Westbrook to see decreased workload? (1 Viewer)

[mdog1967]

He was relied upon so heavily because of the lack of options. There are now more. He'll still get the vast majority of carries and RB receptions. 3rd in PPR (LT, ADP), 5th in non-PPR (LT, ADP, SJax, Addai), IMO.

I agree, he's still a top 5 pick no matter how you cut it.

I would agree, except in years past its the waiting game. Will he play. I avoid Westbrook for that reason alone.

 

[FUBAR]

He was relied upon so heavily because of the lack of options. There are now more. He'll still get the vast majority of carries and RB receptions. 3rd in PPR (LT, ADP), 5th in non-PPR (LT, ADP, SJax, Addai), IMO.

I agree, he's still a top 5 pick no matter how you cut it.

I would agree, except in years past its the waiting game. Will he play. I avoid Westbrook for that reason alone.

He rarely sits. The question is whether you can handle the perceived risk. I like seeing people thinking this way though, it helps push Westbrook down to the 7-10 range in some leagues.

 

[gianmarco]

Speaking from experience, Westbrook is a player that is scarier to non-owners than owners. To anyone that has never owned him, he seems like a risk because you hear about him on the report every week and you see Westy owners clamoring to make sure he's playing. You know how good he is after he shreds you the week you play against his team, but that's about it. You're thankful you don't have to deal with him.

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

I was in the former group until I finally decided to give him a shot and now I'm in the latter and would have no qualms whatsoever about owning him.

I don't know if I've ever met a Westbrook owner that complained about owning him. I would guess that most of the negative comments about his risk and where he's ranked come from people that have never owned Westbrook.

 

[switz]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

 

[gianmarco]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

People are also afraid of airplanes and elevators, but it doesn't mean it's rational or supported by facts. It would be more worrisome if he were a stud in 2004 and 2005 and then missed a lot of time in 2006 and 2007 (i.e., if 2006/2007 were flipflopped with 2004/2005). But, that's not the case and over the last 2 yrs, he's actually been quite durable and ultraproductive. He's no more of a risk than pretty much any other guy drafted in the early 1st round, especially when looking at his time missed over the last 2 yrs.Have you ever owned Westbrook? I'm curious if there are any 2006/2007 Westbrook owners that are concerned of 2004/2005 like you speak of. I'm personally not aware of any. I will admit that I used to be concerned before owning him.

 

[Phurfur]

I didn't read the thread because we hear "Westbrook to see decreased workload" every year and it never happens.

 

[switz]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

People are also afraid of airplanes and elevators, but it doesn't mean it's rational or supported by facts. It would be more worrisome if he were a stud in 2004 and 2005 and then missed a lot of time in 2006 and 2007 (i.e., if 2006/2007 were flipflopped with 2004/2005). But, that's not the case and over the last 2 yrs, he's actually been quite durable and ultraproductive. He's no more of a risk than pretty much any other guy drafted in the early 1st round, especially when looking at his time missed over the last 2 yrs.Have you ever owned Westbrook? I'm curious if there are any 2006/2007 Westbrook owners that are concerned of 2004/2005 like you speak of. I'm personally not aware of any. I will admit that I used to be concerned before owning him.

Yes I owned Westbrook in '04. I haven't owned him since.For people that owned him in '06 & '07 but not previously, they only see the upside, because that's all they experienced.I agree over the past few years he's been durable.

 

[switz]

I didn't read the thread because we hear "Westbrook to see decreased workload" every year and it never happens.

Can you provide links to that? This is the first year I've heard it.

 

[gianmarco]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

People are also afraid of airplanes and elevators, but it doesn't mean it's rational or supported by facts. It would be more worrisome if he were a stud in 2004 and 2005 and then missed a lot of time in 2006 and 2007 (i.e., if 2006/2007 were flipflopped with 2004/2005). But, that's not the case and over the last 2 yrs, he's actually been quite durable and ultraproductive. He's no more of a risk than pretty much any other guy drafted in the early 1st round, especially when looking at his time missed over the last 2 yrs.Have you ever owned Westbrook? I'm curious if there are any 2006/2007 Westbrook owners that are concerned of 2004/2005 like you speak of. I'm personally not aware of any. I will admit that I used to be concerned before owning him.

Yes I owned Westbrook in '04. I haven't owned him since.

