What's new
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!

Trivia Question: How many times in the Shannahan era (1 Viewer)

Why top 6? That's kind of an arbitrary number, isn't it? Why not top 5, top 10, or most importantly, top 12 (since most "SERIOUS" fantasy leagues are AT LEAST 12 team leagues)?

Anyway, top 6, 4 times: 95, 96, 97-John Elway AND 04-Jake Plummer

Top 12, however, you add 98 (Elway), 05 (Plummer), and 07 (Cutler). You also have Brian Griese ranked 15 in 2000, however, he only played 10 games that year. If you take his ppg for those 10 games, over the entire season, he would have been the #4 QB.

So if the question is asking how often the Shanahan "system" produces a quality #1 FF QB, you should say 8 out of 13 years. That's not a bad ratio, IMO.

 
Unless you think playing in Denver makes a QB more likely to get injured, I don't think this is the question you want to ask.

Here's how the Denver Team QB has ranked in FP every year since Shanahan arrived:

Code:
2007	142006	252005	152004	 82003	182002	152001	142000	 51999	201998	 51997	 41996	 51995	 6Avg	 12
It certainly hasn't been pretty lately, but that's five top-six finishes in thirteen years. And obviously the average performance is a few ticks above the league average, as well. So Shanahan's fantasy QBs have fared better than most fantasy QBs since he's arrived.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2007 142006 252005 152004 82003 182002 152001 14I rest my case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	12006	102005	12004	122003	122002	122001	232000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
 
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	12006	102005	12004	122003	122002	122001	232000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
Okay, this year they lose Walker, their #1 RB, Marshall for 3 weeks. The Pats added Welker, and arguably the best WR in the history of the game in Moss.Let's not compare apples to oranges here.
 
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	12006	102005	12004	122003	122002	122001	232000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
Okay, this year they lose Walker, their #1 RB, Marshall for 3 weeks. The Pats added Welker, and arguably the best WR in the history of the game in Moss.Let's not compare apples to oranges here.
I'm simply stating that looking just at historical trends can sometimes bite you pretty hard. I think how Cutler ranked last year in adjusted fantasy points per adjusted games is a whole lot more important than how the Denver QBs ranked in any season, or all seasons, from 1995-2006.
 
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	1 2006	10 2005	1 2004	12 2003	12 2002	12 2001	23 2000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
Okay, this year they lose Walker, their #1 RB, Marshall for 3 weeks. The Pats added Welker, and arguably the best WR in the history of the game in Moss.Let's not compare apples to oranges here.
I'm simply stating that looking just at historical trends can sometimes bite you pretty hard. I think how Cutler ranked last year in adjusted fantasy points per adjusted games is a whole lot more important than how the Denver QBs ranked in any season, or all seasons, from 1995-2006.
But that rational argument doesn't mesh with HUCKS' agenda. :rolleyes:
 
Great logic here LHUCKS! You have to downgrade Cutler because Brian Griese and Jake The Mistake haven't put up stellar fantasy numbers?

We're talking about Griese who couldn't even beat out Jay Fiedler in Miami. Then Jake Plummer, the guy with the strong arm but poor accuracy and decision making. Nonetheless, Plummer did manage 4000 yds and 27 tds in 2004.

The problem with the Broncos offense has been the QUARTERBACKS since Elway retired, not Mike Shanahan's system. Nice try attempting to use Griese and Plummer to project Cutler.

 
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	1 2006	10 2005	1 2004	12 2003	12 2002	12 2001	23 2000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
Okay, this year they lose Walker, their #1 RB, Marshall for 3 weeks. The Pats added Welker, and arguably the best WR in the history of the game in Moss.Let's not compare apples to oranges here.
I'm simply stating that looking just at historical trends can sometimes bite you pretty hard. I think how Cutler ranked last year in adjusted fantasy points per adjusted games is a whole lot more important than how the Denver QBs ranked in any season, or all seasons, from 1995-2006.
But that rational argument doesn't mesh with HUCKS' agenda. :rolleyes:
You're talking about the guy who says Cutler will be average at best, but Leinart will be a GREAT NFL QB.
 
