What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why dis FBG tout Bullock K1 ? lol (1 Viewer)

and to confidently tout bullock is the kicker to have without any valid data is already a red flag. like they said, fool me once shame on u. fool me twice shame on me.
there was valid data though.

#1 his performance/accuracy in college

#2 the number of kicker point opportunities the Texans have generated over the past few years.

Mike Herman has more data on kickers than anyone else you'll ever find. Have you seen kickermania?

btw, looks like Herman had Bullock ranked 19th this week. If anyone was following his advice, he shouldn't have been in the lineup last night anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although some may quibble with many of the OP's individual points, I think that we can all agree that his cogency suggests that there is merit to his ideas.

 
Mike Herman has more data on kickers than anyone else you'll ever find. Have you seen kickermania?

btw, looks like Herman had Bullock ranked 19th this week. If anyone was following his advice, he shouldn't have been in the lineup last night anyway.
Guaranteed he hasn't bothered to go through the effort and time to look at the fantastic kickermania.

Oh, and as far as the second comment? :own3d:

 
This is some funny #####! Lololol

My kicker that fbg made me draft sucks. Waaaa. Do you really pay them so that you can use their preseason rankings as gospel?? COME ON, maaayyaaannn!

 
with kickers it's all about opportunity. we assume that if a guy is an nfl kicker, he's going to hit 90+% from 49 in and maybe 50% from 50+ out. well, i think FBG's was dead on. bullock has had the opportunities. he just hasn't connected. i say they got the call right. the results just don't show that.

As SSOG AKA Adam Harstad would say, good process, bad result, or something along those lines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And if that's not enough, well, like everyone has said, it's a moefffin kicker! If this last round pick is affecting your team, shame on you.

 
lol

i think im done subscribing to fbg after this season. usually 3 strikes youre out but in this case. 2 strikes is valid to not renew contract.

last season was my first with FBG. i had 11th pick. they had steven jackson as #14 overall player. i took him. bust

this season, thier sleeper kicker was bullock. the most hyped kicker ever to never kick pro game. k1. let others pick legatron, prater, mason , the patriots kicker... lol

i never seen a kicker as bad as bullock. ever. after 3 games, i dropped this clown and was fortunate to pick up mason.

after last night drama and RW actually having a displeasing update on bullock, i have come to q conclusion that fbg experts do not know basic football.
Well you can't really blame them for that one then! :lol:
yeah i had 11th pick. took him on my return pick in 2nd round. took demarco at 11 last year

im not saying a kicker is ruining my teams. but 1 or 2 point can make a difference monday night.

and to confidently tout bullock is the kicker to have without any valid data is already a red flag. like they said, fool me once shame on u. fool me twice shame on me.

i pay 30$ for this. at least i can get is some good information.

if this was in the financial industry and a company promotes data that they cant be justify, the SEC will be knocking doors.

if this site is free, its one thing. but when u pay for a service u expect some sort of ROI. not recyle stuff from RW or Espn. and get cute with a non consensus kicker. lol
I don't know man....you would have to be pretty naive to think that your $30 investment is going to get you a series of surefire predictions on who to pick...even your SEC analogy is ridiculous. Companies promote data all the time that in the end turns out to be flawed, especially when much of the data is subjective. In the bizzaro world that you are painting, every stock would be guaranteed to always go up or down based on advice.

A better analogy would be that FBGs are like counselors or lawyers who give advice based on the information present. Like any lawyer, they cannot guarantee how the case will go, only give you advice on how to proceed. That means there will be good advice along with some bad advice. It is your job, as the client, to act accordingly.

In a 17 round draft, you actually have 17 chances to hit big and that is the way to look at it...also, you have around 5 - 8 weeks before all of the good waiver pick ups dry up. Obviously that takes work on your part, but I find that FBGs advice is usually pretty sound, as do most of the folks around here.

 
I didn't want to bring it up, but on top of completely missing on Randy Bullock, they didn't even have the Chiefs defense in their top 20.

