Waldman's ranking of Peterson and Turner in re-draft (1 Viewer)

[Matt Waldman]

I was asked to provide a little explanation behind my rankings, which I'm happy to do. My Thursday column's topic will be on RB Workloads and my rankings right now have Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson far lower than my peers. So you know, I love both backs - I drafted both very high last year in multiple leagues. It's not that I don't believe in their skills, my 2009 ranking has to do with what has happened historically to backs with high workloads.

It is based on my belief that once a back passes a certain threshold of carries/receptions in a season, there's a significant statistical chance that he does not perform as well not only for the following year, but for the rest of his career. Those that do perform the following year can be classified into the following category; potential or likely HOFer: LT, Edge, and Emmitt Smith. That's actually a majority of the backs who exceeded the 370 threshold of combined carries/catches and had at least one more season close to, or better than that first one. Obviously they haven't dropped off the face of the earth in my rankings, but as you see it means I have them as practically undraftable if you have one of the first 3-5 picks.

Therefore, Peterson and Turner are guys who are in a situation where historically the odds are against them to produce on the same level. Why that is, I don't care - I'm not a scientist - but it simply happens with a high probability and I want people to understand how a ranking would look based on these things. The details will be explained in my Thursday column, including my high ranking of a player like Ronnie Brown.

As I mentioned, I like to explore riskier perspectives because I believe having a lot of colleagues who provide rankings and content gives me this luxury to experiment for the benefit of people looking for a path that might give them an edge over their competition.

The point isn't to be attention-seeking. It's to push the envelope and figure out ways around the common groupthink that occurs in fantasy football now that strategic information can be fairly similar across the Internet. If it's too high risk for you, I understand. I just think it's worthwhile to consider it and I want provide that service.

 

[Blackjacks]

and what about Calvin's low ranking?

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'll have an explanation for the outliers in the Thursday column.

 

[Blackjacks]

I'll have an explanation for the outliers in the Thursday column.

good deal

 

[renesauz]

Good stuff Matt. (Not that I agree, especially after snagging Turnrer in the first of a startup, but still....)

 

[yellowdog]

Pierre Thomas not in your top 50 RBs? That one might need a little explanation as well. TIA.

 

[gheemony]

 

[Joe Bryant]

It brings up a good point. I've always encouraged staff to not get stuck in the consensus rut. Whether you want to call it thinking outside the box or going out on a limb or whatever, I always encourage our guys to go with what they think. But it's a two edged sword. The safe route is for the guy to rank every player within a spot or two of the consensus rankings. Nobody ever raises an eyebrow at that kind of ranking. But that's not really very helpful.

I like it when guys go against the flow a bit. What I ask our readers to do is give us a chance to do that. Too many times the response to an outlier type ranking is the kind of emails I got this morning. The "what kind of an "expert" would throw out something like that" type things. What I told Matt this morning was that I'm great with unconventional rankings BUT I want us to have backup and reasoning behind them. (Which Matt does). I love to have an unconventional ranking and then have the discussion that follows as we go back and forth on the reasoning. That's productive and that's the kind of thing we'll try and do here. What I ask of you guys is to give us the benefit of the doubt when you see a ranking that goes against the norm. Let's discuss it here and let the guy doing the ranking talk about it as opposed to assuming the guy doing the ranking doesn't know anything.

Bottom line is we love to see new thoughts. And discuss them here. Thanks.

J

 

[Verbal Kint]

It brings up a good point. I've always encouraged staff to not get stuck in the consensus rut. Whether you want to call it thinking outside the box or going out on a limb or whatever, I always encourage our guys to go with what they think. But it's a two edged sword. The safe route is for the guy to rank every player within a spot or two of the consensus rankings. Nobody ever raises an eyebrow at that kind of ranking. But that's not really very helpful.

I like it when guys go against the flow a bit. What I ask our readers to do is give us a chance to do that. Too many times the response to an outlier type ranking is the kind of emails I got this morning. The "what kind of an "expert" would throw out something like that" type things. What I told Matt this morning was that I'm great with unconventional rankings BUT I want us to have backup and reasoning behind them. (Which Matt does). I love to have an unconventional ranking and then have the discussion that follows as we go back and forth on the reasoning. That's productive and that's the kind of thing we'll try and do here. What I ask of you guys is to give us the benefit of the doubt when you see a ranking that goes against the norm. Let's discuss it here and let the guy doing the ranking talk about it as opposed to assuming the guy doing the ranking doesn't know anything.

