Whoever is representing FBG in the "Experts" mock... (1 Viewer)

[corpcow]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

But were they really? Other people have already commented that he could have gotten Benson / his super Waiver pickups like MSW without taking a TE in the second, because that's actually what most people try to do. Braylon / Royal on the turn after that runs counter to that idea as those too were wasted picked for their ADP that didn't exactly establish a bedrock for the rest of his draft to be run on. The rest of his draft, obviously, was pretty good. I don't think that's because of who he drafted early, but instead it's more about who he drafted late.

Exactly. John's team is not winning because of Gonzo or Rodgers - he's winning because many of his later picks panned out. So, clearly, he had a good draft, especially on the defensive side of the ball.At the same time, it's very silly to point to his current record as justification for any of his early picks because none have really factored in to his success. I haven't done all the math - but it's likely he would still be undefeated if he took ADP over MJD or if he took Manning, Brees or Brady over Rodgers. Hell, he would still be undefeated if he took Owen Daniels over Gonzo (which I can't imagine anyone would consider).

I mean.. if you want to go this route... Ray Rice is #2 overall but was drafted at 6.10. Schaub is #3 / 7.04. Big Ben is #4 but was drafted in the 14th round. Steve Smith is WR1 and #7 overall but drafted at 15.05. How good would John's team have been if he drafted Ray Rice and Steve Smith instead of Braylon and Royal? And how many people could he have picked at 3.01 instead of Rodgers and picked up Ben 11 rounds later?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Chi-Mo]

That draft still sucks

is it possible for a draft to "suck" and wind up 6-0 and leading the league in points at the midpoint of the season?

Yes. Just as it's possible for my wife to defeat Phil Ivey in a HU poker game.

what about beating him 6 times in a row?

Well, I was thinking one league = one game. John's won some close games and he's had fewer points scored against him than anyone else. Regardless, he's averaged the most points per week. Several teams are very close. Overall he's obviously made a lot of sound picks, so I'll just limit criticism to the TE pick. But yes, I think a team can draft poorly and have success, just as I think a team can draft well and have a crappy team. (ETA: this paragraph's a honda)I would imagine that 1) one would have to have some pretty crazy projections to justify Gonzalez there, or 2) you're diverging from VBD. Norton's statement that he doesn't like to "pick from the best of what's left" at WR/RB diverges from VBD. We all know that un-sexy RB's are often more valuable in fantasy than a sexy TE, or QB. In baseball drafts, I've seen people get spooked thinking that they'll end up with a terrible SS, or catcher, and end up reaching for one instead of making a more sound, valuable selection of a SP or OF. I think getting over that fear and leaving a position open is actually an advantage later on: By not filling a position, you're allowing yourself to grab value later on if someone falls to you. Even though Norton hit with his 6th and 7th picks, Schaub would've been an option at one of those choices had Norton not filled QB early. You also have situations like the one I faced in my 10-team PPR where every team had drafted a TE before me, which allowed me to let Cooley fall to Round 12. Embrace keeping positions open, I say.No comment on the QB tiers, except that I think in situations like that, maybe it's best to use ease of playoff sched. as a tiebreaker?

 

[Twilight]

I would imagine that 1) one would have to have some pretty crazy projections to justify Gonzalez there, or 2) you're diverging from VBD. Norton's statement that he doesn't like to "pick from the best of what's left" at WR/RB diverges from VBD. We all know that un-sexy RB's are often more valuable in fantasy than a sexy TE, or QB.

Why is Gonzo being ranked high odd? He was the #1 TE by a large margin last year, he's only 32 (AKA not decrepit), and he went to a team with a better QB and better Offense than KC. I'll admit I had Gates and Witten above him myself, but it definitely isn't some kind of ridiculous stretch to see Gonzo repeating his great year from last year.

In baseball drafts, I've seen people get spooked thinking that they'll end up with a terrible SS, or catcher, and end up reaching for one instead of making a more sound, valuable selection of a SP or OF. I think getting over that fear and leaving a position open is actually an advantage later on: By not filling a position, you're allowing yourself to grab value later on if someone falls to you. Even though Norton hit with his 6th and 7th picks, Schaub would've been an option at one of those choices had Norton not filled QB early. You also have situations like the one I faced in my 10-team PPR where every team had drafted a TE before me, which allowed me to let Cooley fall to Round 12. Embrace keeping positions open, I say.

No comment on the QB tiers, except that I think in situations like that, maybe it's best to use ease of playoff sched. as a tiebreaker?

I'll agree with you on the concept, although any use of Schaub is nothing but Hindsight. But it's an equally big mistake to lock yourself into one strategy. Keep in mind that John was drafting against 11 other "experts." Expecting talent to fall will just leave you disappointed in the end. He took that into consideration, and judged that a strategy of sifting through the lesser WRs and RBs would yield more gems falling through the cracks than QB or TE, as he said way up-thread.

