Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Torry Holt's Luck Ran Out (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bristol
- Start date
Legion of Doom
Footballguy
I thought Hambrick was a mortal lock for a 1000 yards this year and thought Mack was a pretty sure bet b/c Houston would run the ball alot( I was right about that but unfortunately the wrong rb seized the job)
But let's not get carried away with the projection thing with Bristol.Some of you act like you never make bad calls,Hell I make them on a weekly basis in regard to WDIS lol.I bet if ALL our thoughts on various players were typed out to be accountable to the world it would be full of lot's of strikeouts for everyone.Many people will not state thier opinion in the forum b/c they don't want to look bad or be wrong.If you want to bash Bristol for being hardheaded,that's cool,he's earned it but just remember that old saying about glass houses.
Montana is God
Footballguy
since Marshall returnedweek 10: St. Louis 33, Baltimore 22week 11: St. Louis 23, Chicago 21week 12: St. Louis 30, Arizona 27 (OT)week 13: St. Louis 48, Minnesota 17With the exception of today's game, these have hardly been blowouts.I think that Bulger's recent rash of turnovers has been more responsible for Holt's low TD production than anything else.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
Holt had a ‘down’ game and still hit the century markDD, Went OFF!!! Sure glad I got him on the WW!!!
Boldin had a horrible week along with the rest of the team yet he remains in the top 10. But how can that be? Briss said he wouldn’t finish in the top 3...
Travis Henry is still the starter in Buffalo and put up a nice 17 in my league. McGahee is dressing. Why isn’t he starting? Maybe because Henry is a good RB.
Portis will be a marginal player in the 2nd half? If 31 points in a week is marginal, I wish all of my players were marginal.
If Buckhalter is the starter in Philly, why did Westy triple him up in points yesterday?
If Onterrio Smith is going to be the undisputed starter for the last 4 weeks of the season, why did he get 0 points yesterday? Must be that stifling Rams D!!!
Bumpity, Bump, Bump...Aaahhhh, don't you just love Monday Mornings?!?!?!
CaptainHucklebuck
Ancient Chinese Secret
Well, sorry to burst your bubbles, guys, but Executive Scientist is, actually, a job title. My father's a patent attorney, and works with these guys all the time. It's true, I swear it.How you become an executive scientist without a master's in some science is beyond me, but it is vaguely hooked up with the Business Administration field. The path there just isn't so much...Anyway, it's good to see another thread with angry men in it. keeps me sane. I'l come back in a few weeks and see who's dead.
Last edited by a moderator:
I brought those names up not to mock his draft (of course we all make WDIS mistakes and bad draft picks), but to name the drafted RBs on his roster who he considers head and shoulders above D.Davis even now.Bristol is not being hammered for his predictions per se, its his attitude. His defy-the-law-of-averages horrendous prediction rate failure combined with the attitude makes this thread the train wreck it is. Remember, he is the one who called everyone out and thumped his chest after Holt's performance against Baltimore - calling attention to himself.I thought Hambrick was a mortal lock for a 1000 yards this year and thought Mack was a pretty sure bet b/c Houston would run the ball alot( I was right about that but unfortunately the wrong rb seized the job)
rhawkins68
Footballguy
I disagree, I make sure to visit it every time it comes to the top. How often to you get to see someone make such a fool of themselves as Bristol has. Wonderful thread for pure enjoyment for a non-thinking minute or two.
Legion of Doom
Footballguy
That's cool my post was not directed @ you necessarily.Bristol gets what he gets for his attitude and hardheadedness.
I'm just trying to remind everyone that being successful in fantasy football is in some ways like playing pro baseball.You are an allstar if you bat .300,ok you better pick better than this in FF,but you get my point.
lostby1
Footballguy
Just thought you guys would find this funny.a guy in our league traded M. Faulk for Holt three weeks ago. He is 1-2 since the trade. If he would have kept Faulk he would have been 3-0. He is now going to miss the playoffs by 1 game. So, I would say Faulk has had a huge impact against Holts numbers. At least in our league.