Bottom line is we love to see new thoughts. And discuss them here. Thanks.

J

 

[greggorymac]

I was asked to provide a little explanation behind my rankings, which I'm happy to do. My Thursday column's topic will be on RB Workloads and my rankings right now have Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson far lower than my peers. So you know, I love both backs - I drafted both very high last year in multiple leagues. It's not that I don't believe in their skills, my 2009 ranking has to do with what has happened historically to backs with high workloads.

It is based on my belief that once a back passes a certain threshold of carries/receptions in a season, there's a significant statistical chance that he does not perform as well not only for the following year, but for the rest of his career. Those that do perform the following year can be classified into the following category; potential or likely HOFer: LT, Edge, and Emmitt Smith. That's actually a majority of the backs who exceeded the 370 threshold of combined carries/catches and had at least one more season close to, or better than that first one. Obviously they haven't dropped off the face of the earth in my rankings, but as you see it means I have them as practically undraftable if you have one of the first 3-5 picks.

Therefore, Peterson and Turner are guys who are in a situation where historically the odds are against them to produce on the same level. Why that is, I don't care - I'm not a scientist - but it simply happens with a high probability and I want people to understand how a ranking would look based on these things. The details will be explained in my Thursday column, including my high ranking of a player like Ronnie Brown.

As I mentioned, I like to explore riskier perspectives because I believe having a lot of colleagues who provide rankings and content gives me this luxury to experiment for the benefit of people looking for a path that might give them an edge over their competition.

The point isn't to be attention-seeking. It's to push the envelope and figure out ways around the common groupthink that occurs in fantasy football now that strategic information can be fairly similar across the Internet. If it's too high risk for you, I understand. I just think it's worthwhile to consider it and I want provide that service.

I know it's not fare to start firing away questions before you've had a chance to explain yourself in Thursday's column, but with the Dolphins insistent that they would like Pat White to run the wildcat (displacing Brown as the option QB) how can you justify Ronnie Brown's #2 ranking?

 

[Mike63]

I think that Waldman has already demonstrated in his RSP that he knows the game. A lot.

So in my opinion it's not possible to question his knowledge.

That said, I partially agree with him about Turner, but I'm really curious to see why he ranked Adrian Peterson so low... can't wait for next edition of the weekly gut check!

 

[SayWhat?]

Glad that the staff are being more proactive with these types of explanations, rather than reactive to outrage and calls of blasphemy.

My main issue is that I'd lay some serious coin on the table that if Waldman was in a redraft and Peterson was staring him in the face at pick X or XX (whatever you want to use before pick 23), that he's not chosing the likes of more than half the guys he has ranked 1-22 ahead of AP. That's especially so considering the rankings are supposed to be based on 4pt/passing TD and no-ppr.

Eagerly looking forward to the outliers article on Thursday, but I must say I do find the ranking of Peterson (and Turner, for that matter) bordering on the brink of ridiculousness.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

Pierre Thomas not in your top 50 RBs? That one might need a little explanation as well. TIA.

I have not looked at the rankings, but I am very anxious t hear the explanation on this. He seems like a solid top 20 RB to me. Top 30 at worst. However, Based upon Matt's track record I am sure there is a good explanation for the opinion, and I look forward to reading it.

 

[dmac37]

Last year I believe Matt caused quite a stir on his previous FF forum stating that Calvin Johnson would out produce Randy Moss last year. He took a lot of heat but we all know how that turned out.

So..........

 

[Biabreakable]

Well Matt,

Using regression analysis is fine and it has been done before. There have been times when this has been useful. For example Ricky Williams. Although in Williams case it was smot poking that led to his decline the following year if he had played there likely would have been regression anyways. Point is that when looking at that data for a basis as a whole is not the same as if you looked at each specific situation. In most cases there is something else causing the weaker production of these players in year N+1 that has nothing to do with an arbitrary amount of touches or carries. For example 370.

I am a bit curious how you came to such a conclusion in regards to AD. Is it not obvious yet that he is a rule breaker?

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Last year I believe Matt caused quite a stir on his previous FF forum stating that Calvin Johnson would out produce Randy Moss last year. He took a lot of heat but we all know how that turned out.So..........

That whole Brady getting hurt thing might have had SOME effect there...