This cannot stand!

 
when I see all 3 experts saying to start him over Chris Johnson, for example, it gives me pause. Not because CJ had a better day so much, but for the fact that TRich has had no history or past this year to say he would put up any kind of decent numbers.
While you may have a valid point in general, you picked a poor example to illustrate it. What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
In my league (nonppr) :shrug: CJ points

7

10

9

3

14

5

17

65 Total

TRich points

7

8

9

13

5

5

1

48 Total
Sure, so let's just look at them side by side:

CJ Trich7 710 89 93 1314 55 517 1Through six weeks they were practically identical. Weeks 1, 3, and 6 they had literally the same exact score; week 2 they were pretty close; TRich won week 4 and CJ won week 5. CJ won week 7, as well.

Had CJ performed better than Richardson through 7 weeks this year? Sure, but only marginally so. Richardson had 333 rushing yards (3.14 YPC). Johnson had 366 rushing yards (3.18 YPC). Richardson had two TDs. Johnson had two TDs. The only real difference was that Johnson had a few more catches and about 100 more receiving yards than Richardson.

The person I responded to said: "when I see all 3 experts saying to start him over Chris Johnson, for example, it gives me pause. Not because CJ had a better day so much, but for the fact that TRich has had no history or past this year to say he would put up any kind of decent numbers." To which I'd reiterate, what had Chris Johnson done all year to make such a prediction outlandish?

If he'd just said "TRich was ranked too high" I'd probably be inclined to agree. I just find it odd that he specifically mentioned TRich being ranked higher than Chris Johnson as something to take issue with. Chris Johnson hadn't really done anything to make it some kind of huge obvious blunder to rank Richardson ahead of Johnson (and actually, I just went to look to see how much higher Richardson was, and he wasn't! Dodds had Johnson ahead of Richardson, so I'm not even sure what the issue is).

I think sometimes there are legitimate gripes with the projections (though really, it's important to remember that this is mostly a guessing game). But examples like this, and MOP inexplicably calling out the Pryor ranking this week (?) don't really make sense to me.

 
This is some funny #####! Lololol

My kicker that fbg made me draft sucks. Waaaa. Do you really pay them so that you can use their preseason rankings as gospel?? COME ON, maaayyaaannn!
Exactly. I don't even pay attention to their rankings, save for maybe dynasty rankings every now and then, specifically IDP on the rare occasions they update them. The value is in the articles, the draft dominator, lineup dominator, etc. Their rankings, just like those of any other site, are useless as far as I'm concerned.

 
with kickers it's all about opportunity. we assume that if a guy is an nfl kicker, he's going to hit 90+% from 49 in and maybe 50% from 50+ out. well, i think FBG's was dead on. bullock has had the opportunities. he just hasn't connected. i say they got the call right. the results just don't show that.

As SSOG AKA Adam Harstad would say, good process, bad result, or something along those lines.
I disagree. They whiffed on him this year. I don't know how your league works, but in mine i don't get points fpr attempts, I get points for makes. If they are only evaluating opportunity and not ability, then that is a really bad process.

 
with kickers it's all about opportunity. we assume that if a guy is an nfl kicker, he's going to hit 90+% from 49 in and maybe 50% from 50+ out. well, i think FBG's was dead on. bullock has had the opportunities. he just hasn't connected. i say they got the call right. the results just don't show that.

As SSOG AKA Adam Harstad would say, good process, bad result, or something along those lines.
I disagree. They whiffed on him this year. I don't know how your league works, but in mine i don't get points fpr attempts, I get points for makes. If they are only evaluating opportunity and not ability, then that is a really bad process.
bullock was a 5th round pick in 2012, last year the houston offense made shayne graham (who is now out of the league) a top 5 kicker. I didnt need FBG's to tell me that bullock would get his chances, but thus far he has missed too often. kciking points is 80% the team and 20% kicker skill (i just made that up but it feels right to me).

people are loving mason crosby this year... but last year he was horrible with his accuracy. irregardless, its a kicker position, after week 2-3 you should be evaluating and searching waivers to see if any more consistent options are out there. defnitely not something to create a thread about

if i had to give FBG crap this year, i would comment that the QB gap between top end and low end QB1 has been and will end up being much larger than they had preached pre-season. I give them credit for predicting brady's decline. there's probably more but that is all that sticks out to me right now (i can't crap them for trent's projections, most everyone expected big things from him this year)

 
with kickers it's all about opportunity. we assume that if a guy is an nfl kicker, he's going to hit 90+% from 49 in and maybe 50% from 50+ out. well, i think FBG's was dead on. bullock has had the opportunities. he just hasn't connected. i say they got the call right. the results just don't show that.