 

[mdlane]

Part of this job is dealing with criticism. I appreciate those who have posted well thought out (classy) responses both ways on this topic. When I made these picks I knew I was sticking my neck out and would have to explain my reasoning. I also knew that not everyone would agree with it. I'm not concerned with being politically correct and have enough confidence in myself (along with a thick enough skin) to make the decisions I believe will help me to win. Even if they are out of the norm.

Thanks for the response.

 

[The Comedian]

Stupid running wild in here.

Great draft JN.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Take a look at these numbers and see if they ring a bell:

2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 7, 3, 3, 1.

That is where Gonzalez has ranked among TEs the last 10 years. Third or better 9 times in 10 years. There are always TEs who move up and down our draft lists, but when all is said and done, Gonzalez always seems to find his way to the top of the list in fantasy points. Like many others, I questioned this pick, but it doesn't mean it was wrong to take him. It is a lot different picking at the turn. There are always reaches if you want certain players. I would not have taken Gonzalez, but how can you doubt his proven production year in and year out? The guy is money every year and although I did not look this up, I am willing to bet (in most years) he is more consistent game in and game out than any other TE.

If Gonzalez winds up in the top 3 at the end of the year, which is a real possibility, will it still be considered a bad pick?

As for the criticism of Rodgers, I don't get it. Thus far, he has been as good as any other QB and I do not see any reason why he won't continue to be. Who says Brees would have been a better pick? Just because he was last year? Just because everyone else say he should have been picked? The numbers (thus far) say otherwise.

Like I said, I would not have taken Gonzalez or Rodgers, but that doesn't mean they were bad picks. You will pick players earlier than their ADP drafting at the turn, if you want those players bad enough. Also, in IDP leagues, I will almost always reach for a stud TE that starts every single week. I want my mid round picks available for other positions.

The thing I see is that John stepped outside of the box to make these picks. Had he just followed ADP or rankings or what everyone else would have done, then it would have been considered "groupthink". People who just follow everyone elses thoughts are criticized for groupthink, but when someone steps outside the box, they are criticized because it doesn't follow the logic (aka groupthink) of the rankings/ADP/what everyone else thinks or does. It can't be both ways.

 

[StackTheLine]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

no they actually can be discussed in a vacuum. brees, manning, brady are easily better picks.

so it's better to draft a player who scores less points?

Or who would contribute to a loss (John would lose week 4 if he had Brees instead of Rodgers).

 

[ConstruxBoy]

but we were not discussing or criticizing his overall draft. just those 2 particular picks. why shift the goal posts?

Because, once again, those 2 picks were the foundation of his later draft. Talking about those 2 picks in a vacuum is meaningless.

But were they really? Other people have already commented that he could have gotten Benson / his super Waiver pickups like MSW without taking a TE in the second, because that's actually what most people try to do. Braylon / Royal on the turn after that runs counter to that idea as those too were wasted picked for their ADP that didn't exactly establish a bedrock for the rest of his draft to be run on. The rest of his draft, obviously, was pretty good. I don't think that's because of who he drafted early, but instead it's more about who he drafted late.

Exactly. John's team is not winning because of Gonzo or Rodgers - he's winning because many of his later picks panned out. So, clearly, he had a good draft, especially on the defensive side of the ball.At the same time, it's very silly to point to his current record as justification for any of his early picks because none have really factored in to his success. I haven't done all the math - but it's likely he would still be undefeated if he took ADP over MJD or if he took Manning, Brees or Brady over Rodgers. Hell, he would still be undefeated if he took Owen Daniels over Gonzo (which I can't imagine anyone would consider).

I mean.. if you want to go this route... Ray Rice is #2 overall but was drafted at 6.10. Schaub is #3 / 7.04. Big Ben is #4 but was drafted in the 14th round. Steve Smith is WR1 and #7 overall but drafted at 15.05. How good would John's team have been if he drafted Ray Rice and Steve Smith instead of Braylon and Royal? And how many people could he have picked at 3.01 instead of Rodgers and picked up Ben 11 rounds later?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I'm not sure why you keep posting this when Aaron has already said he would have lost week 4 with Brees instead of Rodgers.