 

[Biabreakable]

So in my opinion it's not possible to question his knowledge.

This is a dangerous opinion to have. I doubt many would encourage such a position especially in America but to each their own.

 

[Ozymandias]

Obviously the reason we come here is to get some insight from informed opinion. Otherwise, you could just pick up a copy of "the average draft" on your way into the draft room. Whether you agree or not, it helps to put some perspective on it by reading countervailing opinions, and the reasons for them.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

As far as the 370 carry leading to a RB's demise thing, wasn't there an analysis somewhere (these boards?) that showed that if you changed the 370 to 360 that the results were significantly different, thus showing that the 370 number is arbitrary, not conclusive?

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

370 carry myth

thread with some 370 carry discussion

 

[Yenrub]

Can someone post a link to the rankings?

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'd question anything you think is worth questioning regardless of the source.

It's a combo of carries and receptions that I'm looking at...and yes, I think Peterson could very well be a rule breaker (and I hope he is). He is a special back, but if one of the things you gain from my analysis is that you can use it to talk a guy with 1.01 or 1.02 away from Peterson and you land him because you think he'll beat the odds, then I've given you a track to take.

If you think Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, Jamal Anderson, and several others were special but didn't have a chance to sustain it long enough and the odds are against Peterson, then you get a chance to take what to some might be considered a risky move and bypass him when in fact you just might be playing conservative.

As for the other questions - Thomas is an oversight that I'll fix in the coming days - but on Thursday I will provide what numbers I crunched to shape my initial rankings for RBs and I'll give my quick take on other positions.

As I make adjustments to my rankings I'll provide an explanation in a section of my weekly column. That way you guys will always know where to look for my viewpoint and it will be discussed on a schedule. I will be taking the same approach to other positions as I did with runners.

I hope that helps. And again, I'm no scientist with this stuff but this RB workload approach has helped me avoid players who flamed out the year after a huge season and it's been four years that I've been using this approach. Coincidence, maybe. But I think it is worth exploring.

 

[Matt Waldman]

370 carry myth

thread with some 370 carry discussion

I've seen it and discussed it and since I'm still writing a piece based on a threshold (which isn't 370 carries, it's something different) then I think we're talking about different things.

 

[greyone]

Can someone post a link to the rankings?

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/v...amp;howrecent=7Filter the other rankings leaving Waldmans for full effect.

 

[Mike]

Roast the rookie over the coals, boys! He can take it!

 

[switz]

I was asked to provide a little explanation behind my rankings, which I'm happy to do. My Thursday column's topic will be on RB Workloads and my rankings right now have Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson far lower than my peers. So you know, I love both backs - I drafted both very high last year in multiple leagues. It's not that I don't believe in their skills, my 2009 ranking has to do with what has happened historically to backs with high workloads.

Therefore, Peterson and Turner are guys who are in a situation where historically the odds are against them to produce on the same level. Why that is, I don't care - I'm not a scientist - but it simply happens with a high probability and I want people to understand how a ranking would look based on these things. The details will be explained in my Thursday column, including my high ranking of a player like Ronnie Brown.

Let's see...Ronnie Brown, 27 years old, 781 career carries, already has had 1 knee surgery in the pros, 1 - 1,000+ yard season in 4 as a starter

Michael Turner, 27 years old, 604 career carries, 1-1,600+ yard season in 1 as a starter

Adrian Peterson, 24 years old, 601 career carries, 2-1,300+ yard seasons in 2 as a starter

Both Peterson and Turner have almost 200 fewer pro carries on their bodies, and neither has had a torn ACL in the pros, but somehow you think their high workload is going to lead to a dramatic reduction in performance... sure. There is a reason Brown has never seen more than 250 carries in a season, AND split time in college.

Terell Davis, the year after his 369 carry season, had a record breaking 2,000+ yard season. His carries actually went up that year, not down.

In 1991 Emmitt had 365 carries, over 1500 yards. The following season he had 373 carries, and over 1700 yards, and a higher YPC than the previous season. Then in 1994 he had 368 carries. Once again, the following season he upped his carries to 377 and again had more yards and a MUCH higher YPC.

Edge's first season 369 carries, his second 387 carries.

I believe the number of carries in year n-1 theory has been debunked repeatedly prior to now. So, I'm not going to go into detail about it. But, there is some truth to number of carries a body can handle over a period of time, and using year n-1 is NOT the right method to determine it.