As SSOG AKA Adam Harstad would say, good process, bad result, or something along those lines.
I disagree. They whiffed on him this year. I don't know how your league works, but in mine i don't get points fpr attempts, I get points for makes. If they are only evaluating opportunity and not ability, then that is a really bad process.
My point is that you never expect a placekicker in the NFL to be as bad as this guy has been. Kickers have gotten so good that every team should have a guy capable of hitting the marks that I showed above. I guess by assuming this kicker in particular will hit those marks, or hit close to those marks, you are putting your faith in the Texan's organization's ability to evaluate kicker talent. But for me, I look for opportunity, with the assumption that most kickers abilities are relatively similar. My guess is Bullock is a talented kicker, but that he has a serious mental block. One miss leads to some doubt, and over-correction, and so on, and it spirals outs of control. We've seen this before, where a kicker failed miserably with one organization, only to get a shot elsewhere and kick at a Pro Bowl level. It's impossible to predict which kickers, and then when said kickers, are going to get in a funk.

As for me, all I care about is opportunity, so if you'd told me this guy would have had this level of opportunity, I'd have perfectly happy picking him as my kicker. Of course, I would not have held onto him this long once it became clear he was not kicking well, but I would not consider it a failure.

 
with kickers it's all about opportunity. we assume that if a guy is an nfl kicker, he's going to hit 90+% from 49 in and maybe 50% from 50+ out. well, i think FBG's was dead on. bullock has had the opportunities. he just hasn't connected. i say they got the call right. the results just don't show that.

As SSOG AKA Adam Harstad would say, good process, bad result, or something along those lines.
I disagree. They whiffed on him this year. I don't know how your league works, but in mine i don't get points fpr attempts, I get points for makes. If they are only evaluating opportunity and not ability, then that is a really bad process.
My point is that you never expect a placekicker in the NFL to be as bad as this guy has been. Kickers have gotten so good that every team should have a guy capable of hitting the marks that I showed above. I guess by assuming this kicker in particular will hit those marks, or hit close to those marks, you are putting your faith in the Texan's organization's ability to evaluate kicker talent. But for me, I look for opportunity, with the assumption that most kickers abilities are relatively similar. My guess is Bullock is a talented kicker, but that he has a serious mental block. One miss leads to some doubt, and over-correction, and so on, and it spirals outs of control. We've seen this before, where a kicker failed miserably with one organization, only to get a shot elsewhere and kick at a Pro Bowl level. It's impossible to predict which kickers, and then when said kickers, are going to get in a funk.

As for me, all I care about is opportunity, so if you'd told me this guy would have had this level of opportunity, I'd have perfectly happy picking him as my kicker. Of course, I would not have held onto him this long once it became clear he was not kicking well, but I would not consider it a failure.
I think ability matters. I think ability can increas opportunities and better kickers will get long attempts and crappy ones teams' will opt to punt from the 35...

Not taking into account ability, experience, risk and track record is a flawed methodology and lazy analysis.

 
Thou shalt not tempt the FBG experts. FBG experts are tempted when a fantasy player demands a manifestation of devine wisdom, and if that demand is not satisfied, the player will quit his FBG subscription. Tempting the FBG experts is always considered a grave fantasy football sin, and no fantasy football good can ever be expected to come out of it.

 
Do you play in a K-only league or something?
I think every league with kickers let them influence too much. K stats should be more of a tie breaker than a big scoring component imo. I play in plenty of leagues where K's outperform WR/TE's all the time. With the way RB's are going in the NFL K's might pass them up as well. It's insanity. I would rather see returners play an influence in FF stats than K's.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Pryor number 8 this week as well. Gotta feeling a lot of subscribers got burned this week but it's not all FBG fault, owners need to take ownership.
:own3d:

 
If you are a subscriber just for weekly rankings, don't bother can find free opinions on who to start every where, each as good or as bad as the other.