For people that owned him in '06 & '07 but not previously, they only see the upside, because that's all they experienced.

I agree over the past few years he's been durable.

No, people that owned him in 06 and 07 realize that his perceived risk is greatly exaggerated and much higher than his actual risk. If this weren't the case, then everyone would be clamoring to own him but they don't. The fact is that there are a large # of people that haven't owned Westbrook and will steer clear of him because they are afraid of that risk. On the flipside, Westbrook owners gladly look to grab him and let others pass on him on based on this "risk" and his injury history from 3 and 4 yrs ago. I would honestly be curious to see if there are any Westbrook owners from the last 2 years that are at all concerned about owning him this year (aside from the age standpoint in a dynasty).Bottomline is, he truly is not any riskier than any other RB taken in the 1st round. Ask SJax and LJ and Gore and Bush and Parker owners from last year.

I honestly don't care if you like him or are convinced, to be honest. I just find him as one of the most fascinating players because of this disconnect between owners and non-owners. It's almost as if there is a "westbrook fraternity" where fellow westbrook owners have a secret handshake and just wink and smile at one another and snatch him up while those that fear his risk let him slip. He's similar to Tiki Barber and D. Driver over the past few years in that sense.

 

[Chunky Soup]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

People are also afraid of airplanes and elevators, but it doesn't mean it's rational or supported by facts. It would be more worrisome if he were a stud in 2004 and 2005 and then missed a lot of time in 2006 and 2007 (i.e., if 2006/2007 were flipflopped with 2004/2005). But, that's not the case and over the last 2 yrs, he's actually been quite durable and ultraproductive. He's no more of a risk than pretty much any other guy drafted in the early 1st round, especially when looking at his time missed over the last 2 yrs.Have you ever owned Westbrook? I'm curious if there are any 2006/2007 Westbrook owners that are concerned of 2004/2005 like you speak of. I'm personally not aware of any. I will admit that I used to be concerned before owning him.

Yes I owned Westbrook in '04. I haven't owned him since.For people that owned him in '06 & '07 but not previously, they only see the upside, because that's all they experienced.

I agree over the past few years he's been durable.

According to your logic, you never saw Westbrooks upside, since you only experienced his injured years. I really don't think people are so blind not to look at a guys career, aside from when they "owned him".It sounds then like you're either bitter, or just upset you missed out on Westy recently. I realize looking beyond the last couple of years can be important in FF, but you're looking way too much into it. All recent experience shows Westbrook to be healthy. Also, bringing in Lorenzo Booker is no Westbrook clone.

And fwiw, people talked about Hunt taking caries away from Westbrook last year -- he didn't.

Finally, lowering Westbrooks touches won't hurt him that much. He scored #6 non-PPR two years ago with 50 less touches than last year.

He's still a stud; you're deluding yourself if you think Westbrook is (a) primed for an injury or (b) will get less than 320 touches (of course, barring injury). If neither of these happen, which chances are they won't, you're looking at a top 5 non-ppr and a top 3 ppr.

Get this guy now. Switz, that includes you.

 

[switz]

Get this guy now. Switz, that includes you.

No choice on my part - he's already owned in all of my leagues, and I don't play in any redrafts.And you may be right, in that I only see the downside. But somewhere in between the downside and the upside is the right ranking.

 

[gianmarco]

Get this guy now. Switz, that includes you.

No choice on my part - he's already owned in all of my leagues, and I don't play in any redrafts.And you may be right, in that I only see the downside. But somewhere in between the downside and the upside is the right ranking.

Very true, but I believe it's much closer to his upside than his downside as is evidenced by his last 2 yrs. Bottomline is, guys like Westbrook help win championships.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

Westy almost always sits a game a year so if you draft him plan on haveing to replace him one game besides the bye week.

His knees are always a concern but last two years his value has been a steal at mid first.

PPR leagues he is always at or near the top and this year even beat LT out for the best APG.

With that said the chemisty of him just sometimes ruins a fantasy season. Last year his knee down cost me $$$$. Him and Portis whom was steal value last year, and another solid back just didn;t get it done for me. I killed the league in points but couldn;t win the head to heads. Something to think about when drafting. I got 6th pick in my draftmaster and I will probably take him there if he's left. Just don;t see anyone better.

His APG will remain top 5. Problem is if I take him at 6th I better have depth built up behind him.