 

[gianmarco]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

How is it very wrong? Because you said so?Chew on this please. Aaron Rodgers has been a starter in this league since 2008. 2008 -- Rodgers finished as the #2 OVERALL pts scorer in that format. He finished with 298 pts, behind only Drew Brees and his 307 pts. 2009 -- Rodgers is currently the #3 QB (and really tied at #2) in ppg (must use PPG due to some having byes and others not). He's behind only Manning and tied with Brees (109.8 pts vs. 109.5 pts)So, sure he COULD have taken Brees or Manning. But in the end, they are actually splitting hairs and his selection is absolutely justified. Projecting him as the #1 QB is NOT wrong. That is where YOU are wrong. It is not wrong to go against the consensus. Just because everyone in the free world has Adrian Peterson as the #1 RB doesn't mean you have to. That's the point of this game. And based on the #'s Rodgers put up last year and is putting up this year, Rodgers seems to be a very valid pick at #1 overall.There are those that are ahead of the curve on things (Norton and a few others on Rodgers) and there are those "followers" who refuse to go against the grain and play REACTIVE fantasy football. Seems you fall in the latter. The funny part is you criticize others for being "wrong" when they are clearly more proactive and mindful of future changes than you are. You should probably take this as a learning experience if anything. Just my $.02

 

[Shadows]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

How is it very wrong? Because you said so?Chew on this please. Aaron Rodgers has been a starter in this league since 2008. 2008 -- Rodgers finished as the #2 OVERALL pts scorer in that format. He finished with 298 pts, behind only Drew Brees and his 307 pts. 2009 -- Rodgers is currently the #3 QB (and really tied at #2) in ppg (must use PPG due to some having byes and others not). He's behind only Manning and tied with Brees (109.8 pts vs. 109.5 pts)So, sure he COULD have taken Brees or Manning. But in the end, they are actually splitting hairs and his selection is absolutely justified. Projecting him as the #1 QB is NOT wrong. That is where YOU are wrong. It is not wrong to go against the consensus. Just because everyone in the free world has Adrian Peterson as the #1 RB doesn't mean you have to. That's the point of this game. And based on the #'s Rodgers put up last year and is putting up this year, Rodgers seems to be a very valid pick at #1 overall.There are those that are ahead of the curve on things (Norton and a few others on Rodgers) and there are those "followers" who refuse to go against the grain and play REACTIVE fantasy football. Seems you fall in the latter. The funny part is you criticize others for being "wrong" when they are clearly more proactive and mindful of future changes than you are. You should probably take this as a learning experience if anything. Just my $.02

U can't say it any better than that.

 

[smackdaddies]

Like many others, I questioned this pick, but it doesn't mean it was wrong to take him

Good observation - I think there are a number of factors in people making stupid comments about this draft. In order, I would say...

Not considering the scoring system

Not considering the roster requirements

Not considering the draft position

Not considering the competition

 

[Chi-Mo]

judged that a strategy of sifting through the lesser WRs and RBs would yield more gems falling through the cracks than QB or TE, as he said way up-thread.

I just can't imagine that this is correct. There are always more options on the FA wire for QB's and TE's than RB and WR, not to mention that the values of QB's and TE's run closer together. I have no idea what Norton's projections looked like, or if he was just kind of winging it, but for all the good players that he pulled down, I think he could be doing even better had he drafted "optimally." Although, I don't deny that it makes for great discussion fodder.

 

[MCguidance]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

Another week goes by and another week where Rodgers is every bit as good. Don't subscribe to group think, poka.

 

[Jambi]

Terrible picks....both of them. People defending the Gonzo pick are doing the Fantasy Football Community a disservice. Worst pick I've ever seen. With all those TEs sitting out there in the middle rounds that pick stinks.

I can understand projecting Rodgers high but #1 overall is the stretch of stretches.

Yes, John is 6-0 but the truth is he tanked the first quarter of his draft. Once in a while someone's wife wins the league...it happens. Let's not defend the draft because of the record. Had he drafted well, with his amount of luck he'd be 60-0.

 

[Das Boot]

Let's not defend the draft because of the record.

 

[cvnpoka]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

How is it very wrong? Because you said so?Chew on this please. Aaron Rodgers has been a starter in this league since 2008. 2008 -- Rodgers finished as the #2 OVERALL pts scorer in that format. He finished with 298 pts, behind only Drew Brees and his 307 pts. 2009 -- Rodgers is currently the #3 QB (and really tied at #2) in ppg (must use PPG due to some having byes and others not). He's behind only Manning and tied with Brees (109.8 pts vs. 109.5 pts)So, sure he COULD have taken Brees or Manning. But in the end, they are actually splitting hairs and his selection is absolutely justified. Projecting him as the #1 QB is NOT wrong. That is where YOU are wrong. It is not wrong to go against the consensus. Just because everyone in the free world has Adrian Peterson as the #1 RB doesn't mean you have to. That's the point of this game. And based on the #'s Rodgers put up last year and is putting up this year, Rodgers seems to be a very valid pick at #1 overall.There are those that are ahead of the curve on things (Norton and a few others on Rodgers) and there are those "followers" who refuse to go against the grain and play REACTIVE fantasy football. Seems you fall in the latter. The funny part is you criticize others for being "wrong" when they are clearly more proactive and mindful of future changes than you are. You should probably take this as a learning experience if anything. Just my $.02

U can't say it any better than that.

thats a really long post to say he had one really good year. why would that one really good year separate rodgers from other qb's who have had multiple really good years?

