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!
Bank on T.O. I dare you. When week 10 comes around and it is crunch time tell me how he did for you.It is what it is said:You have alot to learn about Bill Parcells if you believe he won't put the ball in the hands of his #1 offensive weapon
Hmmm...I think Anthony Wright is better then:1. Doug Johnson
I agree that three years ago was a career year for Holt. I disagree that it was a total aberration like Harrison's.Three years ago Holt set career highs in catches (117), yards (1696), and TDs (12). His pro-rated totals last year were 116.6/1521/10.3 (or 100%, 90%, and 86% of each of those three values, respectively). As you can see, while three years ago may have been a career year, it was hardly an aberration, as Holt as continued producing at pretty much EXACTLY the same levels. Harrison, on the other hand, posted totals that were 57%, 66%, and 110% of the numbers posted in his career year. Like I said, Harrison's TD numbers are the only thing keeping him afloat as an elite fantasy WR. If those start to slip, the floor's going to drop out from under Marvellous Marvin in a hurry.While it's true that Holt's Rec have increased each of the past 3 years, why don't we look at his Rec yads and TD over that 3 year span? They have decreased in each. Does this not bother you? Harrison may have seen less Rec, but his TD levels have not diminshed. Actually they have increased. His yds have dropped a bit, but nothing drastic. It seems to me that when we look at career years, Holt simply had his a year after Harrison. Holt has never previously or aftwards had a season even close to 117 rec, 1700 yds and 12 TDs. Seems to me there is no difference, so what both players had career years. One 3 years ago, the other 2 years ago. I think you are splitting hairs here. As a result of THESE FACTSl, I would probably make a juedgment that going back three years would probably not give a very accurate representation of Torry Holt's prospects for this season. You can also feel free to disagree. I think it's rather obvious as to why a 3 year model was choosed here. You're good with numbers, so I'm sure you do to.Because the past three years are more predictive of this year's performance than four, five, or six years ago, perhaps? To be honest, I take every player on a case-by-case basis, but I always weight most heavily the three most recent seasons, because they have the best predictive value. Now, you can argue that all you want, but here are some indisputable facts.*Four years ago, Marvin Harrison had an NFL record-setting season.Oh, so now we are only using the past 3 years.... wonder why.
*When a player sets a single-season record, the overwhelming majority of the time that is a career year that is never duplicated.
*Marvin Harrison's receptions have decreased every single season for 3 straight years now.
*Reggie Wayne's receptions and role in the offense has INCREASED every single season for 4 straight years now.
As a result of THESE facts, I would probably make a judgement call that going back four years would probably not give a very accurate representation of Marvin Harrison's prospects for this season. You can feel free to agree or disagree, but that's where I stand on the matter. I don't know why Shreks used the last 3 years, but if I were running the numbers, those are the reasons why *I* would have used the last 3 seasons.
Like I said, I didn't use a 3-year window because it fits my assumptions the best. I used it because I always project based on a 3-year window. I never bothered even doing the data for 1 or 2 years, although I note that Holt had more 100/1 games than Owens over both of those spans, too.Ahh, yes again with the convienence of that 3 year Holt window that includes his career year. Here is the break down by year:
Years, 100 yd 1 td games/games played
TO
1, 3/7 42%
2, 9/21 42%
3, 12/36 33%
4, 16/50 32%
5, 22/66 33%
Holt
1, 5/14 35%
2, 11/30 36%
3, 19/46 41%
4, 20/62 32%
5, 22/78 28%
As you can see, year 3 is the ONLY year in which that statement holds true. I find it rather obvious as to why a 3 year window was choosen here. It goes back just far enough to encompas Holt's career year. Now you can agrue that Holt plays every game and TO is a risk, I can buy that. I too dowgrade TO for that reason. But this is what Shreks said:
I would take that as in weeks where you know the guy is playing, but hey thats just me.At anyrate, I agree that Holt can be rated #1 as I've said. I just don't happen to think the stats that Shreks tried to use to perpetuate that were very solid and Harrison is really getting the short end of the FBG stick for some reason. I think some awareness has been created on Harrison and thats really all I wanted. Neither of these guys are my #1 anyway.
If you define "truly elite" as "#1 at his position", then looks like Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, and Peyton Manning are still waiting for their first "elite" season, too. If you prorate Holt's numbers last year, then he would have the #4 and #8 fantasy WR seasons of the past 4 years (to go with the #15). Chad Johnson possesses the #14, #18, and #24 fantasy seasons.