Bristol
Footballguy
The funny thing is that I traded Hambrick and Warrick for Michael Bennett 4 weeks ago.According to Bristol (who drafted Mack, Hambrick and Buckhalter in his "big money" league) , Davis still wasn't worth a waiver wire pick-up.
What a moron!!! My roster to date
enningtonDelhommeRamseyHolmesPortisBennettBuckhalterL. JohnsonColesHornS. MossBookerD. HallShockeyMiliPollardJanikowskiChiefsShowed you mine big man!! Now show me yours!! Bet you don't have the guts. And I want to see a link to your site for proof. You can't be trusted.
sjslacker
Footballguy
No comments on DD?The funny thing is that I traded Hambrick and Warrick for Michael Bennett 4 weeks ago.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
From a guy that doesn't include a link to his. Your hypocracy knows no bounds....I'll get you tomorrow. Gotta hit the streets now....
Only relevant info in here in the last couple of days.DDavis is a stud - top-12 RB, and a RB1 - WW pickup extraordinare this year. If making WW moves is for guppies, then I have made a living off of swimming in the shallow end.Holt is still putting up the yardage, and, especially in pt/rec. leagues, he is HUGE.jwvdcw has cut through the B.S., and is correct that Bristol was correct in predicting that Holt's TD numbers would take a hit. Where he was wrong was that the yardage would drop to "typical Holt numbers" of 80 yards a game. What is truly debatable is WHY have the TD numbers dropped.I do believe that Marshal's effective running has vultured a TD or two away from Holt b/c the team is not in passing situations as much, but I also believe that jwvdcw nailed it in that Bulger's INT-TD ratio has more to do with it than Faulk's return.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
Despite Briss supplying his roster with no link to a website I will go ahead and supply mine and the link. Briss, I would recommend you step up to the plate and provide that link you covet so badly from me or your cred will drop even more. Wait. Nevermind. How can your cred drop below Zero? It can't, so do whatever you want to do with that one.
A little about my league. Very intense Dynasty League with a rule book that tops 30 pages. I have an article published about it on this site. Look for an article by Thomas called A Dynasty of its Own back in August I believe. 10 team league with a salary cap, contracts of 1, 2, or 3 years, signing bonuses, and no trade clauses. There is restricted and unrestricted free agency with a Franchise Tag and Transition tag for each team. A franchised player requires 2 first round picks to bid on, Transition player 1 first rounder, the picks being compensation should the player be signed away from the owner. Free Agents are bid on auction style with the players not being bid on or resigned going back into the pool to be drafted in the rookie/FA draft. This is the 4th year of the league and is a pretty typical scoring league (1pt 10yds pass/receivine, 1 pt 20 yards passing. 6 pts rushing and rec TD's, 3 pts passing. D/ST's get bonuses for holding a team to low points otherwise it's 2 pts for TO's and 1 for sacks).
If Briss is reading this right now he's thinking, "who cares about the rules, just give me the roster so I can bash this guy." Which is typical Briss, but just like the WW, the rules of the league are extremely important to determining a good team.
Roster:
McNabb - Signed through next season
B. Johnson - contract up at the end of the season (may get one of my tags)
Jamal Lewis - signed through next season
Musa Smith - signed through next season with an option for 2005
DD - signed through next season
Westy - signed through next season with an option for 2005
CBuck - signed through next season
Staley - Contract up at the end of the season
Coles - signed through next season with an option for 2005
Harrison - signed through next season with an option for 2005
Booker - signed through next season with an option for 2005
Gardner - contract is up at the end of the season
Josh Reed - signed through next season
Derrius Thompson - signed through next season
Koren Robinson - up at the end of the season (may get one of my tags)
Chamberlain - up at the end of the season
Kleinsasser - up at the end of the season
Longwell - signed through next season
Cundiff - signed through next season
Kansas City - We can resign D/ST indefinitely, so these guys aren't going anywhere for a while
Tampa Bay - We can resign D/ST indefinitely, so these guys aren't going anywhere for a while
Link to my Roster
My team is the Knights. In 2004 I will go into the season with McNabb and possibly Brad Johnson, Jamal (and Musa), DD, Westy, CBuck, Coles, Harrison, and possibly Koren Robinson as well as the KC and TB D/ST. Oh, and my 3 first rounders in 2004 and 2 in 2005 means I will be able to bid on restricted FA's or just sit back and hope for a thick stable of RB's to declare for the draft....Not a bad starting roster if I do say so my damn self!!!