 

[cvnpoka]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

Another week goes by and another week where Rodgers is every bit as good. Don't subscribe to group think, poka.

i am the opposite of group think on this board.

 

[gianmarco]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

How is it very wrong? Because you said so?Chew on this please. Aaron Rodgers has been a starter in this league since 2008. 2008 -- Rodgers finished as the #2 OVERALL pts scorer in that format. He finished with 298 pts, behind only Drew Brees and his 307 pts. 2009 -- Rodgers is currently the #3 QB (and really tied at #2) in ppg (must use PPG due to some having byes and others not). He's behind only Manning and tied with Brees (109.8 pts vs. 109.5 pts)So, sure he COULD have taken Brees or Manning. But in the end, they are actually splitting hairs and his selection is absolutely justified. Projecting him as the #1 QB is NOT wrong. That is where YOU are wrong. It is not wrong to go against the consensus. Just because everyone in the free world has Adrian Peterson as the #1 RB doesn't mean you have to. That's the point of this game. And based on the #'s Rodgers put up last year and is putting up this year, Rodgers seems to be a very valid pick at #1 overall.There are those that are ahead of the curve on things (Norton and a few others on Rodgers) and there are those "followers" who refuse to go against the grain and play REACTIVE fantasy football. Seems you fall in the latter. The funny part is you criticize others for being "wrong" when they are clearly more proactive and mindful of future changes than you are. You should probably take this as a learning experience if anything. Just my $.02

U can't say it any better than that.

thats a really long post to say he had one really good year. why would that one really good year separate rodgers from other qb's who have had multiple really good years?

Hint: It's a similar reason to why many people thought Adrian Peterson was going to be an absolute stud in the NFL before he ever took an NFL snap. (answer: some players have "it" and you can see it on the field when they play)

 

[cvnpoka]

Hint: It's a similar reason to why many people thought Adrian Peterson was going to be an absolute stud in the NFL before he ever took an NFL snap. (answer: some players have "it" and you can see it on the field when they play)

this is a very cryptic response in a situation where it quite obv comes down to specifics. this "it" factor you speak of, does it seem reasonable that rodgers possesses more of it than any other qb in the league?

 

[gianmarco]

Hint: It's a similar reason to why many people thought Adrian Peterson was going to be an absolute stud in the NFL before he ever took an NFL snap. (answer: some players have "it" and you can see it on the field when they play)

this is a very cryptic response in a situation where it quite obv comes down to specifics. this "it" factor you speak of, does it seem reasonable that rodgers possesses more of it than any other qb in the league?

In other words, any monkey can watch a QB put up several years of awesome production and "predict" he can do it again. It's the ones that can look at a small sample size and accurately predict what that player would do. John Norton, by selecting Rodgers as the #1 overall QB, felt that he was an elite talent capable of top #'s based on that one small sample size. So far he's absolutely correct. He's justified that by his production that is mirroring what he did last year.So again, just because YOU or others would have taken Brady or Manning or Brees ahead of Rodgers does NOT make the selection of Rodgers at #1 overall incorrect. I don't know how else to explain that to you. Maybe there were things about Manning (changing WR's), Brady (knee surgery), or Brees (who knows) that made him feel Rodgers was #1. But whatever the reason, he made his projection and prediction and it's been spot on. Criticizing him for being ahead of the curve on Rodgers is absolutely silly no matter how many times you say it. So yes, it's very reasonable for him to feel he has the potential to outscore every QB this year (i.e. why he'd take him at #1). So far, he's tied for 2nd best and has a legitimate shot to finish #1.

 

[cvnpoka]

well, given that argument, you should be lambasting him for the gonzo pick.

 

[cvnpoka]

So yes, it's very reasonable for him to feel he has the potential to outscore every QB this year (i.e. why he'd take him at #1). So far, he's tied for 2nd best and has a legitimate shot to finish #1.

ugh at reasonable. thats not the argument. is it probable?

 

[gianmarco]

So yes, it's very reasonable for him to feel he has the potential to outscore every QB this year (i.e. why he'd take him at #1). So far, he's tied for 2nd best and has a legitimate shot to finish #1.

ugh at reasonable. thats not the argument. is it probable?

Sorry. You're hopeless.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Hint: It's a similar reason to why many people thought Adrian Peterson was going to be an absolute stud in the NFL before he ever took an NFL snap. (answer: some players have "it" and you can see it on the field when they play)

this is a very cryptic response in a situation where it quite obv comes down to specifics. this "it" factor you speak of, does it seem reasonable that rodgers possesses more of it than any other qb in the league?