 

[Banger]

Westy almost always sits a game a year so if you draft him plan on haveing to replace him one game besides the bye week.

Last year he played in more games than Sjax, R. Brown, M. Lynch, ADP, Bush, Maroney, Parker, Jacobs, Larry Johnson, Caddy, Rudi Johnson, Travis Henry and played in as many as Gore, McGahee, Addai, MJD, Jamal Lewis and F. Taylor. He plays RB and RB's get hurt.

 

[SSOG]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

iirc, two of his missed games in 2004 were because the Eagles clinched RIDICULOUSLY early and sat everyone for the last quarter of the season. Not injury. If that's the case, then Westbrook has missed 9 games to injury in his 6 year career. Only once has he missed more than one game. As far as RBs go, that's actually remarkably DURABLE. It may not seem it, because he's always on the report, but when it comes to missing time, Westbrook has to this point been LESS of an injury risk than most NFL RBs.

 

[gianmarco]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

iirc, two of his missed games in 2004 were because the Eagles clinched RIDICULOUSLY early and sat everyone for the last quarter of the season. Not injury. If that's the case, then Westbrook has missed 9 games to injury in his 6 year career. Only once has he missed more than one game. As far as RBs go, that's actually remarkably DURABLE. It may not seem it, because he's always on the report, but when it comes to missing time, Westbrook has to this point been LESS of an injury risk than most NFL RBs.

Would you please stop using facts and logic to make a point. That's not looked upon highly here sometimes.

 

[switz]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

iirc, two of his missed games in 2004 were because the Eagles clinched RIDICULOUSLY early and sat everyone for the last quarter of the season. Not injury. If that's the case, then Westbrook has missed 9 games to injury in his 6 year career. Only once has he missed more than one game. As far as RBs go, that's actually remarkably DURABLE. It may not seem it, because he's always on the report, but when it comes to missing time, Westbrook has to this point been LESS of an injury risk than most NFL RBs.

Would you please stop using facts and logic to make a point. That's not looked upon highly here sometimes.

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

 

[Chunky Soup]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

iirc, two of his missed games in 2004 were because the Eagles clinched RIDICULOUSLY early and sat everyone for the last quarter of the season. Not injury. If that's the case, then Westbrook has missed 9 games to injury in his 6 year career. Only once has he missed more than one game. As far as RBs go, that's actually remarkably DURABLE. It may not seem it, because he's always on the report, but when it comes to missing time, Westbrook has to this point been LESS of an injury risk than most NFL RBs.

Would you please stop using facts and logic to make a point. That's not looked upon highly here sometimes.

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

So, since the Eagles are nowhere near as dominate as they used to be, and won't be resting players anytime soon, you can count on Westbrook playing more games per year.

 

[switz]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

iirc, two of his missed games in 2004 were because the Eagles clinched RIDICULOUSLY early and sat everyone for the last quarter of the season. Not injury. If that's the case, then Westbrook has missed 9 games to injury in his 6 year career. Only once has he missed more than one game. As far as RBs go, that's actually remarkably DURABLE. It may not seem it, because he's always on the report, but when it comes to missing time, Westbrook has to this point been LESS of an injury risk than most NFL RBs.

Would you please stop using facts and logic to make a point. That's not looked upon highly here sometimes.

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

So, since the Eagles are nowhere near as dominate as they used to be, and won't be resting players anytime soon, you can count on Westbrook playing more games per year.

Which has happened in the last two years, agreed.

 

[renesauz]

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

So....Do you routinely bump star players down your draft list because their coach is likely to sit them a game or two after their team clinches a first round bye?Unless you answer that question with a yes (which is ridiculous), then you must accept the fact that it would be (correctly) assumed that you meant due to injury.Face it...you have been oWned...Westbrook is as reliable as any RB, and more so then most.

 

[mbuehner]

To Westy owners, it's merely an inconvenience to have to check his weekly status, but know the rewards are FAR GREATER than any risk and that, in reality, he misses very little time.