How can you look at Holt's numbers over the years:I agree that three years ago was a career year for Holt. I disagree that it was a total aberration like Harrison's.Three years ago Holt set career highs in catches (117), yards (1696), and TDs (12). His pro-rated totals last year were 116.6/1521/10.3 (or 100%, 90%, and 86% of each of those three values, respectively). As you can see, while three years ago may have been a career year, it was hardly an aberration, as Holt as continued producing at pretty much EXACTLY the same levels. Harrison, on the other hand, posted totals that were 57%, 66%, and 110% of the numbers posted in his career year. Like I said, Harrison's TD numbers are the only thing keeping him afloat as an elite fantasy WR. If those start to slip, the floor's going to drop out from under Marvellous Marvin in a hurry.Again, if Holt had kept up his averages and played 16 games last year (something he's done in every other season in his career), he would have put up 117/1521/10. And that was despite the fact that he played the whole year hurting and averaged almost a full yard and a half below his career low ypr (over two full yards below his career average). Holt's ypr for the last 4 years were 14.3, 14.5, 14.6, 13.0 (in his injured year). And despite the fact that the injury was clearly slowing him down, he still posted mind-boggling numbers.While it's true that Holt's Rec have increased each of the past 3 years, why don't we look at his Rec yads and TD over that 3 year span? They have decreased in each. Does this not bother you? Harrison may have seen less Rec, but his TD levels have not diminshed. Actually they have increased. His yds have dropped a bit, but nothing drastic. It seems to me that when we look at career years, Holt simply had his a year after Harrison. Holt has never previously or aftwards had a season even close to 117 rec, 1700 yds and 12 TDs. Seems to me there is no difference, so what both players had career years. One 3 years ago, the other 2 years ago. I think you are splitting hairs here. As a result of THESE FACTSl, I would probably make a juedgment that going back three years would probably not give a very accurate representation of Torry Holt's prospects for this season. You can also feel free to disagree. I think it's rather obvious as to why a 3 year model was choosed here. You're good with numbers, so I'm sure you do to.Because the past three years are more predictive of this year's performance than four, five, or six years ago, perhaps? To be honest, I take every player on a case-by-case basis, but I always weight most heavily the three most recent seasons, because they have the best predictive value. Now, you can argue that all you want, but here are some indisputable facts.*Four years ago, Marvin Harrison had an NFL record-setting season.*When a player sets a single-season record, the overwhelming majority of the time that is a career year that is never duplicated.*Marvin Harrison's receptions have decreased every single season for 3 straight years now.*Reggie Wayne's receptions and role in the offense has INCREASED every single season for 4 straight years now.As a result of THESE facts, I would probably make a judgement call that going back four years would probably not give a very accurate representation of Marvin Harrison's prospects for this season. You can feel free to agree or disagree, but that's where I stand on the matter. I don't know why Shreks used the last 3 years, but if I were running the numbers, those are the reasons why *I* would have used the last 3 seasons.
| Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1999 stl | 16 | 3 25 8.3 0 | 52 788 15.2 6 || 2000 stl | 16 | 2 7 3.5 0 | 82 1635 19.9 6 || 2001 stl | 16 | 2 0 0.0 0 | 81 1363 16.8 7 || 2002 stl | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 91 1302 14.3 4 || 2003 stl | 16 | 1 5 5.0 0 | 117 1696 14.5 12 || 2004 stl | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 94 1372 14.6 10 || 2005 stl | 14 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 102 1331 13.0 9 |Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1996 ind | 16 | 3 15 5.0 0 | 64 836 13.1 8 || 1997 ind | 16 | 2 -7 -3.5 0 | 73 866 11.9 6 || 1998 ind | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 59 776 13.2 7 || 1999 ind | 16 | 1 4 4.0 0 | 115 1663 14.5 12 || 2000 ind | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 102 1413 13.9 14 || 2001 ind | 16 | 1 3 3.0 0 | 109 1524 14.0 15 || 2002 ind | 16 | 2 10 5.0 0 | 143 1722 12.0 11 || 2003 ind | 15 | 1 3 3.0 0 | 94 1272 13.5 10 || 2004 ind | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 86 1113 12.9 15 || 2005 ind | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 1146 14.0 12 |
Not following the debate to well are we. Sorry to touch a nerve by calling you out on that 3 year window thing.N.Y. Shreks said:
It really doesn't get any easier than fantasy points and we have a solid 6 year base to go off of in regards to Holt and Harrison:Holt:199.5178.3154.2241.6197.2187.1Harrison:225.3242.2238.2187.2201.3186.6