In other words, any monkey can watch a QB put up several years of awesome production and "predict" he can do it again. It's the ones that can look at a small sample size and accurately predict what that player would do. John Norton, by selecting Rodgers as the #1 overall QB, felt that he was an elite talent capable of top #'s based on that one small sample size. So far he's absolutely correct. He's justified that by his production that is mirroring what he did last year.So again, just because YOU or others would have taken Brady or Manning or Brees ahead of Rodgers does NOT make the selection of Rodgers at #1 overall incorrect. I don't know how else to explain that to you. Maybe there were things about Manning (changing WR's), Brady (knee surgery), or Brees (who knows) that made him feel Rodgers was #1. But whatever the reason, he made his projection and prediction and it's been spot on. Criticizing him for being ahead of the curve on Rodgers is absolutely silly no matter how many times you say it. So yes, it's very reasonable for him to feel he has the potential to outscore every QB this year (i.e. why he'd take him at #1). So far, he's tied for 2nd best and has a legitimate shot to finish #1.

The guy picking out of the magazine is getting simlar or better production...

 

[gianmarco]

well, given that argument, you should be lambasting him for the gonzo pick.

Why should I be? As I stated above, Gonzo is currently on pace to score 200+ pts. That was good enough for TE#2 last year behind Tony Gonzalez. The fact that there are a handful of TE's (6 others to be exact) that after 6 weeks have put up some sensational scoring doesn't mean that his projections for Gonzo were off nor does it mean those guys will remain that high by the end of the season.When it comes to Gonzo and that pick, let's talk at the end of the year, guy. I'd be willing to bet a fair amount of coin that Heath Miller doesn't remain a top 5 TE.

 

[Twilight]

Hint: It's a similar reason to why many people thought Adrian Peterson was going to be an absolute stud in the NFL before he ever took an NFL snap. (answer: some players have "it" and you can see it on the field when they play)

this is a very cryptic response in a situation where it quite obv comes down to specifics. this "it" factor you speak of, does it seem reasonable that rodgers possesses more of it than any other qb in the league?

In other words, any monkey can watch a QB put up several years of awesome production and "predict" he can do it again. It's the ones that can look at a small sample size and accurately predict what that player would do. John Norton, by selecting Rodgers as the #1 overall QB, felt that he was an elite talent capable of top #'s based on that one small sample size. So far he's absolutely correct. He's justified that by his production that is mirroring what he did last year.So again, just because YOU or others would have taken Brady or Manning or Brees ahead of Rodgers does NOT make the selection of Rodgers at #1 overall incorrect. I don't know how else to explain that to you. Maybe there were things about Manning (changing WR's), Brady (knee surgery), or Brees (who knows) that made him feel Rodgers was #1. But whatever the reason, he made his projection and prediction and it's been spot on. Criticizing him for being ahead of the curve on Rodgers is absolutely silly no matter how many times you say it. So yes, it's very reasonable for him to feel he has the potential to outscore every QB this year (i.e. why he'd take him at #1). So far, he's tied for 2nd best and has a legitimate shot to finish #1.

The guy picking out of the magazine is getting simlar or better production...

Of course they are. Because Norton and some of the others ARE THE ONES WHO WRITE FOR THE MAGAZINES.

 

[cvnpoka]

your whole argument is that rodgers is on pace to be similar to other perennial elite qb's, therefore our fbg friend had a positive draft. yet you ignore that tgonz has been outperformed by many other te's. you cant have it both ways. you cant be results oriented in one instance, and then shift the goalposts in a similar spot.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

your whole argument is that rodgers is on pace to be similar to other perennial elite qb's, therefore our fbg friend had a positive draft. yet you ignore that tgonz has been outperformed by many other te's. you cant have it both ways. you cant be results oriented in one instance, and then shift the goalposts in a similar spot.

but ADP suggested that Witten should have been the #1 TE drafted and Gonzo has put up similiar production to him thus far. Hence, it's not really a terrible pick. Not a great one or anything, but it didn't kill his team like a "terrible" pick would have.

 

[cvnpoka]

comparing tgonz to onlyh witten is pretty poor. what about gates or clark who had similar adps.

but im not really gonna get into an argument about the gonzo pick. philosophically and projection wise, i have no problem with it. philosophically i have no problem with the rodgers pick. technically, i just can not buy into anyone's projections who believe rodgers would be the best fantasy qb this year.

so far there are that make me change my opinion. i would still be willing to bet large amounts on rodgers vs brees or brady or manning to outperform rodgers going forward.

 

[gianmarco]

your whole argument is that rodgers is on pace to be similar to other perennial elite qb's, therefore our fbg friend had a positive draft. yet you ignore that tgonz has been outperformed by many other te's. you cant have it both ways. you cant be results oriented in one instance, and then shift the goalposts in a similar spot.