A little about my league. Very intense Dynasty League with a rule book that tops 30 pages. I have an article published about it on this site. Look for an article by Thomas called A Dynasty of its Own back in August I believe. 10 team league with a salary cap, contracts of 1, 2, or 3 years, signing bonuses, and no trade clauses. There is restricted and unrestricted free agency with a Franchise Tag and Transition tag for each team. A franchised player requires 2 first round picks to bid on, Transition player 1 first rounder, the picks being compensation should the player be signed away from the owner. Free Agents are bid on auction style with the players not being bid on or resigned going back into the pool to be drafted in the rookie/FA draft. This is the 4th year of the league and is a pretty typical scoring league (1pt 10yds pass/receivine, 1 pt 20 yards passing. 6 pts rushing and rec TD's, 3 pts passing. D/ST's get bonuses for holding a team to low points otherwise it's 2 pts for TO's and 1 for sacks).
If Briss is reading this right now he's thinking, "who cares about the rules, just give me the roster so I can bash this guy." Which is typical Briss, but just like the WW, the rules of the league are extremely important to determining a good team.
Roster:
McNabb - Signed through next season
B. Johnson - contract up at the end of the season (may get one of my tags)
Jamal Lewis - signed through next season
Musa Smith - signed through next season with an option for 2005
DD - signed through next season
Westy - signed through next season with an option for 2005
CBuck - signed through next season
Staley - Contract up at the end of the season
Coles - signed through next season with an option for 2005
Harrison - signed through next season with an option for 2005
Booker - signed through next season with an option for 2005
Gardner - contract is up at the end of the season
Josh Reed - signed through next season
Derrius Thompson - signed through next season
Koren Robinson - up at the end of the season (may get one of my tags)
Chamberlain - up at the end of the season
Kleinsasser - up at the end of the season
Longwell - signed through next season
Cundiff - signed through next season
Kansas City - We can resign D/ST indefinitely, so these guys aren't going anywhere for a while
Tampa Bay - We can resign D/ST indefinitely, so these guys aren't going anywhere for a while
Link to my Roster
My team is the Knights. In 2004 I will go into the season with McNabb and possibly Brad Johnson, Jamal (and Musa), DD, Westy, CBuck, Coles, Harrison, and possibly Koren Robinson as well as the KC and TB D/ST. Oh, and my 3 first rounders in 2004 and 2 in 2005 means I will be able to bid on restricted FA's or just sit back and hope for a thick stable of RB's to declare for the draft....Not a bad starting roster if I do say so my damn self!!!
Bristol
Footballguy
I would be more than happy to post the link to my league, but I am not going to, because there is no way that I can block the views of personal information of the other owners. I am not going to post a link that would send name, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses to the world. It's nice to see that your league has a sheet that doesn't post this information, wish mine did. We use Sonic Fantasy Sports and they are the ABSOLUTE WORST!!! Switched from CBS this year to them. Going back to CBS next year. I can't tell you the amount of problems that we had with them. If you know anyone considering Sonic, tell them to run the other way. I trust that you can understand why I can't post the link. I can PM it to you if you you promise not to post it on the site. I don't think it's fair to the other owners in my league.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
If I had sent you the link to the entire site you would've gotten all that info. I just sent you a link to the page that had the rosters. Maybe you can do the same. Not familar with the site in question, so I don't know. Just a suggestion, and yes, I do understand. Requiring it from others while not being able to do so yourself seems a bit odd....
