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!
What is with Dodd's projection for Manningham? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bolebuns
- Start date
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
Probably mad that he had him so high last week....
Seriously, Manningham has scored twice in row after not scoring all season. Now he goes against a pretty good SF team defense that can focus a little more attention on the pass this week. 61 may be a low, but 2 was too high last week. I would put in in the 12-24 range.
Seriously, Manningham has scored twice in row after not scoring all season. Now he goes against a pretty good SF team defense that can focus a little more attention on the pass this week. 61 may be a low, but 2 was too high last week. I would put in in the 12-24 range.
I will continue to ask why even bother posting these? they always have several indefensible projections and no one takes them seriously. people need rankings out on Tuesday or early wednesday at the latest because waivers is the most important thing each week. if I am paying for fantasy football advice I want them to actually give me serious information in time for me to use it
footballnerd
Footballguy
lot of factors don't come out by tues like is Nicks playing? is Bradshaw playing? SF secondary health? etc. you'd be lucky to get accurate projections.
Excellent points, plus Barden made two big grabs. And again, the guy is zero to count on, but he can pluck the ball out of the air like few WRs before him. At 6-6 with some leaping ability and those hands....Giants waited about a full calendar year to get him back.People were surprised he was expected to and did play in the slot. If Nicks comes back, where does he play?Last year he was in on red zone plays before he got hurt and and is an obvious target to put on the field for Eli there-even if just the D thinks so.No one wants to predict anything for Barden, who would, but he's a monkey wrench to (mentioned above) an already confused situation.
Barden isn't a factor.And look at what Manningham did last year with Nicks out. The community projections came out with him at 44, so not sure "early projection garbage" is the answer here.Something still doesn't seem right. And check out Breaston this week. He scores 11 (std) last week and suddenly he is at 15 or so? Speaking of which...should I play Breaston over Manningham this week, then? (I know....but didn't want to write it again over in assistant coach....sigh)
Last edited by a moderator:
That makes sense.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
On the flip side,isnt Dodds ranked out of top 30 fantasy prognosticators thru the first half of this season ? Even Bloom has slipped this year..many have, even Ian Allan Fantasyindex.com..so why asky why should people question Tuesday rankings but rather ask Dodds why even post tuesday rankings in the first place? Cant it wait till thursday or friday?.
GreenNGold
Footballguy
No, there are Thursday games now, I need accurate rankings before then. I think the better question is, why cannot there be more accurate rankings on Tuesday/Wednesday? Matchups should not take someone from #2 to #61 over 1 week. I can understand tweaking as the week goes on, but nothing should move someone more than a few spots without MAJOR news coming out.
Last edited by a moderator:
a factor is about all I'd call Barden. I sure didn't lay it on thick or anything above.http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/reserve_power_O88Ipx5viTv1jE8EttObaKNY Post-"Giants Barden supersub in return"On a scoring drive late in the fourth quarter, Barden came up with a nine-yard reception, reaching down and to his left to secure the ball.http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/12555/ramses-bardenESPN-With Hakeem Nicks out, Barden was activated from the PUP and saw a little work. One of his receptions was a tough grab in front of a defender, where he used his massive frame to shield the ball. Barden's got a chance to have a role -- especially in the red zone -- as long as Nicks is out.See their take could surely be interpreted as once Nicks returns, Barden is out.I don't in anyway think it's that simple. I don't have any clue how much he plays, but he is a monkey wrench here as I said above.Ya don't have a 6-6 guy with his hands sit the entire game. At some point, it's useful. Gilbride had him in on a very key drive and he made a big (and tough) catch last week. Does an OC put a WR in that spot if he lacks confidence in him?There's something there. Minimal? small? I don't know, I'm not going out on any limb, but there is something.IIRC Mario couldn't find the endzone til recently. Forced to I'd predict Ramses replaces him in red zone situations. How many plays a game is that? 10-15? I'd be fine rolling with that for Barden. I'm not in anyway saying he's the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice, just saying he is a factor here.
I agree.My question has been between starting Manningham or Breaston. Most folks project Manningham considerably higher than Breaston. But Dodds, who I usually respect, threw me for a loop on this one. (breaston at 15, manningham at 61) He didn't adjust in latest rankings, either. I can understand the "Bowe will get Champ" thing. But Manningham? wow.Silly as it seems, I hate decisions like this.