Wrong.Let me explain the entire point you're missing.If Norton would have selected Manning #1 overall, he wouldn't have been wrong. If Norton would have selected Brees #1 overall, he wouldn't have been wrong. If Norton selected Brady #1 overall, he wouldn't have been wrong. Similarly, Norton selecting Rodgers #1 overall isn't wrong. THIS is what you are claiming. My reasoning for this that I've explained countless times is that he saw enough from last year for HIM to feel he was worthy of being the #1 QB taken. You're saying the pick is wrong because he took Rodgers over guys that have proven more over a longer period of time. While YOU may feel more comfortable choosing Brees or Manning because of this, HIS comfort in his own projections and what he saw in Rodgers justifies his pick of the #1 QB. And so far, those "unconventional" projections are pretty darn accurate. I am NOT saying he SHOULD HAVE taken Rodgers. I am NOT saying he should ignore top players that have proven a lot. But if HE felt comfortable enough with what he saw last year (i.e., my AP example), then HIS pick is not WRONG.Likewise, if he had taken Witten at #1 overall, it wouldn't be wrong. If he takes Gates at #1 overall, it isn't wrong. If he takes D. Clark #1 overall, it isn't wrong. And similarly, taking Gonzo #1 isn't wrong. In THIS instance, he felt more comfortable basing his projections on past performance. Again, this is what HE feels is going to work. He doesn't have to apply the same criteria for TEs that he does for QB's. Just because he likes Rodgers more than any other QB for 2009 doesn't mean he has to go out on a similar limb at TE and pick an unproven guy. That's just absolutely ridiculous.So no, I'm not shifting goalposts. I'm explaning why his picks are not WRONG as you have claimed they are. That is nonsense. He had very valid reasons for choosing both guys, has explained that reasoning (even if I personally don't agree) and so far his reasoning has been proven correct. Rodgers is putting up spectacular #'s and was worthy of the #1 QB overall taken (even if he's not currently #1) and Gonzo is on pace to score enough points that traditionally is enough for TE1 or TE2. The fact that a handful of TEs to this point have done well over a 5-6 week stretch doesn't mean his projections on Gonzo were wrong. And in this case, let's talk at the end of the year.

 

[gianmarco]

technically, i just can not buy into anyone's projections who believe rodgers would be the best fantasy qb this year.

And that's your problem right there. It's kind of sad that you can't buy into projections or views that don't agree with your own and have to knock them and claim them as "wrong". Couple simple questions for you--1. Have you ever gone out on a limb and projected a player far differently than the consensus?2. Were you ever incorrect in those projections?3. Was it wrong for you to project someone that way regardless of what the results were?When you answer those questions honestly, let's talk.

 

[cvnpoka]

so far his reasoning has been proven correct.

no it hasnt. your whole argument is based on this assumption and its still incorrect.

 

[MCguidance]

yes, it seems very wrong to project rodgers to be the best qb. that is my main issue.

Another week goes by and another week where Rodgers is every bit as good. Don't subscribe to group think, poka.

i am the opposite of group think on this board.

Not in this thread.

 

[TheAssassin]

your whole argument is that rodgers is on pace to be similar to other perennial elite qb's, therefore our fbg friend had a positive draft. yet you ignore that tgonz has been outperformed by many other te's. you cant have it both ways. you cant be results oriented in one instance, and then shift the goalposts in a similar spot.

4 catches 37 yards

 

[Jambi]

technically, i just can not buy into anyone's projections who believe rodgers would be the best fantasy qb this year.

And that's your problem right there. It's kind of sad that you can't buy into projections or views that don't agree with your own and have to knock them and claim them as "wrong". Couple simple questions for you--1. Have you ever gone out on a limb and projected a player far differently than the consensus?2. Were you ever incorrect in those projections?3. Was it wrong for you to project someone that way regardless of what the results were?When you answer those questions honestly, let's talk.

The Rodgers pick was a reach and the Gonzo pick stunk. The Royal pick stunk as well but no one is talking about it because it seemed reasonable at the time. Whoever said the Gonzo pick didn't hurt his team is clueless. He lost serious value there. Could have picked up similar production 4 rounds later...maybe even later than that.Rodgers will not finish #1....probably not really even that close. Put your money up if you want to argue this point. I'm curious what odds the Rodgers backers would need to lay money he finishes #1 Gonzo will not finish nowhere near #1Sometimes the chips fall funny. This is the case here. Norton drafted poorly early and made enough hits late to make up for it. What's the point of reaching for a player? Sky high upside, correct? Is someone trying to convince me at Gonzo's age his upside was worth taking a stab at? Worst pick I've ever seen. I thought the guy in my league who took Clark in the 3rd was nuts. Anyone defending the pick or his draft for that matter should have to hang up their mouses. Absolutely atrocious picks there. I don't care what the record is. His record isn't reflective of the choices he made in the early rounds and that's what we're discussing. This thread was started before the season started because of the bozo picks not because of his record.I don't want to hear about staying ahead of the curve and taking chances. It's crap and doesn't apply here. Maybe in the mid or later rounds but stabbing at Gonzo at your #2 pick isn't trailblazing...it's just ridiculous.Had this team been mine I might bump the thread with a little but I'd be the first to admit I didn't know what I was thinking (after maybe 13 pages of discussion and denial)