I already told you how.Holts receptions/yards/TDs last year were 100%, 90%, and 86% of his numbers in his career year.Harrison's receptions/yards/TDs last year were 57%, 66%, and 110% of the numbers posted in his career year.That is how I call Holt's career year less of an aberration, when it comes to projecting this season, than Harrison's. In fact, if you look at Holt's production strictly in the games where he didn't have Ryan Fitzpatrick or Jamie Martin throwing him the ball, he was actually putting up BETTER numbers last year than in his so-called "career year". Which to me indicates that he's still performing at EXACTLY the same level he was performing at three years ago. Marvin Harrison, on the other hand, most certainly is *NOT* performing at the same level he was four years ago- and there's nothing you can come up with to indicate that he is.jurb26 said:How can you look at Holt's numbers over the years:SSOG said:I agree that three years ago was a career year for Holt. I disagree that it was a total aberration like Harrison's.Three years ago Holt set career highs in catches (117), yards (1696), and TDs (12). His pro-rated totals last year were 116.6/1521/10.3 (or 100%, 90%, and 86% of each of those three values, respectively). As you can see, while three years ago may have been a career year, it was hardly an aberration, as Holt as continued producing at pretty much EXACTLY the same levels. Harrison, on the other hand, posted totals that were 57%, 66%, and 110% of the numbers posted in his career year. Like I said, Harrison's TD numbers are the only thing keeping him afloat as an elite fantasy WR. If those start to slip, the floor's going to drop out from under Marvellous Marvin in a hurry.Again, if Holt had kept up his averages and played 16 games last year (something he's done in every other season in his career), he would have put up 117/1521/10. And that was despite the fact that he played the whole year hurting and averaged almost a full yard and a half below his career low ypr (over two full yards below his career average). Holt's ypr for the last 4 years were 14.3, 14.5, 14.6, 13.0 (in his injured year). And despite the fact that the injury was clearly slowing him down, he still posted mind-boggling numbers.While it's true that Holt's Rec have increased each of the past 3 years, why don't we look at his Rec yads and TD over that 3 year span? They have decreased in each. Does this not bother you? Harrison may have seen less Rec, but his TD levels have not diminshed. Actually they have increased. His yds have dropped a bit, but nothing drastic. It seems to me that when we look at career years, Holt simply had his a year after Harrison. Holt has never previously or aftwards had a season even close to 117 rec, 1700 yds and 12 TDs. Seems to me there is no difference, so what both players had career years. One 3 years ago, the other 2 years ago. I think you are splitting hairs here. As a result of THESE FACTSl, I would probably make a juedgment that going back three years would probably not give a very accurate representation of Torry Holt's prospects for this season. You can also feel free to disagree. I think it's rather obvious as to why a 3 year model was choosed here. You're good with numbers, so I'm sure you do to.Because the past three years are more predictive of this year's performance than four, five, or six years ago, perhaps? To be honest, I take every player on a case-by-case basis, but I always weight most heavily the three most recent seasons, because they have the best predictive value. Now, you can argue that all you want, but here are some indisputable facts.*Four years ago, Marvin Harrison had an NFL record-setting season.*When a player sets a single-season record, the overwhelming majority of the time that is a career year that is never duplicated.*Marvin Harrison's receptions have decreased every single season for 3 straight years now.*Reggie Wayne's receptions and role in the offense has INCREASED every single season for 4 straight years now.As a result of THESE facts, I would probably make a judgement call that going back four years would probably not give a very accurate representation of Marvin Harrison's prospects for this season. You can feel free to agree or disagree, but that's where I stand on the matter. I don't know why Shreks used the last 3 years, but if I were running the numbers, those are the reasons why *I* would have used the last 3 seasons.and Harrison's numbers:Code:| Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1999 stl | 16 | 3 25 8.3 0 | 52 788 15.2 6 || 2000 stl | 16 | 2 7 3.5 0 | 82 1635 19.9 6 || 2001 stl | 16 | 2 0 0.0 0 | 81 1363 16.8 7 || 2002 stl | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 91 1302 14.3 4 || 2003 stl | 16 | 1 5 5.0 0 | 117 1696 14.5 12 || 2004 stl | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 94 1372 