Of the three backs (Peterson, Brown, and Turner) I would rate their risk level at:

Brown - high risk to not finish the season

Turner - moderate risk to not finish the season

Peterson - low risk to not finish the season

As far as improving, I would rate them as follows:

Peterson - moderate chance to improve statistically

Turner - moderate chance to improve statistically

Brown - low chance to improve statistically

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Last year I believe Matt caused quite a stir on his previous FF forum stating that Calvin Johnson would out produce Randy Moss last year. He took a lot of heat but we all know how that turned out.So..........

Ok, so he got this one correct. How was the rest of his rankings? Did Matt draft C.Johnson over Moss, this is the key? Anyone can throw down rankings, it means more when money is on the line. I remember some one saying 'The running backs were going off the board fast and that throw me' Yep that was from a FBG guy who was drafting in a high stakes League. The same guy who was giving his rankings and advice. We won't post any names but, if that person wants to step up, that's fine by me. If you really want to know send $5.00. So did Matt draft C.Johnson over Moss?

 

[geoff8695]

Tend to agree with Switz on this one.

Ronnie Brown's durability is of greater concern to me than either Turner or Peterson, although I'll be very interested in hearing Matt's rationale...

 

[Biabreakable]

And again, I'm no scientist with this stuff but this RB workload approach has helped me avoid players who flamed out the year after a huge season and it's been four years that I've been using this approach. Coincidence, maybe. But I think it is worth exploring.

Ok I am curious. What RB have had enough touches over the past 4 year to cause you to avoid them? And did that actualy proove to be the correct decision?Your example of Jamal Anderson is not compelling. He had a career ending injury after his high carry season. He was still pretty young. Stuff like this happens. I don't think it had anything to do with Jamal getting injured the following year.As switz pointed out TD contradicts this by following one of his high touch seasons with an even higher one. Then he got injured. Came back but he was never really the same again. So do high touches cause injury? 6 months later? I don't think so. This might sound kind of funny, but the thing that concerned me about TD was when I heard him say he spent most of his free time sleeping. I think that affected his metabolism. This had about as much to do with TD getting injured as the number of touches he had did.More is better. I want the guys who get the ball a lot.

 

[Q-Bert]

I'm pretty skeptical of any analysis that claims that a high workload is an indication of anything other than a very valuable player. I am much more interested in why you have Rashard Mendenhall so high.

 

[switz]

I'm pretty skeptical of any analysis that claims that a high workload is an indication of anything other than a very valuable player. I am much more interested in why you have Rashard Mendenhall so high.

I haven't looked at all at Matt's ranking. It seems he went against the grain, and I'm happy to see that. But that being said, here's another guy I would avoid this year.Most RBs that have a severe knee injury their rookie season usually do not end up having good careers. Most of them get called BUSTs, but reality is it's not that they didn't have talent, it's the injury kills them. Look at guys like KiJana Carter, Rashaan Salaam, Tim Biakabutuka, Curtis Enis, Cedric Benson, Lawrence Maroney, Kevin Jones.Reality is, when a team drafts an RB early, they expect that player to perform immediately. If that player misses the first season, or parts of it, with an injury, then takes most of the following season (as often occurs) to recover. By that players' third year, the team is thinking they need to draft another high round RB. And that newly drafted player replaces the older player.The best chance for RBs that suffer serious knee injuries their rookie season is Garrison Hearst. He had to go through the Cardinals replacing him, the Bengals using him as a stop gap / backup, then to the 9ers where he had to win the job. Cedric Benson MAY be on that path as well, but most RBs don't make it. Once you've gone through your second team, no one wants to touch you.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Last year I believe Matt caused quite a stir on his previous FF forum stating that Calvin Johnson would out produce Randy Moss last year. He took a lot of heat but we all know how that turned out.So..........

Ok, so he got this one correct. How was the rest of his rankings? Did Matt draft C.Johnson over Moss, this is the key? Anyone can throw down rankings, it means more when money is on the line. I remember some one saying 'The running backs were going off the board fast and that throw me' Yep that was from a FBG guy who was drafting in a high stakes League. The same guy who was giving his rankings and advice. We won't post any names but, if that person wants to step up, that's fine by me. If you really want to know send $5.00. So did Matt draft C.Johnson over Moss?