2004 and 2005 is what people are afraid of. Sure, in 06 and 07 he only missed one game each season, but in the previous two years he missed about 25% of the season, and the games missed were playoff games.I agree with the guy who said if he slides to pick 7 or so, he is worth the risk, because you get a solid starter on the wraparound. But if you have pick 4-5, Westbrook is a guy who could cost you your championship.

iirc, two of his missed games in 2004 were because the Eagles clinched RIDICULOUSLY early and sat everyone for the last quarter of the season. Not injury. If that's the case, then Westbrook has missed 9 games to injury in his 6 year career. Only once has he missed more than one game. As far as RBs go, that's actually remarkably DURABLE. It may not seem it, because he's always on the report, but when it comes to missing time, Westbrook has to this point been LESS of an injury risk than most NFL RBs.

Would you please stop using facts and logic to make a point. That's not looked upon highly here sometimes.

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

Do you expect the Eagles to clinch a playoff spot early this season? If not, its a non-issue and it shouldnt be included in the analysis. I lost a championship when Tomlinson sat down for HALF a game. I'll still take Tomlinson this year if i can get him where i want him. And i dont have it in my head that Tomlinson misses a lot of time.

 

[switz]

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

So....Do you routinely bump star players down your draft list because their coach is likely to sit them a game or two after their team clinches a first round bye?Unless you answer that question with a yes (which is ridiculous), then you must accept the fact that it would be (correctly) assumed that you meant due to injury.Face it...you have been oWned...Westbrook is as reliable as any RB, and more so then most.

Teams that have reputations for resting their players at the end of the season can kill a fantasy championship.However, what I said about those two seasons is not the Westbrook showed he wasn't durable, but rather that's what scares people away from him. If you would bother with a little reading comprehension, you would see I'm not "owned" at all.Is Westbrook "as reliable as any RB"? Well, no - he's missed at least one game EVERY YEAR of his career, but one. There are other RBs that have missed no time at all. So that's not true.Does Westbrook have worrisome knees? Yes. Is it something to be concerned about? Probably. Did I say to drop him out of the first round? No. In fact I said he would be a good pick at #7, that's pretty high.So read through my posts again, and when you realize nothing I've said is in any way wrong, come back and try to show me again how I was "owned."

 

[gianmarco]

I'm not a Westbrook hater by any stretch of the imagination. But realistically, the guy is a huge risk.

I've yet to see any reason the above is true other than you being snakebitten when you owned him 4 yrs ago. A huge risk to do what? To not be on the field as much as other RB's drafted around him? Huge risk to not live up to his draft position? It's already been pointed out that he's missed relatively little time due to injury. You mention how you meant he missed generic time and the time he missed a few yrs ago due to sitting at the end of the season when the team clinched the playoffs was still missed time, yet that doesn't bother you about Addai on a team that has the biggest reputation for sitting starters at the end of the year?No offense, but these are the kinds of things that make me not take you very seriously. It's the inconsistencies in how you apply a certain argument for one player but ignore it for another. Stewart is too big to be an effective back, but Turner is a top 10 guy who weighs even more than Stewart. Westbrook is faulted for being benched 3 yrs ago when the team was in the playoffs, but for Addai it's no big deal. And so forth and so on. If you were to actually be consistent in things you view as red flags or things that are potentially good situations and apply them to ALL players equally and not just when it helps the guys you like or hurts the guys you don't like, I'd pay a little more attention to what you have to say.

 

[gianmarco]

Right, I guess since they sat him because they clinched those don't count as missed games Note: I didn't say he missed them due to injury, just that he missed them.

So....Do you routinely bump star players down your draft list because their coach is likely to sit them a game or two after their team clinches a first round bye?Unless you answer that question with a yes (which is ridiculous), then you must accept the fact that it would be (correctly) assumed that you meant due to injury.

Face it...you have been oWned...Westbrook is as reliable as any RB, and more so then most.

Teams that have reputations for resting their players at the end of the season can kill a fantasy championship.

Shouldn't that kind of statement make you bump Addai down? Or does it not apply to him?

 

[renesauz]

SWITZ:

You stated he was a huge risk...a few of us have pointed out that there is no proof of that. The data clearly shows the opposite...he's well above average in reliability.

When you pointed out missed games, the CLEAR inferance was that they were missed due to injury...again it was pointed out that several had nothing to do with injury.

Then...you basicly said that part of his risk is that he could be sat when his team clinches...which it has been pointed out is a longshot. Predicting statistical success is difficult enough without trying to add this dimension.

If you believe he should be RB7...that's fine. It's not unreasonable. I could make that argument sensibly (even if I don't agree) What is unreasonable is your argument about "risk", and your stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts.

