be the future, but I'm talking '04. Anyway, in the 12th round, I don't see how it's not a great value pick. Well...yes I do. If we all thought the same, we may as well not even have a draft, LOL. BTW, I realize I may be all wet in my evaluation of Q. I have a good feeling about it, though.

whooooooooooa, there big fella."likely opening starting day RB"

I don' think so. I have seen nothing to indicate that your statement is accurate.

 

[David Dodds]

:rotflmao: David - Yeah. You have a strong roster now top to bottom. I guess I just didn't really like any of the teams that grabbed two D's here. Your 3 picks are good, but adding Defense 2 still doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I would have liked it a lot more had you gone Wheatley there or grabbed TE instead, but that is nitpicking hindsight.You are now solid at RB, QB, WR, and D. Your only needs left are TE, K and RB 4 and I guess you see value there later.After looking at the first 14 rounds, I like Fro's and Shick's chances the best at this point. They've built great teams. Using Fro's question, I'm not sure I would trade with either of them, but I do like their teams a hell of a lot.

Your team is rock solid too. As is Fro's. This is going to be pretty close I think actually.I am anxious to show the simulation I created on Tuesday for the two leagues. It's pretty good stuff.David

 

[radballs.]

I am anxious to show the simulation I created on Tuesday for the two leagues. It's pretty good stuff.David

Is this developing into a new application that we'll be able to use at some point in time?

 

[BassNBrew]

I am anxious to show the simulation I created on Tuesday for the two leagues. It's pretty good stuff.David

Is this developing into a new application that we'll be able to use at some point in time?

Dodds was running Deep Blue against all of you.

 

[Joe T]

does anyone besides me have the 3 bottom teams in this league as staff teams?

 

[Chase Stuart]

To Unlucky, JoeT, LHUCKs:Was I pessimistic on those players? Yes, that was the point. I asked him what "good WRs were available." Once he named them, it only follows that I'm going to say what's wrong with them.To me, there's not a ton of value in arguing about the WRs ranked 40-60. There's a lot of personal preference. Will Calico become a very good WR in the NFL, and beat out Bennett? Maybe. Will Glenn improve with Keyshawn and Testaverde there? It's possible. But all of those players have SERIOUS ????s.Unlucky, I really disagree strongly regarding Roy Williams. Charles Rogers IS the number one man there, and I don't think Williams is going to break 500 yards. I think Hakim excels as a WR3, and Kevin Jones catches the ball well. I also have yet to see Joey Harrington do, well, anything. The two years of the Harrington era, his top WR each year hasn't hit the 600 yard mark (and last year no one got 500 yards).Like I said with the Brunell thread--show me a trade that improves my team.I.E.,Trade the St. Louis Rams and my 18th round WR for Johnny Morton and an 18th round D/ST. To me, that's a losing proposition. (Note: I'm not high on the Rams. Just simply saying the dropoff is much steeper at D then at WR IMO).As for the trading of Griffin for one of those players, I just have to say I disagree. I like Q quite a bit, and I'm more than willing to roll the dice on him this year. How much benefit would I get out of a WR7 as opposed to a potential starting RB? The best part is, I don't need to figure out when to start Griffin--that's why I like him even more in Survivor leagues.

 

[bostonfred2]

does anyone besides me have the 3 bottom teams in this league as staff teams?

Bottom six, actually.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value, I don't care who is throwing the ball

Corey Bradford was the #1 this time last year in Houston....Colin

Talk about a teeing it up for me...Don't tell me you're comparing the SD manure-for-depth WR situation, to Andre Johnson??Let me know if you are.

Teeing what up for you? I didn't make the comparison, you did. You said that by virtue of being a #1 WR, Dyson has value. But I mentioned that Corey Bradford was a #1 this time last year, and he turned out poorly (62nd rated WR). You want to bring up Andre Johnson, ok. I'll return your serve and ask about the following #1 receivers. Was there value last year in selecting.......Baltimore's #1 WR, Travis Taylor? He finished 43rd.....Philly's #1 WR, Todd Pinkston? He finished 65th.....Dallas's #1 WR, Joey Galloway? He finished 49th.Just b/c a guy is a "#1" doesn't mean he's valuable. The top-pass catcher in San Diego is LT2. The #2 guy may well be Antonio Gates. After accounting for those two, we can look at Dyson and evaluate his "value.":volley:Colin

 

[Joe T]

BTW- on the taking the kicker early (Elam). Looks like BnB dinged me for it in his analysis and now Dodds is doing the same.At the time, I had planned on taking only one kicker so I wanted a good one with a late bye week (10). I had planned on grabbing a 5th RB in the next couple of rounds, but the guy I targeted was picked up before I grabbed him. It ended up being a mistake because I waited too long on the execution. I don’t want to give the next few rounds away, but I admit it was a mistake because I missed the player I was looking at. Drafting a second kicker makes the Elam pick a lot less sexy. In a draft like this, you can not wait on players.