 

[Twilight]

One thing for sure. This thread has me updating my notebook on the people who I will give zero credibility for football matters in other threads (hint, Norton is not in that category)

 

[corpcow]

Hint: It's a similar reason to why many people thought Adrian Peterson was going to be an absolute stud in the NFL before he ever took an NFL snap. (answer: some players have "it" and you can see it on the field when they play)

this is a very cryptic response in a situation where it quite obv comes down to specifics. this "it" factor you speak of, does it seem reasonable that rodgers possesses more of it than any other qb in the league?

In other words, any monkey can watch a QB put up several years of awesome production and "predict" he can do it again. It's the ones that can look at a small sample size and accurately predict what that player would do. John Norton, by selecting Rodgers as the #1 overall QB, felt that he was an elite talent capable of top #'s based on that one small sample size. So far he's absolutely correct. He's justified that by his production that is mirroring what he did last year.So again, just because YOU or others would have taken Brady or Manning or Brees ahead of Rodgers does NOT make the selection of Rodgers at #1 overall incorrect. I don't know how else to explain that to you. Maybe there were things about Manning (changing WR's), Brady (knee surgery), or Brees (who knows) that made him feel Rodgers was #1. But whatever the reason, he made his projection and prediction and it's been spot on. Criticizing him for being ahead of the curve on Rodgers is absolutely silly no matter how many times you say it. So yes, it's very reasonable for him to feel he has the potential to outscore every QB this year (i.e. why he'd take him at #1). So far, he's tied for 2nd best and has a legitimate shot to finish #1.

That all sounds great in theory - but it's not what happened here. John had Rodgers behind 4 other guys (the big 3 + Warner) in his own preseason rankings. In discussing the pick, he said it mostly came down to the fact that he viewed this as a tier of comparable QBs and wanted to distribute risk since he already owned the others in other leagues. In other words, this was NOT a matter of him going out on a limb on his actual rankings, suggesting that Rodgers would finish as QB1. And while John clearly had a good draft as a whole, we can't point at his record now to justify or codemn these 2 picks, because these 2 picks are having little impact on his overall success. As I said above, he would have the same record if he chose Brady, Brees or Manning over Rodgers, and he would have the same success if he picked a number of other TEs (whether they were ranked ahead of him or not).And while I'm generally fine with his draft and don't think these picks were as bad as some are making out - doesn't it beg the question of why & whether that is justified when VBD is such an important element to the FBG message? That is, the point of drafting a guy like Rodgers - especially if you think he is comparable to Brees, Brady and Manning - is that you don't have to draft him as EARLY as Brees, Brady and Manning.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

And while I'm generally fine with his draft and don't think these picks were as bad as some are making out - doesn't it beg the question of why & whether that is justified when VBD is such an important element to the FBG message? That is, the point of drafting a guy like Rodgers - especially if you think he is comparable to Brees, Brady and Manning - is that you don't have to draft him as EARLY as Brees, Brady and Manning.

VBD is just another tool in the toolkit...like anything else, it is not the end all. While I believe in VBD, I also know that if I want a specific player bad enough, I will reach to draft them. Of course, I have to believe the player can live up to where I drafted him and it also has to be a part of my overall draft strategy. Also, John drafted at the turn and that throws a lot of strategy out the window. I think you have to reach sometimes at the turn if you want certain players. Rodgers probably would not have made it to the next turn, nor would the other QBs you listed. So if you want one at that draft spot, you either reach and take him, or you wait for the next tier of QBs. John explained he wanted to lock up a stud QB & a stud TE and why he wanted them. You can't always draft every player after they should be drafted.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

And while I'm generally fine with his draft and don't think these picks were as bad as some are making out - doesn't it beg the question of why & whether that is justified when VBD is such an important element to the FBG message? That is, the point of drafting a guy like Rodgers - especially if you think he is comparable to Brees, Brady and Manning - is that you don't have to draft him as EARLY as Brees, Brady and Manning.