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	1  2006	10  2005	1  2004	12  2003	12  2002	12  2001	23  2000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
Okay, this year they lose Walker, their #1 RB, Marshall for 3 weeks. The Pats added Welker, and arguably the best WR in the history of the game in Moss.Let's not compare apples to oranges here.
I'm simply stating that looking just at historical trends can sometimes bite you pretty hard. I think how Cutler ranked last year in adjusted fantasy points per adjusted games is a whole lot more important than how the Denver QBs ranked in any season, or all seasons, from 1995-2006.
But that rational argument doesn't mesh with HUCKS' agenda. :rolleyes:
You're talking about the guy who says Cutler will be average at best, but Leinart will be a GREAT NFL QB.
Take a stab why that is...He's only now abandoning the Akili Smith bandwagon.
 
Here's Belichick's:

Code:
2007	12006	102005	12004	122003	122002	122001	232000	20
Obviously if you looked at this before 2005 (outside the top 10 for all five seasons), or even before last year (only one ranking better than 10 in six of seven years), you would have been steered far in the wrong direction.
Okay, this year they lose Walker, their #1 RB, Marshall for 3 weeks. The Pats added Welker, and arguably the best WR in the history of the game in Moss.Let's not compare apples to oranges here.
I'm simply stating that looking just at historical trends can sometimes bite you pretty hard. I think how Cutler ranked last year in adjusted fantasy points per adjusted games is a whole lot more important than how the Denver QBs ranked in any season, or all seasons, from 1995-2006.
I'd agree with that, but I also think you need to take into account the downgrades at WR and RB.
 
Why top 6? That's kind of an arbitrary number, isn't it?
No, it isn't arbitrary.If you are top 6, you are an above average starting QB in a 12 team league...hence the number six.
Oh, got it. That makes sense, I guess. So that means that 5 out of 13 years, Shanahan has had an "above average starting QB." 95, 96, 97-John Elway, 04-Jake Plummer, AND 2000 (Griese and Gus Frerotte combined for 368 points, which was higher than the 4th ranked QB) 5/13 is 39%Let's look at some other QBs, shall we? Brett Favre: 7/16 years as top 6 or better=44% Not to much better, huh? (Doesn't count year 1 in ATL)Matt Hasselbeck: 3/7 years=43% (Doesn't count back-up years in GB)Donovan McNabb: 3/8 years=38%Drew Brees: 2/6 years=33% :thumbup: Hmmm...I think we can agree that he is an "above average starting QB?" (Doesn't count 1st year)Tom Brady: 2/7 years=29% Wow, I could have sworn he was above average.
 
Why top 6? That's kind of an arbitrary number, isn't it?
No, it isn't arbitrary.If you are top 6, you are an above average starting QB in a 12 team league...hence the number six.
Oh, got it. That makes sense, I guess. So that means that 5 out of 13 years, Shanahan has had an "above average starting QB." 95, 96, 97-John Elway, 04-Jake Plummer, AND 2000 (Griese and Gus Frerotte combined for 368 points, which was higher than the 4th ranked QB) 5/13 is 39%Let's look at some other QBs, shall we?

Brett Favre: 7/16 years as top 6 or better=44% Not to much better, huh? (Doesn't count year 1 in ATL)

Matt Hasselbeck: 3/7 years=43% (Doesn't count back-up years in GB)

Donovan McNabb: 3/8 years=38%

Drew Brees: 2/6 years=33% :thumbup: Hmmm...I think we can agree that he is an "above average starting QB?" (Doesn't count 1st year)

Tom Brady: 2/7 years=29% Wow, I could have sworn he was above average.
You combined Greise & Frerotte. Did you do the same combos for all teams? If not, then you might not be able to count that one and the number moves closer to 30%, not that big of a deal, just sayin'
 
I can't trust QB advice from someone who thinks Matt Leinart is going to be great, and has been a great buy low for the last 2 seasons.

 
Why top 6? That's kind of an arbitrary number, isn't it? Why not top 5, top 10, or most importantly, top 12 (since most "SERIOUS" fantasy leagues are AT LEAST 12 team leagues)? Anyway, top 6, 4 times: 95, 96, 97-John Elway AND 04-Jake PlummerTop 12, however, you add 98 (Elway), 05 (Plummer), and 07 (Cutler). You also have Brian Griese ranked 15 in 2000, however, he only played 10 games that year. If you take his ppg for those 10 games, over the entire season, he would have been the #4 QB.So if the question is asking how often the Shanahan "system" produces a quality #1 FF QB, you should say 8 out of 13 years. That's not a bad ratio, IMO.
Top 12 does not equal quality FF QB. Top six does.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top