 

[bagger]

i don't think that's early. bfred and i discussed early on before the draft that having two legit starting kickers who would be guaranteed starting all 16 games (barring injury) was key to that position.if you draft 2 kickers but one gets cut and/or loses his starting status, not only do you now have only one kicker, but have wasted a roster space as well.this puts a little extra emphasis on kickers as the bottom 10 or so historically are marginal starters or can lose their starting role when you draft this early.drafting 2 "studs" is the way to go in this format.

 

[bostonfred2]

i don't think that's early. bfred and i discussed early on before the draft that having two legit starting kickers who would be guaranteed starting all 16 games (barring injury) was key to that position.if you draft 2 kickers but one gets cut and/or loses his starting status, not only do you now have only one kicker, but have wasted a roster space as well.this puts a little extra emphasis on kickers as the bottom 10 or so historically are marginal starters or can lose their starting role when you draft this early.drafting 2 "studs" is the way to go in this format.

And some of the top ones, too. I like the scoring potential of Nedney and Morten Anderson, but no way will I draft them when one is returning from an ACL injury and the other is returning from bingo night at the senior center. Also, 4 and 5 points for long field goals does add some scoring to the top kickers, and take away from the bottom ones, although it's probably <1 ppg for most kickers. Then consider the fact that you a second kicker adds 1-2 ppg, and a pair of good kickers adds another 1-2 ppg, and you're looking at a significant advantage over the teams that pick their kickers last. There aren't many receivers in the 13th that give you an assured 2-4 ppg scoring advantage like a pair of kickers.

 

[Chase Stuart]

i don't think that's early. bfred and i discussed early on before the draft that having two legit starting kickers who would be guaranteed starting all 16 games (barring injury) was key to that position.if you draft 2 kickers but one gets cut and/or loses his starting status, not only do you now have only one kicker, but have wasted a roster space as well.this puts a little extra emphasis on kickers as the bottom 10 or so historically are marginal starters or can lose their starting role when you draft this early.drafting 2 "studs" is the way to go in this format.

Agreed. I remember Wade Iuele was in a survivor league, and I think he lost both his Ks before the season started (one was Matt Bryant).I waited a lot for my PK2, but he's not a guy in any jeopardy of losing his job. GB the security of a large signing bonus I agree, I do think you want/need two guys here. It could easily be the difference of 8 points on more than one occasion. (Stud K gets 5 points, backup gets 13, etc.)

 

[bostonfred2]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

 

[LHUCKS]

Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value, I don't care who is throwing the ball

Corey Bradford was the #1 this time last year in Houston....Colin

Talk about a teeing it up for me...Don't tell me you're comparing the SD manure-for-depth WR situation, to Andre Johnson??Let me know if you are.

Teeing what up for you? I didn't make the comparison, you did. You said that by virtue of being a #1 WR, Dyson has value. But I mentioned that Corey Bradford was a #1 this time last year, and he turned out poorly (62nd rated WR). You want to bring up Andre Johnson, ok. I'll return your serve and ask about the following #1 receivers. Was there value last year in selecting.......Baltimore's #1 WR, Travis Taylor? He finished 43rd.....Philly's #1 WR, Todd Pinkston? He finished 65th.....Dallas's #1 WR, Joey Galloway? He finished 49th.Just b/c a guy is a "#1" doesn't mean he's valuable. The top-pass catcher in San Diego is LT2. The #2 guy may well be Antonio Gates. After accounting for those two, we can look at Dyson and evaluate his "value.":volley:Colin

a) I never said a #1 WR is always value...it's just a great indicatorb) I would contend that a #43 WR and a #49 WR are worth more than Griffin.:volleyback:

 

[Football Jones]