TheFanatic
Footballguy
:rotflmao: Let's see, in a route of the Seahawks, O. Smith got all of 4 points. Those are horrible numbers from a starter. Oh wait, he isn't a starter.
Another nice performance by THEman Green.
:rotflmao:
:rotflmao:
:rotflmao:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: And the always classic:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
By the counts of most people here, you are still an idiot.Yeah....Funny how you did post anything after last week's game.We will compare apples to apples after the season is over. By my counts, Faulk has made a difference.
Bill Brasky
Footballguy
First of all, I'm a Holt owner. I've been following this thread since its conception. Now I can't remember if it was in this thread or in another, but a guy by the name of Crocodile hit it right on the head.This Crocodile guy came on here and was consistently pimping Bruce saying that he will have a direct effect on Holt's production. Ever since Bruce complained about getting the ball more right around that time (I believe it was the same time Faulk came back) he has seen alot more looks and taken quite a few td's from Torry. Last week he got hurt I think sometime in the 2nd quarter. Since that moment, Holt has gone on to have 2 games each with 100 yds and a TD. These are the numbers we were seeing consistently before Bruce complained.Basically, I don't think Faulk's return has had much of an effect on Holt, especially relative to the effect Bruce has had. It would be interesting to see someone put all the numbers together to look at it quantitatively...I'm way too lazy.BTW, I've seen probably 11 of the 15 Rams games this year.Edited: spelling
Last edited by a moderator:
North
Footballguy
I must agree that there has been a sharp decline in Holts production since Faulks return. I no longer anticapate the 15 to 20 point games from Holt that he had ion the middle of the season. This week against Detriot will be a perfect example. Faulk will have 130 and 2 TD's. Holt will get his 100 yds and maybe a TD if he is LUCKY but gone are the games when you would consider him a multi TD threat.
Repressed Dennis
Footballguy
I think your expectations of Holt must have been badly scewed by something. Holt had two games early in the year with 2 TDs. Is this a basis for making him a "multi-TD threat"? There are no WR's in the NFL who should be expected to score multiple TDs in a game, and very very few are able to do so multiple times in a year.For 2003, here are some of the top WR's and the number of multiple TD games:R. Moss - 3H. Ward - 3Harrison - 3Chambers - 2Horn - 2Holt - 2C. Johnson - 2T. Owens - 1S. Moss - 1If you're expecting multiple TDs in a game from a WR, you are in for disappointment. TD distribution for WRs tends to be a lot more variable than those scored by RBs. Wideouts get hot, score a bunch, then simmer down for long stretches. In the seven games since Faulk came back, Holt has 100 yards 5 times and has 3 TDs. He's had 2 stinker games - against Baltimore, when the entire offense was horrible, and against Cleveland. He has just as much chance to get multiple TDs this wekend as any of the other elite receivers, but you certainly can't expect it.
Croc's main point, which has only slighty been proven true, and has mostly been proven false, was that the law of averages would prevail in St. Lou so Bruce would be as good, or better a WR down the stretch then Holt. Not simply that Bruce would hurt Holt, but that Bruce was the better "get" than Holt since he would cost less, but would produce similarly or better, due to numbers correction.His main argument was that Holt's production would drop, and stay dropped, to bring his numbers more in line with his yearly averages, and that Bruce was the WR opf the two to target b/c his numbers were down and would also correct themselves. Bruce's numbers would have to shine big time (when he was already top-15) so that the numbers would correct. This was in terms of which player should one trade for/trade away. His basic premise was good, and was good fantasy analysis, but my (and other's) disagreement with him was that Holt was the clear #1 and Bruce the clear #2 option there. What turned out to happen is Bruce's call for the ball did start to hurt Holt's #s, as did the return of Faulk, but Holt is still the clear #1 option. Then Bruce got hurt and Holt's #s are not being affected by Faulk now that he is the prime passing game target again.The law of averages will not proevail in this instance, Bruce was not the better trade option as his numbers have declined due to injury, and Holt has been a fantasy stud through the last few weeks durng critical FF playoff runs, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY (in terms of this thread) Faulk's top-5 RB performances have not hurt Holt's numbers, which was Bristol's main point.