Fact #1: 1 game per year missed (for injury) is above average for RB durability.

Fact #2: The practice of predicting missed games due to team performance is dubious at best, but immaterial to current predictions of Westbrook unless you believe the Eagles to be MUCH better (or worse) then the bulk of us.

WHERE IS THE HUGE RISK you mentioned?

 

[switz]

I'm not a Westbrook hater by any stretch of the imagination. But realistically, the guy is a huge risk.

I've yet to see any reason the above is true other than you being snakebitten when you owned him 4 yrs ago. A huge risk to do what? To not be on the field as much as other RB's drafted around him? Huge risk to not live up to his draft position? It's already been pointed out that he's missed relatively little time due to injury. You mention how you meant he missed generic time and the time he missed a few yrs ago due to sitting at the end of the season when the team clinched the playoffs was still missed time, yet that doesn't bother you about Addai on a team that has the biggest reputation for sitting starters at the end of the year?

Last year was a career year for Westbrook. His ADP is very high. At his current ADP he is a huge risk, for multiple reasons, one of which is his health, yes.

No offense, but these are the kinds of things that make me not take you very seriously. It's the inconsistencies in how you apply a certain argument for one player but ignore it for another. Stewart is too big to be an effective back, but Turner is a top 10 guy who weighs even more than Stewart. Westbrook is faulted for being benched 3 yrs ago when the team was in the playoffs, but for Addai it's no big deal. And so forth and so on. If you were to actually be consistent in things you view as red flags or things that are potentially good situations and apply them to ALL players equally and not just when it helps the guys you like or hurts the guys you don't like, I'd pay a little more attention to what you have to say.

Stewart versus Turner. I have the same concern for both. But Turner has been effective in the NFL, albeit in a very limited role. Do I think both may have short careers as feature backs? Yes. Do I still feel Turner is more talented than Stewart? Yes. No inconsistencies at all.Addai being sat come playoff time? I had been under the impression that Dungy has gone away from that practice, since he realized he needed to keep his players in a routine to win the SB. The last two weeks of their SB season, Addai had 15 then 21 carries. This past season they returned to resting some players the last couple games, and they failed to make the SB. Part of that resting I believe was due to the overall health of the team being in question this year. But I am inclined to think that Dungy realizes he needs his team playing a full peak at the end of the season, not resting them. But yes it is still a concern.

The amount I weight it in is in proportion to the level it affects the player, or as in the case of Stewart, the amount I think it will affect the player. No inconsistencies.

 

[switz]

WHERE IS THE HUGE RISK you mentioned?

The risk is that last year was his highest workload ever. He has had injury problems in the past, and as much as you disagree, he is more of an injury risk than most of the top backs. The reality is he's more likely to return to a top-10 back, than be a top-2 or 3 back, where he finished last year.

 

[renesauz]

WHERE IS THE HUGE RISK you mentioned?

The risk is that last year was his highest workload ever. He has had injury problems in the past, and as much as you disagree, he is more of an injury risk than most of the top backs. The reality is he's more likely to return to a top-10 back, than be a top-2 or 3 back, where he finished last year.

Now, that's an argument that makes sense, and that's an argument that doesn't.Again...it isn't your specific ranking of Westbrook that is in question, but your arguments defending that ranking. Your original assertion was that he was an "injury risk". When that was debunked, with facts, you fell back to saying that games missed to rest for the playoffs needed to be counted. When several of us countered that that argument can't be made this year, you fell back to a third argument. Your third argument should have been your first, because it's the first thing you've said that actually made some logical sense.

We can come up with reasons to bump EVERY RB up or down in the rankings. EG: LT has had too big a workload for too long, and is due for a fall. If you make this argument and bump him down (realisticly, not to #25)...I can't argue it, even if I disagree. We don't have to agree with every ranking. The beauty of the SP is to discuss WHY a player could slide up or down. Sometimes...our stated "why" is just flat wrong....(EG: Saying Peyton Manning just sucks, and will never be top 5 again) Much more often, it's opinion based on SOME verifiable facts. (EG: Mendenhall was a top back in college...he should be in the pros also).

"I don't think Westbrook will be a top five again BECAUSE he's getting older AND last year was a career year for carries" is a respectable argument I disagree with.