I think the Quentin Griffin pick by Chase is one of the best values in either draft. We're talking about the likely opening day starting RB for the Denver Broncos. To me, anyway, as time goes on this offseason, it's becoming even more evident Griffin will, indeed, begin the season as the #1 guy barring a poor performance or a far superior performance by one of the other RBs in training camp, & I can't see either of those scenarios taking place. I guess it's hard for most people to understand that. They just don't believe Griffin is a talented runner. Don't get me wrong, Tatum Bell might very well be the future, but I'm talking '04. Anyway, in the 12th round, I don't see how it's not a great value pick. Well...yes I do. If we all thought the same, we may as well not even have a draft, LOL. BTW, I realize I may be all wet in my evaluation of Q. I have a good feeling about it, though.

whooooooooooa, there big fella."likely opening starting day RB"

I don' think so. I have seen nothing to indicate that your statement is accurate.

I guess we just evaluate things differently. Like I said, that's part of the fun of this hobby. That said, I can't see how anybody could completely dismiss Griffin & say it was a wasted pick (in the 12th round, no less), but that's me. This thing has been beat to death, anyway. At this point, I think I'll just shut-up & see what happens.

 

[Colin Dowling]

a) I never said a #1 WR is always value...it's just a great indicator

I guess I misinterpreted when you said, "Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value ......"

b) I would contend that a #43 WR and a #49 WR are worth more than Griffin.

I'm not sure you'd find much agreement on that.Colin

 

[Chase Stuart]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

Yet to think some people bashed the Moe pick.There's going to be a LOT of people looking silly in a few months.Can't wait to laugh at all twelve of those MBers about it.

 

[bostonfred2]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

Yet to think some people bashed the Moe pick.There's going to be a LOT of people looking silly in a few months.Can't wait to laugh at all twelve of those MBers about it.

Hey, don't look at me. I haven't been critical of you. I've said all along that you had the second best draft from the #7 spot.

 

[Joe T]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

DO NOT MISS MY 15TH ROUND COMMENTARY. IT IS SOME OF THE BEST OF THE DRAFT.FYI

 

[Chase Stuart]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

Yet to think some people bashed the Moe pick.There's going to be a LOT of people looking silly in a few months.Can't wait to laugh at all twelve of those MBers about it.

Hey, don't look at me. I haven't been critical of you. I've said all along that you had the second best draft from the #7 spot.

:rotflmao: This is going to be fun. GDB whoever gets eliminated in week one.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

Yet to think some people bashed the Moe pick.There's going to be a LOT of people looking silly in a few months.Can't wait to laugh at all twelve of those MBers about it.

Hey, don't look at me. I haven't been critical of you. I've said all along that you had the second best draft from the #7 spot.

:rotflmao:

 

[radballs.]

Hey, don't look at me. I haven't been critical of you. I've said all along that you had the second best draft from the #7 spot.

lmao

 

[bagger]

Faulk has a lot of downside this season with a viable starting running back on the Patriots for the first time in 4 years. I was disappointed that Moe Williams went in the prior round. I had him targeted this round as my fourth running back, but he didn’t make it. Congratulations to Chase on his first good pick of the draft.

I believe a prize was being given to the best commentary. JoeT comes through again.

DO NOT MISS MY 15TH ROUND COMMENTARY. IT IS SOME OF THE BEST OF THE DRAFT.FYI

:rotflmao: damn you joe t.

 

[LHUCKS]

a) I never said a #1 WR is always value...it's just a great indicator

I guess I misinterpreted when you said, "Dyson is the #1 on his team, which automatically screams value ......"

b) I would contend that a #43 WR and a #49 WR are worth more than Griffin.

I'm not sure you'd find much agreement on that.Colin

a) you said "always"...I said "screams value"b) Shall we do a poll if people would rather have the guaranteed 43rd or 49th WR in Chase's situation? And that is picking from your #1 examples.

 

[radballs.]

b) I would contend that a #43 WR and a #49 WR are worth more than Griffin.

I'm not sure you'd find much agreement on that.

Colin

a) you said "always"...I said "screams value"

b) Shall we do a poll if people would rather have the guaranteed 43rd or 49th WR in Chase's situation? And that is picking from your #1 examples.

Given that his 3rd back was only Moe Williams and the he already had 4 WRs through 9 rounds, I think I might have gone with Griffin before getting my WR5.