I have drafted players who I had ranked lower than other players because I knew I could get my player later. Drafting is not just sticking to a list of ranked players; it's about value. If there is a player I have ranked to go in the 3rd round, but I know that I have a great chance to get him a round or 2 later, then I may bypass him and take someone I have ranked lower. There is a difference between the order players are ranked and the order you would draft them. It is all determined by value.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Last year I believe Matt caused quite a stir on his previous FF forum stating that Calvin Johnson would out produce Randy Moss last year. He took a lot of heat but we all know how that turned out.So..........

Ok, so he got this one correct. How was the rest of his rankings? Did Matt draft C.Johnson over Moss, this is the key? Anyone can throw down rankings, it means more when money is on the line. I remember some one saying 'The running backs were going off the board fast and that throw me' Yep that was from a FBG guy who was drafting in a high stakes League. The same guy who was giving his rankings and advice. We won't post any names but, if that person wants to step up, that's fine by me. If you really want to know send $5.00. So did Matt draft C.Johnson over Moss?

I have drafted players who I had ranked lower than other players because I knew I could get my player later. Drafting is not just sticking to a list of ranked players; it's about value. If there is a player I have ranked to go in the 3rd round, but I know that I have a great chance to get him a round or 2 later, then I may bypass him and take someone I have ranked lower. There is a difference between the order players are ranked and the order you would draft them. It is all determined by value.

Sorry my bad. In every League I was in last year C.Johnson went before Randy Moss, so I guess Matt wasn't the only one who had that one. So what good call did he have last year?

 

[Matt Waldman]

And again, I'm no scientist with this stuff but this RB workload approach has helped me avoid players who flamed out the year after a huge season and it's been four years that I've been using this approach. Coincidence, maybe. But I think it is worth exploring.

Ok I am curious. What RB have had enough touches over the past 4 year to cause you to avoid them? And did that actualy proove to be the correct decision?Your example of Jamal Anderson is not compelling. He had a career ending injury after his high carry season. He was still pretty young. Stuff like this happens. I don't think it had anything to do with Jamal getting injured the following year.As switz pointed out TD contradicts this by following one of his high touch seasons with an even higher one. Then he got injured. Came back but he was never really the same again. So do high touches cause injury? 6 months later? I don't think so. This might sound kind of funny, but the thing that concerned me about TD was when I heard him say he spent most of his free time sleeping. I think that affected his metabolism. This had about as much to do with TD getting injured as the number of touches he had did.More is better. I want the guys who get the ball a lot.

I think some of you guys are missing the point. You're stuck on the idea that I'm saying high workload = injuries (which I never said in this explanation) or you're stuck on one of the three examples I provided in my explanation. Just read the piece. If you find it interesting, fine. If you don't, fine. Sometimes those who use their refined math skills to "be correct" on a point miss out on the big picture. Sometimes what I may explore will be debunk-able...fine.I think my record versus well-regarded people in this hobby is more than respectable. as far as rankings go, I provide rankings from my perspective and that's all I claim. Some years it works out well, but not every year. I can say I have been successful and if you've been more successful, congratulations and I'm happy for you. If you find what I'm writing worth reading and it helps in some way, great. If not, understandable. If you don't understand why you can find value in observing someone discuss a different approach even if it doesn't turn out successful then don't observe it. It's ok, stick to what works for you. And MS, why would I choose Johnson over Moss when I could let Johnson fall to me after Moss was long gone? (I know what you meant, and yes, I did get the opportunity in one league...)

 

[Matt Waldman]

I have drafted players who I had ranked lower than other players because I knew I could get my player later. Drafting is not just sticking to a list of ranked players; it's about value. If there is a player I have ranked to go in the 3rd round, but I know that I have a great chance to get him a round or 2 later, then I may bypass him and take someone I have ranked lower. There is a difference between the order players are ranked and the order you would draft them. It is all determined by value.

That's exactly how I see rankings should be used. You'll get to see who I think is overvalued and undervalued. Then if you buy into a few, some, or all of my viewpoints you can use the rankings to figure out when to deviate from the flow...

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I'm pretty skeptical of any analysis that claims that a high workload is an indication of anything other than a very valuable player. I am much more interested in why you have Rashard Mendenhall so high.