"Westbrook is over-rated and a huge risk because he's injury prone" is mixed...the conclusion may (or may not) be right, but its basis has been shown to be wrong.

 

[switz]

WHERE IS THE HUGE RISK you mentioned?

The risk is that last year was his highest workload ever. He has had injury problems in the past, and as much as you disagree, he is more of an injury risk than most of the top backs. The reality is he's more likely to return to a top-10 back, than be a top-2 or 3 back, where he finished last year.

Now, that's an argument that makes sense, and that's an argument that doesn't.Again...it isn't your specific ranking of Westbrook that is in question, but your arguments defending that ranking. Your origanel assertion was that he was an "injury risk". When that was debunked, with facts, you fell back to saying that games missed to rest for the playoffs needed to be counted. When several of us countered that that argument can't be made this year, you fell back to a third argument. Your third argument should have been your first, because it's the first thing you've said that actually made some logical sense.

We can come up with reasons to bump EVERY RB up or down in the rankings. EG: LT has had too big a workload for too long, and is due for a fall. If you make this argument and bump him down (realisticly, not to #25)...I can't argue it, even if I disagree. We don't have to agree with every ranking. The beauty of the SP is to discuss WHY a player could slide up or down. Sometimes...our stated "why" is just flat wrong....(EG: Saying Peyton Manning just sucks, and will never be top 5 again) Much more often, it's opinion based on SOME verifiable facts. (EG: Mendenhall was a top back in college...he should be in the pros also).

"I don't think Westbrook will be a top five again BECAUSE he's getting older AND last year was a career year for carries" is a respectable argument I disagree with.

"Westbrook is over-rated and a huge risk because he's injury prone" is mixed...the conclusion may be right, but it's basis is wrong.

But all of those points go into my ranking him as a risk. All of them are valid reasons too, whether or not you disagree.

 

[renesauz]

But all of those points go into my ranking him as a risk. All of them are valid reasons too, whether or not you disagree.

And that's fine, but it doesn't change that fact that the data simply does not support the "injury-risk" label as a valid reason to bump him down.This isn't really an argument about ranking, because there isn't such a huge difference between #3/4 and #6/7...it's about your ORIGINAL stated basis for ranking him where you did...injury risk.

 

[switz]

But all of those points go into my ranking him as a risk. All of them are valid reasons too, whether or not you disagree.

And that's fine, but it doesn't change that fact that the data simply does not support the "injury-risk" label as a valid reason to bump him down.This isn't really an argument about ranking, because there isn't such a huge difference between #3/4 and #6/7...it's about your ORIGINAL stated basis for ranking him where you did...injury risk.

Last year was the highest he ever finished as it was IIRC, and one of his most healthy years. Why would anyone expect him to finish as high as he did again?

Actually - my original reason is what's quoted above. Below is my second reply on the subject, same line of reasoning.

He was (per FBG)...

#6 in '06

#18 in '05

#10 in '04

#20 in '03

#73 in '02

Last year was his highest ever finish, prior to that he's never been top-5, and twice top-10. I for one would not draft him in the top-5 in a redraft this coming season.

In fact, I wasn't even the one who said his health was the biggest question, that was mbuehner @ May 5 2008, 04:30 PM, but no one jumped on him. They jumed on my reply saying that Westbrook has had the same health issues with less touches.

 

[renesauz]

But all of those points go into my ranking him as a risk. All of them are valid reasons too, whether or not you disagree.

And that's fine, but it doesn't change that fact that the data simply does not support the "injury-risk" label as a valid reason to bump him down.This isn't really an argument about ranking, because there isn't such a huge difference between #3/4 and #6/7...it's about your ORIGINAL stated basis for ranking him where you did...injury risk.

Last year was the highest he ever finished as it was IIRC, and one of his most healthy years. Why would anyone expect him to finish as high as he did again?

Actually - my original reason is what's quoted above. People just jumped on the "one of his most healthy years comment" instead of reading the whole line. Below is my second reply on the subject, same line of reasoning.

He was (per FBG)...

#6 in '06

#18 in '05

#10 in '04

#20 in '03

#73 in '02

Last year was his highest ever finish, prior to that he's never been top-5, and twice top-10. I for one would not draft him in the top-5 in a redraft this coming season.

LOL...guess I missed that, probably because it made (some) sense. If you're talking non-ppr, then I'd agree. PPR rankings for him are higher though.