 
Bullock needs to be replaced. His weirdo knuckleball kick would be OK if he was able to aim between the posts, but since he apparently prefers to aim right at the upright and trust to [luck/random seam patterns] to dance the ball to the inside, i'm surprised he's on the right side of .500 (if only just). This isn't the first game that could have gone very differently with a competent kicker.

 
drake_ovo said:
Dizzy said:
drake_ovo said:
lol

i think im done subscribing to fbg after this season. usually 3 strikes youre out but in this case. 2 strikes is valid to not renew contract.

last season was my first with FBG. i had 11th pick. they had steven jackson as #14 overall player. i took him. bust

this season, thier sleeper kicker was bullock. the most hyped kicker ever to never kick pro game. k1. let others pick legatron, prater, mason , the patriots kicker... lol

i never seen a kicker as bad as bullock. ever. after 3 games, i dropped this clown and was fortunate to pick up mason.

after last night drama and RW actually having a displeasing update on bullock, i have come to q conclusion that fbg experts do not know basic football.
Well you can't really blame them for that one then! :lol:
yeah i had 11th pick. took him on my return pick in 2nd round. took demarco at 11 last year

im not saying a kicker is ruining my teams. but 1 or 2 point can make a difference monday night.

and to confidently tout bullock is the kicker to have without any valid data is already a red flag. like they said, fool me once shame on u. fool me twice shame on me.

i pay 30$ for this. at least i can get is some good information.

if this was in the financial industry and a company promotes data that they cant be justify, the SEC will be knocking doors.

if this site is free, its one thing. but when u pay for a service u expect some sort of ROI. not recyle stuff from RW or Espn. and get cute with a non consensus kicker. lol
I can give you kicker advice for $25 if you want....

I tell you players that I would've passed on if I didn't follow FBG:

1. Woodhead late

2. A. Brown as a potential WR 1 in PPR

3. Take Gronk if he falls (J. Cameron is a good late TE pick)

This information along with the analysis to back it up is what makes it worth the lousy 30 bucks a year.

I've spent more than 30 bucks drinking beer in a night. :banned: (literally pissing it away)

 
They had Bullock high and I drafted him in a couple leagues because of it as I do not take kickers high and Bullock was a guy that was around after 10 guys or so and FBG had him so high so why not take him.

With that said he's been off my team for awhile, it's easy to find a kicker on a given week that is serviceable due to matchups.

 
Don Quixote said:
I just realized that he's the same poster who advised everyone to pick up TY Hilton off waivers last week. This thread makes a lot more sense now.
By far the best part of this post is that the OP "Liked" it.

:whoosh:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Random said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
kev6873 said:
when I see all 3 experts saying to start him over Chris Johnson, for example, it gives me pause. Not because CJ had a better day so much, but for the fact that TRich has had no history or past this year to say he would put up any kind of decent numbers.
While you may have a valid point in general, you picked a poor example to illustrate it. What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
In my league (nonppr) :shrug: CJ points

7

10

9

3

14

5

17

65 Total

TRich points

7

8

9

13

5

5

1

48 Total
Sure, so let's just look at them side by side:

CJ Trich7 710 89 93 1314 55 517 1Through six weeks they were practically identical. Weeks 1, 3, and 6 they had literally the same exact score; week 2 they were pretty close; TRich won week 4 and CJ won week 5. CJ won week 7, as well.

Had CJ performed better than Richardson through 7 weeks this year? Sure, but only marginally so. Richardson had 333 rushing yards (3.14 YPC). Johnson had 366 rushing yards (3.18 YPC). Richardson had two TDs. Johnson had two TDs. The only real difference was that Johnson had a few more catches and about 100 more receiving yards than Richardson.

The person I responded to said: "when I see all 3 experts saying to start him over Chris Johnson, for example, it gives me pause. Not because CJ had a better day so much, but for the fact that TRich has had no history or past this year to say he would put up any kind of decent numbers." To which I'd reiterate, what had Chris Johnson done all year to make such a prediction outlandish?

If he'd just said "TRich was ranked too high" I'd probably be inclined to agree. I just find it odd that he specifically mentioned TRich being ranked higher than Chris Johnson as something to take issue with. Chris Johnson hadn't really done anything to make it some kind of huge obvious blunder to rank Richardson ahead of Johnson (and actually, I just went to look to see how much higher Richardson was, and he wasn't! Dodds had Johnson ahead of Richardson, so I'm not even sure what the issue is).