I haven't looked at all at Matt's ranking. It seems he went against the grain, and I'm happy to see that. But that being said, here's another guy I would avoid this year.Most RBs that have a severe knee injury their rookie season usually do not end up having good careers. Most of them get called BUSTs, but reality is it's not that they didn't have talent, it's the injury kills them. Look at guys like KiJana Carter, Rashaan Salaam, Tim Biakabutuka, Curtis Enis, Cedric Benson, Lawrence Maroney, Kevin Jones.Reality is, when a team drafts an RB early, they expect that player to perform immediately. If that player misses the first season, or parts of it, with an injury, then takes most of the following season (as often occurs) to recover. By that players' third year, the team is thinking they need to draft another high round RB. And that newly drafted player replaces the older player.The best chance for RBs that suffer serious knee injuries their rookie season is Garrison Hearst. He had to go through the Cardinals replacing him, the Bengals using him as a stop gap / backup, then to the 9ers where he had to win the job. Cedric Benson MAY be on that path as well, but most RBs don't make it. Once you've gone through your second team, no one wants to touch you.

For the record, Mendenhall suffered a shoulder injury... but I still think Parker is the man there

 

[Mike]

Can we expect more recipes in the Gut Check this year?

 

[netnalp]

I wonder if it can be found that as touches goes up the player tend to wear down so each hit or touch has a greater chance to result in injury or if each hit is it's own random event, like a coin toss, and prior carries don't impact the outcome of future carries or hits.

 

[switz]

For the record, Mendenhall suffered a shoulder injury... but I still think Parker is the man there

D'oh! I could have swore it was a knee injury... but that's right, fracture shoulder. Guess I was thinking about the hamstring injury in camp Well, maybe he's not as doomed as I had thought... though I still don't think he'll be the man this season.

 

[switz]

I wonder if it can be found that as touches goes up the player tend to wear down so each hit or touch has a greater chance to result in injury or if each hit is it's own random event, like a coin toss, and prior carries don't impact the outcome of future carries or hits.

Without going into detail, there is a correlation between prior injuries (and type), # of career carries, age, and BMI. It doesn't project catastrophic injuries, but does indicate when an RB is about to "wear down".

 

[Matt Waldman]

Can we expect more recipes in the Gut Check this year?

LOL - Should I expose who this is?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

based on this list, neither season seems like a big outlier.

Turner's 376 carries rank 20th all time and Peterson's 363 carries rank him 39th all time. Both teams have quality 2nd options that should help limit their workload and keep them healthy, but both have also proven that they don't need 25+ carries each week to be effective as they can break big plays at any moment.

 

[SayWhat?]

I have drafted players who I had ranked lower than other players because I knew I could get my player later. Drafting is not just sticking to a list of ranked players; it's about value. If there is a player I have ranked to go in the 3rd round, but I know that I have a great chance to get him a round or 2 later, then I may bypass him and take someone I have ranked lower. There is a difference between the order players are ranked and the order you would draft them. It is all determined by value.

That's exactly how I see rankings should be used. You'll get to see who I think is overvalued and undervalued. Then if you buy into a few, some, or all of my viewpoints you can use the rankings to figure out when to deviate from the flow...

First of all, threads with discussions like this is why I love FBG. It makes you think about factors and situations that you might not consider when analyzing players, teams, schedules, etc. I also particualarly enjoy your work and the thought that you put into this Matt. That being said, I understand the concept of VBD and the difference in rankings vs drafting players. So maybe I just disagree with your understanding of how staff should post their rankings. I suppose it's a fine line, but I simply don't want to have to infer that you've ranked Adrian Peterson 23rd, but would actually take him 7th if he was available in a league that scores 4pt/passing TD w/ no ppr. Shouldn't the public rankings on FBG by staff members be how they actually value the players? I guess my point is that if there's no chance that you're going to take a QB like Aaron Roders, a RB like Ryan Grant or a WR like Roddy White (to name a few as to not give away all your rankings) instead of Peterson, then why rank them that way? As much as your "historical data" about usage tells you otherwise, you're simply not going to consider any of those players ahead of Peterson. So why rank them above Peterson? To show that your level of concern regarding AP's injury potential this year based on your data is through the roof? Ranking Peterson in this type of league any lower than about 3rd is already providing your "overvalued" stamp of disapproval. Ranking him 23rd just seems to scream "check my exclude box!"

 

[Mike]

Can we expect more recipes in the Gut Check this year?

LOL - Should I expose who this is?