VBD is just another tool in the toolkit...like anything else, it is not the end all. While I believe in VBD, I also know that if I want a specific player bad enough, I will reach to draft them. Of course, I have to believe the player can live up to where I drafted him and it also has to be a part of my overall draft strategy. Also, John drafted at the turn and that throws a lot of strategy out the window. I think you have to reach sometimes at the turn if you want certain players. Rodgers probably would not have made it to the next turn, nor would the other QBs you listed. So if you want one at that draft spot, you either reach and take him, or you wait for the next tier of QBs. John explained he wanted to lock up a stud QB & a stud TE and why he wanted them. You can't always draft every player after they should be drafted.

someimes you have to adjust your draft strategy, knowing that even the upside of a player you want does not justify how far the reach is.The whole idea of VBD is that your draft strategy is dynamic and you're taking value where it falls...staying ahead of the draft, rather than chasing it.

 

[corpcow]

And while I'm generally fine with his draft and don't think these picks were as bad as some are making out - doesn't it beg the question of why & whether that is justified when VBD is such an important element to the FBG message? That is, the point of drafting a guy like Rodgers - especially if you think he is comparable to Brees, Brady and Manning - is that you don't have to draft him as EARLY as Brees, Brady and Manning.

VBD is just another tool in the toolkit...like anything else, it is not the end all. While I believe in VBD, I also know that if I want a specific player bad enough, I will reach to draft them. Of course, I have to believe the player can live up to where I drafted him and it also has to be a part of my overall draft strategy. Also, John drafted at the turn and that throws a lot of strategy out the window. I think you have to reach sometimes at the turn if you want certain players. Rodgers probably would not have made it to the next turn, nor would the other QBs you listed. So if you want one at that draft spot, you either reach and take him, or you wait for the next tier of QBs. John explained he wanted to lock up a stud QB & a stud TE and why he wanted them. You can't always draft every player after they should be drafted.

Was draft pick trading allowed in this league? If John wanted a QB but didn't want to take his own top-rated player in the interest of diversification, this would have in theory been an ideal spot to trade down from. The whole point of VBD is drafting guys at the "right" spot such that you're getting value.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

For anyone that might be interested, here's an update:

Footballguys.com is 9-0

#2 in points scored but top 3 teams are within a TD of each other

#2 in all-play record, 1 win behind the #1 team

Fewest points scored against

Top scoring QBs in average points/game:

1. Aaron Rodgers: 23.7

2. Drew Brees: 22.03

3. Tom Brady: 21.21

4. Peyton Manning: 20.7

5. Ben Roethlisberger: 20.24

6. Matt Schaub: 20.18

Top scoring TEs in average points/game:

1. Dallas Clark: 18.68

2. Vernon Davis: 16.46

3. Owen Daniels: 15.24 (IR)

4. Antonio Gates: 14.13

5. Brent Celek: 14.08

6. Tony Gonzalez: 13.18

7. Heath Miller: 13.01

11. Jason Witten: 11.14

 

[gianmarco]

Rodgers remains #1

Gonzo moving into top 5.

 

[Native]

Rodgers remains #1Gonzo moving into top 5.

With Daniels injury, Gonzo is actually in the top 4.

 

[gianmarco]

Rodgers remains #1Gonzo moving into top 5. :X

With Daniels injury, Gonzo is actually in the top 4.

Nope, still behind Dallas Clark, Vernon Davis, Gates, and likely Celek (he hasn't played yet but only needs 1 catch to remain ahead of him). Of course, VD and Celek came out of nowhere so, in terms of the preseason rankings, he's #3 behind Clark and Gates amongst TEs that would have been considered anywhere in the top 10 rounds.

 

[Eric]

So basically the lesson learned here is to ignore all advice on the site and draft seemingly random players. His team is competitive out of sheer luck. There is no excuse for those first few picks.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

His team is competitive out of sheer luck.

really? are you saying that drafting based on ADP is pure skill? this was a 28-round draft and the starting lineups each week are 15 players deep.I think the lesson is that you don't always need to be a slave to ADP. Rodgers and Gonzo were never as huge of a reach in those spots as some people made them out to be.

There is no excuse for those first few picks.

they all seem to be living up to their draft spot.

 

[joffer]

i can't believe anyone is still trying to criticize this draft

 

[gianmarco]

His team is competitive out of sheer luck.

really? are you saying that drafting based on ADP is pure skill? this was a 28-round draft and the starting lineups each week are 15 players deep.I think the lesson is that you don't always need to be a slave to ADP. Rodgers and Gonzo were never as huge of a reach in those spots as some people made them out to be.

There is no excuse for those first few picks.

they all seem to be living up to their draft spot.

I guess it's just luck that he takes Rodgers as the #1 QB and, lo and behold, he's the #1 QB.

 

[gianmarco]

Aaron Rodgers as the first QB off the board?Something is definitely fishy here.

Dropping my FBG subscription if this is legit

So are you renewing?

 

[smackdaddies]

Aaron Rodgers as the first QB off the board?Something is definitely fishy here.

Dropping my FBG subscription if this is legit

So are you renewing?

He can renew - I would appreciate it if he just shut up