I think sometimes there are legitimate gripes with the projections (though really, it's important to remember that this is mostly a guessing game). But examples like this, and MOP inexplicably calling out the Pryor ranking this week (?) don't really make sense to me.
Ok, first, I dont have a subscription to FBG, so I dont know who was ranked ahead of who. I'm just disagreeing with your statement

What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
If you want to get technical, we can look at ytd totals (65-48 before this week) or we can look at common opponents Hou, SD, Sea, SF (40-24.5). Either way, don't see how TRich would be ranked ahead of CJ?K.

 
If you want to get technical, we can look at ytd totals (65-48 before this week) or we can look at common opponents Hou, SD, Sea, SF (40-24.5). Either way, don't see how TRich would be ranked ahead of CJ?K.
If rankings were based entirely on YTD performance, they'd be trivial. If your position is that there's no conceivable way that Richardson should have been ranked higher than Chris Johnson this week, you're wrong. They've performed similarly this year and there's no real reason to raise an eyebrow if Richardson is ranked ahead of Johnson for a given week, nor would there be a reason to raise an eyebrow if their spots were reversed. It's not like they had Richardson ranked ahead of Jamaal Charles. :shrug:

 
it's not that hard.

draft a kicker with a late bye.

pick up a top 10 kicker, preferably after their bye

done.

 
If you want to get technical, we can look at ytd totals (65-48 before this week) or we can look at common opponents Hou, SD, Sea, SF (40-24.5). Either way, don't see how TRich would be ranked ahead of CJ?K.
If rankings were based entirely on YTD performance, they'd be trivial. If your position is that there's no conceivable way that Richardson should have been ranked higher than Chris Johnson this week, you're wrong. They've performed similarly this year and there's no real reason to raise an eyebrow if Richardson is ranked ahead of Johnson for a given week, nor would there be a reason to raise an eyebrow if their spots were reversed. It's not like they had Richardson ranked ahead of Jamaal Charles. :shrug:
My issue is with your statement

What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
The answer is, while he has not been lighting it up, CJ has outperformed TRich pretty much all season. No matter how you look at it. YTD, Common opponents, or even weekly.

Lets reverse the question, what has TRich done all year to be ranked ahead of CJ?

 
This thread is the fantasy football equivalent to going to the zoo and watching a monkey throw his own feces around.

 
My issue is with your statement

What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
The answer is, while he has not been lighting it up, CJ has outperformed TRich pretty much all season.
In your league, CJ outscored Richardson 3 of the first 7 weeks. That's not "pretty much all season." They had nearly identical YTD stats, with the exception that CJ had about 100 more receiving yards than Richardson for the year.

Lets reverse the question, what has TRich done all year to be ranked ahead of CJ?
Nothing. I've never argued that he has. The point is simply that they've basically both been low-end RB2 disappointments who had performed remarkably similarly through most of the first half of the season. Now add in the fact that forward-looking projections aren't based entirely on YTD numbers, and it's not at all outlandish to have one ranked a spot or two ahead of the other on any given week. If someone's going to take issue with FBG's projections, calling them out for having Richardson a spot or two ahead of Johnson for week 9 is an absolutely asinine way to do it. It's no wonder people are disappointed in the product - apparently they have no idea what they're paying for.

 
My issue is with your statement

What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
The answer is, while he has not been lighting it up, CJ has outperformed TRich pretty much all season.
In your league, CJ outscored Richardson 3 of the first 7 weeks. That's not "pretty much all season." They had nearly identical YTD stats, with the exception that CJ had about 100 more receiving yards than Richardson for the year.

Lets reverse the question, what has TRich done all year to be ranked ahead of CJ?
Nothing. I've never argued that he has. The point is simply that they've basically both been low-end RB2 disappointments who had performed remarkably similarly through most of the first half of the season. Now add in the fact that forward-looking projections aren't based entirely on YTD numbers, and it's not at all outlandish to have one ranked a spot or two ahead of the other on any given week. If someone's going to take issue with FBG's projections, calling them out for having Richardson a spot or two ahead of Johnson for week 9 is an absolutely asinine way to do it. It's no wonder people are disappointed in the product - apparently they have no idea what they're paying for.
In my league, TRich outscored CJ 1 of the first 7 weeks. CJ had scored 35% more points through 7 weeks. CJ nearly doubled TRich against common opponents. It is completely outlandish to rank TRich ahead of CJ until TRich figures out what he is doing in Indy and proves he is worth a start over CJ.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top