14.6 10 || 2005 stl | 14 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 102 1331 13.0 9 |and say that Harrison's career year of 2002 was more of an aberration than Holt's 2003 career year?Code:Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1996 ind | 16 | 3 15 5.0 0 | 64 836 13.1 8 || 1997 ind | 16 | 2 -7 -3.5 0 | 73 866 11.9 6 || 1998 ind | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 59 776 13.2 7 || 1999 ind | 16 | 1 4 4.0 0 | 115 1663 14.5 12 || 2000 ind | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 102 1413 13.9 14 || 2001 ind | 16 | 1 3 3.0 0 | 109 1524 14.0 15 || 2002 ind | 16 | 2 10 5.0 0 | 143 1722 12.0 11 || 2003 ind | 15 | 1 3 3.0 0 | 94 1272 13.5 10 || 2004 ind | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 86 1113 12.9 15 || 2005 ind | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 1146 14.0 12 |
OK sport, whatever you say.Not following the debate to well are we. Sorry to touch a nerve by calling you out on that 3 year window thing.N.Y. Shreks said:
It looks like most of Harrison's best seasons were 3+ years ago. Over the past three years, Holt has been the better scorer. Not a very compelling case for Marvin.OK sport, whatever you say.Not following the debate to well are we. Sorry to touch a nerve by calling you out on that 3 year window thing.N.Y. Shreks said:
As usual, EBF correctly interpreted the numbers.3+ years ago, Harrison > HoltLast three years, Harrison <> HoltThis year, Holt > Harrison.Jurb - yer argument was statistically questionable to begin with, it was de-bunked by SSOG's numbers, and is now playing out to be a poor predictor of 2006 success.It looks like most of Harrison's best seasons were 3+ years ago. Over the past three years, Holt has been the better scorer. Not a very compelling case for Marvin.OK sport, whatever you say.Not following the debate to well are we. Sorry to touch a nerve by calling you out on that 3 year window thing.
ah ah ah ah ah ah
Was it really ever a question? The guy is the most consistent producer at WR each season, bar none.BumpYeah, Holt pretty much sucks.7 TD and 526 yds through 6 games.
Apparently, if jurb doesn't like the player, the player is overrated.So, yeah, we needed to show him that Holt is UNDERrated not OVERrated.
This was my point. Of course it was never in question. And EBF just basically reinforced the argument and numbers that SSOG and myself put out there at the beginning of this thread. Then jurb decides to take a stand against us, and in true sore loser fashion, doesn't admit he was wrong (or at least, that someone other than himself has a point) when the evidence begins mounting against him. I was just pointing out what a tool he was being.I can't wait for him to come back here and try some sort of "Well, if you take away Holt's one big game, what does he really have?" argument.
Just to clarify SSOG, I agree with Levin here. I never intended for this to turn into a Holt vs. Harrison contest. We said you could easily make a case for Torry Holt being the #1 receiver to go in a fantasy draft, jurb called Holt overrated, and when he got called on it he starts in with Harrison. You have a point about it being early. But we also know that barring injury, Holt is not going to fold like someone who really is overrated. Besides, most fantasy regular seasons are 13 or 14 weeks, in which case you could say the season is almost halfway done. I think half a season, while not the whole story, is pretty indicative of what type of numbers you could expect from someone. It's not like we're taking Drew Bennett's 3 game stretch from last year and trying to extrapolate it into an entire season's worth of stats. Again, the real point of my bumping this thread was to point out what a tool jurb was being.
You make all my points except the last.jurb is not normally a tool.N.Y. Shreks said:
Nope, that wouldn't work either, since Linehan got Chambers 166 targets last season. I think I made a post in that Dodds has Holt #2 thread that totally debunked that argument against Holt.
Hi, my name is Just Win Baby. I work for the Redundancy Department of the Office of Redundancy.
Hi, my name is Marc Levin. Instead of providing useful information, I provide vague but unlinked references to other threads.
You'll notice that I referred to the same thread you did, while providing amplifying information to your post.
You guys still after 12 weeks gone don't understand the arguement I was making (more likely just wanted to ignore it). You were basing consistency as the primary factor for Holt over everyone else. The arguement I made was that Harrison is more consistent AND actually offers consistent #1 potential. My point still stands. Harrison is the most constent WR in FF and unlike Holt has proven repetedly his capasity to rank as the #1 WR in FF. I'm sorry that an arguement you don't agree with or understand is toolish. I am however glad I stopped visiting the site for the greater part of the regular season.