One more Holt point - on the year, in my league's scoring system (1/10, 6/TD, +3 for 100+ yards), he is the #2 WR after Moss, Bruce is #17. Over the last 6 weeks, he is #2, Bruce #21. Over the last 4 weeks, he has dropped to #4, Bruce to #25, but in the last two weeks - when it matters - he is the #3 WR, Moss is below him, and he is averaging over 20 points - 224 yards and 2 TDs. I am unsure exactly what more you want from a WR in the FF playoffs other than a top-5 performance, which is what Holt is delivering.
OneShot201
Footballguy
Our season is over and here is how the WR stats finished sorted by Fantasy Points (1/10 6 TD -2 fumble lost)1. Moss2. Holt3. C. Johnson4. Harrison5. WardCoincidentally, the league champ had Holt, CJ, and Ward on one team.
1Shot - noone contends that Holt's EOY numbers would be down - the question is the impact of Faulk's return (around week 11) and Bruce's call for the ball (around week 12) on Holt's #s.BTW - nice avvie - the fat man rocks, even if he's spread across the Ganges.Our season is over and here is how the WR stats finished sorted by Fantasy Points (1/10 6 TD -2 fumble lost)1. Moss2. Holt3. C. Johnson4. Harrison5. WardCoincidentally, the league champ had Holt, CJ, and Ward on one team.
Bill Brasky
Footballguy
Very well put. I couldn't remember exactly what Croc said and was to lazy to go back and look. I must have been confused on what he really said.Regardless, Holt did remain the 2nd best receiver in fantasy football despite Faulk's return. If Bristol can't see that now, there is somthing wrong.
I think you got it essentially correct - he was aying it would be correction of numbers, while you interpreted that to mean Bruce would hurt Holty's numbers. Essentially that was ttrue - while Bruce was available, he was starting to catch more balls - specifically more red zone balls - thus hurting Holt's overall numbers. The basic premise of Croc's reasoning was good, just fallible in that the law of numbers/averages don't always result in correction.There has been a clear changing of the guard in St Lou, and Holt is the #1 option on a potent passing attack - ala Harrison, Moss, Horn, and Chad Johnson. Your point re: Faulk's effect (or lack thereof) on Holt's numbers, and that Bristol's point has been proven inaccurate, is, of course, beyond reproach.
Holt overall: 117 catches, 1696 yards, 12 TDsHolt, last 8 weeks: 54/718/3It is clear his TD numbers declined over the last 8 weeks, but those TDs, or extra yardage, did not go to Bruce. He MAY have experienced a dip in TDs due to the return of Faulk, as a projection of his TDs would give him only 6 or 7 on the year - which were his '99-'02 averages for TDs on the year.Someone else can figure out whether the St Lou rush TDs increased over the last 8 games while the reception TDs declined - that is the true test of whether Faulk's rushing TDs ineterfered with Holts' TD numbers, or whether it was something else - like Dane Looker's emergence or Bulger's decline in TDs and increase in INTs - I think it is option #2 - the decline in Bulger's productivity created Holt's TD decline.My argument is based on 10 TDs versus 13 INTs in the last 8 weeks as opposed to 22 TDs versus 22 INTs overall.