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
Im not sure what there plan is for Barden but he would come in make a play and then come out for Michael Clayton. Maybe they area slowly working him back or they only plan on only using him in 3rd down possession/ red zone packages
Last edited by a moderator:
solorca
Footballguy
Looks like he has made a few updates for Wednesday and Manningham is still at 61. I think this is one of those cases where Dodds should pop in to give some reasoning behind his rankings.
That's what I love about Bloom's new comment section. If something is odd, he explains it.
That's what I love about Bloom's new comment section. If something is odd, he explains it.
A big difference between last week and this week is that Hakeem Nicks is expected to play this week. Also, Victor Cruz got more targets than Manningham last week, which is a reason to move Manningham down a bit this week compared to last week. (In fact, Cruz has more targets than Manningham over the last four games as a group.)
If Manning attempts about 35 passes this week, and if the WRs as a group get 62% of those (which is the average for the Giants this season), what percentage of the WR targets will Manningham get? Probably anywhere between 20% and 40% is reasonable, depending on how healthy Nicks is, and on whether Manning seems to prefer Manningham over Cruz or vice versa this week. If we say 31% for the sake of argument, that's 6.7 targets. Manningham has caught 52% of his targets this season. That would be 3.5 catches, which probably gives him about 45 yards and 0.2 touchdowns. That puts him down into fantasy WR5 territory.
If Manning attempts about 35 passes this week, and if the WRs as a group get 62% of those (which is the average for the Giants this season), what percentage of the WR targets will Manningham get? Probably anywhere between 20% and 40% is reasonable, depending on how healthy Nicks is, and on whether Manning seems to prefer Manningham over Cruz or vice versa this week. If we say 31% for the sake of argument, that's 6.7 targets. Manningham has caught 52% of his targets this season. That would be 3.5 catches, which probably gives him about 45 yards and 0.2 touchdowns. That puts him down into fantasy WR5 territory.
Last edited by a moderator:
solorca
Footballguy
I understand the argument of going with the averages, but if you had a choice between Mario Manningham or Andre Caldwell, Jeremy Kerley, Brandon Gibson, Devin Hester, etc., I find it hard to believe you would go with them. All of these players are ranked in the 5-6 spots in front of Manningham.
Hakeem Nicks and Victor Cruz are ranked 30 and 31, so he has them really low as well. Dodds is predicting just under 150 yards passing going to Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham. I would be shocked if that ends up true. It's almost like Dodds is discounting the Giants receivers because they are playing the 49ers, but their pass defense is ok, but certainly not elite.
For the record, I have Manningham as well and don't plan on starting him (benching him for Roddy, VJax, and Harvin...and would also start Crabtree over him), but I am curious about the thought process in having him so low.
Hakeem Nicks and Victor Cruz are ranked 30 and 31, so he has them really low as well. Dodds is predicting just under 150 yards passing going to Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham. I would be shocked if that ends up true. It's almost like Dodds is discounting the Giants receivers because they are playing the 49ers, but their pass defense is ok, but certainly not elite.
For the record, I have Manningham as well and don't plan on starting him (benching him for Roddy, VJax, and Harvin...and would also start Crabtree over him), but I am curious about the thought process in having him so low.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Top 200 Going Forward (or whatever it's called) is much more useful for waivers than the weekly rankings. I'd be upset if that stopped coming out on Tuesdays. I could live without the weekly rankings coming out on Tuesdays, but at the same time, I still like them - some information is better than none, even if it's incomplete / highly volatile, right?
I would guess it is because Nicks is looking more likely. But this news hurts Manningham...and by this much?I sure would like to know what Dodd's sees here.Other strange ones...Starks at 16?
Last edited by a moderator:
He is predicting Starks to have a *worse* game then he had vs this same team three weeks ago...
He had several similar "realm of possibility" games earlier this season, and was never in this same universe ranking wise. He is basically saying Manningham is not startable this week.You believe that?
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't start him this week. But then again, I also don't fill my lineup based on what FBG tells me. The different between WR36 and WR66 is one total point. It's really not a big deal.