Shouldn't be too tough to crack. This thread reminds me how I stole Calvin Johnson from you last year. Boo-ya! I also have a craving for beer can chicken. You may have to talk me through it.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I love Wildmans ranks! I got kicked out of the HARRIS interactive poll because I refused to rank with the conscense. Guess what. At end of year I WAS RIGHT ON early in the year when they kicked me out!

And you wonder why the BCS IS FLAWED?

Another point is I have always been a winner averageing over 50% of my leagues until I got a FBG subscription. Now I can;t win crap so I am reluntly not renueing my subscription as the 3 year deal ran out and going back to my own whacky views that sometimes tear your conceous picks to threads anyway!

Your see the Dawgs back up to winning 10 to 15 leagues yearly again soon! I will miss that contest and Henry's kick threads for my kick leagues. That's about it. Youv'e grown to big anyway and I am one that likes to out smart majority. Not follow along! It's why I have always been a winner at everything I do and my winning % has taken a severe plunge since I got a FBG subscription over last 5 years. You guys are good. I just want to get back to my old ways of out smarting you! Not following you!

 

[Rebirtha]

It's why I have always been a winner at everything I do

You should go and help out the Browns.

 

[Iron_Far]

It's why I have always been a winner at everything I do

This schtick never gets old.

 

[Biabreakable]

And again, I'm no scientist with this stuff but this RB workload approach has helped me avoid players who flamed out the year after a huge season and it's been four years that I've been using this approach. Coincidence, maybe. But I think it is worth exploring.

Ok I am curious. What RB have had enough touches over the past 4 year to cause you to avoid them? And did that actualy proove to be the correct decision?Your example of Jamal Anderson is not compelling. He had a career ending injury after his high carry season. He was still pretty young. Stuff like this happens. I don't think it had anything to do with Jamal getting injured the following year.As switz pointed out TD contradicts this by following one of his high touch seasons with an even higher one. Then he got injured. Came back but he was never really the same again. So do high touches cause injury? 6 months later? I don't think so. This might sound kind of funny, but the thing that concerned me about TD was when I heard him say he spent most of his free time sleeping. I think that affected his metabolism. This had about as much to do with TD getting injured as the number of touches he had did.More is better. I want the guys who get the ball a lot.

I think some of you guys are missing the point. You're stuck on the idea that I'm saying high workload = injuries (which I never said in this explanation) or you're stuck on one of the three examples I provided in my explanation. Just read the piece. If you find it interesting, fine. If you don't, fine. Sometimes those who use their refined math skills to "be correct" on a point miss out on the big picture. Sometimes what I may explore will be debunk-able...fine.I think my record versus well-regarded people in this hobby is more than respectable. as far as rankings go, I provide rankings from my perspective and that's all I claim. Some years it works out well, but not every year. I can say I have been successful and if you've been more successful, congratulations and I'm happy for you. If you find what I'm writing worth reading and it helps in some way, great. If not, understandable. If you don't understand why you can find value in observing someone discuss a different approach even if it doesn't turn out successful then don't observe it. It's ok, stick to what works for you. And MS, why would I choose Johnson over Moss when I could let Johnson fall to me after Moss was long gone? (I know what you meant, and yes, I did get the opportunity in one league...)

Well I haven't seen your rankings and I don't know if I will read the article. But if I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't waste my time discussing it here.That being said I haven't heard a sound argument for X touches = player decline.

 

[nightmare]

If every one's thinking alike -no one is thinking.

Odds are pretty good that one of those guys goes down.

Each year half of the top ten RB's don't repeat.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I have to hand it to you guys...You were right about the analysis.

I reviewed my previous work, re-read the well-done piece at Advanced NFL Stats that Lott's Fingertip referenced and I was wrong. Although I was only going to link the workload to regression, I realized upon second look that the regression wasn't enough to put the backs that low. In fact, I think I see some indicators why Adrian Peterson and Michael Turner could actually repeat their stellar seasons or come close. There are some other reasons that might make one cautious about drafting these players in the top five, but even if I rank them in the lower portion of the top 12 due evidence they will simply regress the mean, they would certainly be worth more than any wide receiver on the board.

I'll still be able to use the research for the piece, but it will have a different perspective than what I thought I would be writing. I'll still be discussing my rankings once I update them tomorrow and finish the piece.

Thanks for the feedback.