Not that the facts matter, but here is Croc's direct quote: "Bottom line: both Bruce and Holt will likely continue on their current yardage paces (which gives Holt a +1.3 points a game), and I'm willing to bet that their TD production the rest of the way will be closer to 1-1 than 1-7. Thus, if I can trade Holt for Bruce AND significantly upgrade another position, I do it in a heartbeat." And here are the numbers for Bruce and Holt over the last six games in which they have both played: Bruce -- 352 and 4 (59.2 fantasy points)Holt -- 453 and 1 (51.3 fantasy points)So maybe Smlevin would like to explain just exactly how Croc's point has "mostly been proven false," when in fact it has been proven to be absolutely correct. The only thing Croc failed to do was to predict Bruce's high-ankle sprain, which, of course, Smlevin also failed to predict when presenting the other side of this argument in the original thread, which Smlevin has been invited to revisit on several occasions.
I don't know what numbers you are trying to massage to make your point here, but here's what I see for the final 8 games:Holt: 54/718/3Bruce: 26/289/4(Edit's of typos) Holt was dominant. And, no, I do not care about projecting numbers over a season, as you seem fond of doing, and the fact that he was hurt is entirely relevant. Croc's advise of trading Holt for Bruce and a player at the time he made the statement would have been foolish advise to take. Holt finished as the #3 receiver over the last 8 weeks - when you are going ofr the money - and Bruce was #32. Which was the better move - keep Holt, or trade for Bruce?And, I'm done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Moss had 17 this past year, but your point is well taken. The question really was whether Bristol was on target with Faulk taking Holt's TDs.Oh - and Skanmk - THIS thread I've followed, when it's been bumped, the other one I didn't, but I'd have thrown all those numbers at you weeks ago if I knew it was still a bug up your butt.
No projections. My numbers are actual stats over the last six weeks and into the playoffs. I didn't include the Week 16 game because Bruce didn't play, but I did include the Week 17 game, in which he played but put up a zero because of the injury. If you want to use the last eight weeks, fine-- Holt scores 73.5 fantasy points to Bruce's 65.9, which doesn't at all change the validity of Croc's argument, which is that the disparity between Holt and Bruce is not nearly as wide as it appeared during the first eight weeks. And yes, Bruce's injury is irrelevant to the point at hand. If you want to use that as part of your argument now, then you should have cited it in the original thread as a reason not to trade Holt for Bruce and an upgrade.Of course you're done. The opposition has shown up.
What R U talkin' bout?The entire thread was "should you trade Holt now with his high value." Croc may have been right that Bruce was on his way to "balancing the numbers" but:1) Including their playoff performance is ridiulous. PLAYOFF NUMBERS don't count last time I checked in my redraft leagues. Well, they count, but they occur after the FF Super Bowl so they are irrelevant for the FF purposes I was discussing with Croc.2) Their numbers did NOT even out b/c Bruce was injured and you would have lost that trade big-time if you traded out Holt for Bruce and a player. Over those last 8 weeks - when you are in your playoff push and playoff run, Bruce = 52 points overall (or 6.5/game under standard scoring) and Holt = 89, or over 11 points a game. Pick the date of Croc's and my discussion, and then use points from that date forward. But, if you insist on using the last 6 weeks, fine:Holt - 556/2 = 67 Holt averages 11+ /gameBruce - 222/4 = 46 Bruce averages 7.6/gameStill no 1-1 normalization of numbers. And, that's standardized scoring - my league rewards an extra 3 points for going over 100 - which makes Holt even MORE valuable. Some league reward points/receptions - making Holt yet more valuable.3) Why the heck would I predict injury in a trade? I would not bring up "Bruce'll get injured" in the discussion with Croc about numbers evening out - my point was numbers won't necessarily even out just b/c of statisticval averages - and they DID NOT in this case.I still fail to see your major malfunction here, or why you have a bug up your bum about this issue, and about my answer to it. I really believe Crioc would be disgusted with the way you've carriued his argument. See, he argued from a point of intellect, with common assertions, that did not take assunmoptions or massaging numbers. He took the numbers as they actually were and used them to support his argument.And, again, I'm out.