Then tell me...wise one...Breaston or Manningham this week. ;-)
solorca
Footballguy
How many more times are you going to ask your lineup question in this thread? Take it to AC.Back on topic - I could definitely see Manningham ending up as the 66th WR this weekend, but I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money on the over. The only time he's finished lower than 50's overall in my league this year was the week he came back from injury. In most week, he's right in the WR3 range (24-36)
Last edited by a moderator:
chinawildman
Footballguy
Niners are a good D, but they are a more bend but dont break D which will give up yards but few points.. Expect lots of action for Cruz over the middle working against rookie nickel corner Chris Culliver or Tarrell Brown. Manningham is WR2 on the depth chart, but targets and FF wise he's the third option on that team behind Nicks and Cruz. You need only watch the Giant's final drive against the Pats to recognize who Manning's go-to guy is in crunch time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I'm doing with Damian Williams or Decker over him. That is never a good sign to have him go to GTD on Saturday.'BusterTBronco said:
degenerate
Footballguy
my only choice is to now go decker over mario. it's probly for the best even if he plays.
thatguythere
Footballguy
Dodd's knew about the swelling in Manningham's knee before Manningham did....that's how he rolls. 
Last edited by a moderator:
solorca
Footballguy
5/57/1 through about 2 1/2 quarters. Sad that Dodds never did provide a reason for the low ranking and probably caused a decent number of people to bench him because of it.I really with that he would implement a comment section like Bloom has been doing, to explain his thought process behind unusual rankings. Everyone has a right to rank however they see fit, but when something stands out like that, it would be nice to have a reason.
solorca
Footballguy
I guess the good news is that you really couldn't have chosen wrong. All three had good games
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
You are kidding right?He hurt his knee Firday, Nicks was back in the lineup, he was on the other coast, and he was playing against a good defense IF he played.I am as big a Manningham supporter as there is on this board, I have been calling for the stretch push all season, and I benched him without any instructions from Dodd or anyone else.If you are looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
Last edited by a moderator:
he was ranked there before he got hurt or Nicks came back. he was probable right? I don't have Manningham so no worries here.
Hairy, I think this would be OK by Dodds. He's a perfectionist by nature and wouldn't consider this a great call himself. As I understand it, the staff doesn't like the ask Qs in the shark pool method and prefers email or PM interaction. I'm not sure about the calling him out here part, but Dodds can take it. It'd be a great year for him if this is the only poor call he made. FF week to week projections for 1-200 players is very difficult. A good comeback might be Dodds' ranking in that projection competition, but that wouldn't change the fact that he's wrong here. It's 1 of 1-200. It's OK he's wrong on occasion.
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
Nicks was likely to come back before the ranking. He was playing SF in SF before the ranking too. Him hurting his knee on Friday made it a pretty solid ranking come game day. Personally, I don't follow Dodds rankings, I do my own. But I can't fault the ranking either.Edit to add: Plus Bradshaw was out before the ranking also.
Last edited by a moderator:
solorca
Footballguy
Personally, I make my own choices. I benched Manningham this week, but Dodds had less to do with it than liking the matchup for Harvin a little bit better. With that said, I think when he goes so far against the grain (average on FootballPros was 22), an explanation of some kind should be provided. Maybe he has some insight that could really help us make a decision, maybe it's just a hunch. Regardless, it would give us something to discuss.
Personally, I like that he was willing to go out on a limb and rank him much lower than everyone else, but when it's simply a number on a page without something to explain it, it doesn't really help anyone other than those who just look at the rankings and start the higher player. I would like to think that most of the members of this site are a little better than that.
Personally, I like that he was willing to go out on a limb and rank him much lower than everyone else, but when it's simply a number on a page without something to explain it, it doesn't really help anyone other than those who just look at the rankings and start the higher player. I would like to think that most of the members of this site are a little better than that.
solorca
Footballguy
In PPR leagues, this makes Manningham's fifth straight game with 10+ points. I consider him a solid as a rock high end WR3 at this point.
I just pulled the stats over the past month, and he is the #11 scorer (although Jennings and Welker are close behind and could pass him this weekend) during that time frame. I'll certainly take that from him.
I just pulled the stats over the past month, and he is the #11 scorer (although Jennings and Welker are close behind and could pass him this weekend) during that time frame. I'll certainly take that from him.
Last edited by a moderator:
