there was valid data though.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 was waiting for someone to spot this. Come on...this HAS to be the case here, no?This dude is a troll. Plain and simple.
Guaranteed he hasn't bothered to go through the effort and time to look at the fantastic kickermania.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.
I don't know man....you would have to be pretty naive to think that your $30 investment is going to get you a series of surefire predictions on who to pick...even your SEC analogy is ridiculous. Companies promote data all the time that in the end turns out to be flawed, especially when much of the data is subjective. In the bizzaro world that you are painting, every stock would be guaranteed to always go up or down based on advice.yeah i had 11th pick. took him on my return pick in 2nd round. took demarco at 11 last yearWell you can't really blame them for that one then!lol
i think im done subscribing to fbg after this season. usually 3 strikes youre out but in this case. 2 strikes is valid to not renew contract.
last season was my first with FBG. i had 11th pick. they had steven jackson as #14 overall player. i took him. bust
this season, thier sleeper kicker was bullock. the most hyped kicker ever to never kick pro game. k1. let others pick legatron, prater, mason , the patriots kicker... lol
i never seen a kicker as bad as bullock. ever. after 3 games, i dropped this clown and was fortunate to pick up mason.
after last night drama and RW actually having a displeasing update on bullock, i have come to q conclusion that fbg experts do not know basic football.![]()
im not saying a kicker is ruining my teams. but 1 or 2 point can make a difference monday night.
and to confidently tout bullock is the kicker to have without any valid data is already a red flag. like they said, fool me once shame on u. fool me twice shame on me.
i pay 30$ 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
Sure, so let's just look at them side by side:In my league (nonppr)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?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.CJ points
7
10
9
3
14
5
17
65 Total
TRich points
7
8
9
13
5
5
1
48 Total
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.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!
Me too. (I was too low on Johnson because of all the talk that Shonn Greene would get a lot more carries. But at least I still had him ahead of Richardson.)
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.
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).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.
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.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 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...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.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.
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 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.Do you play in a K-only league or something?
You're not from around here, are you?if this was in the financial industry and a company promotes data that they cant be justify, the SEC will be knocking doors.
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.
I can give you kicker advice for $25 if you want....drake_ovo said:yeah i had 11th pick. took him on my return pick in 2nd round. took demarco at 11 last yearDizzy said:Well you can't really blame them for that one then!drake_ovo said:lol
i think im done subscribing to fbg after this season. usually 3 strikes youre out but in this case. 2 strikes is valid to not renew contract.
last season was my first with FBG. i had 11th pick. they had steven jackson as #14 overall player. i took him. bust
this season, thier sleeper kicker was bullock. the most hyped kicker ever to never kick pro game. k1. let others pick legatron, prater, mason , the patriots kicker... lol
i never seen a kicker as bad as bullock. ever. after 3 games, i dropped this clown and was fortunate to pick up mason.
after last night drama and RW actually having a displeasing update on bullock, i have come to q conclusion that fbg experts do not know basic football.![]()
im not saying a kicker is ruining my teams. but 1 or 2 point can make a difference monday night.
and to confidently tout bullock is the kicker to have without any valid data is already a red flag. like they said, fool me once shame on u. fool me twice shame on me.
i pay 30$ 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
By far the best part of this post is that the OP "Liked" it.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.
"They're", duh. Cripes, its like peeple don't even pay attention in school anymore.
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 statementIgnoratio Elenchi said:Sure, so let's just look at them side by side:Random said:In my league (nonppr)Ignoratio Elenchi said: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?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.CJ points
7
10
9
3
14
5
17
65 Total
TRich points
7
8
9
13
5
5
1
48 Total
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.
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.What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
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.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.
what? "they're" = they are credibility?"They're", duh. Cripes, its like peeple don't even pay attention in school anymore.
what? "they're" = they are credibility?"They're", duh. Cripes, its like peeple don't even pay attention in school anymore.
I know, right?!what? "they're" = they are credibility?"They're", duh. Cripes, its like peeple don't even pay attention in school anymore.:whoosh:
This is my favorite thread.
It's a kicker... Who cares.
Also, why create a 2nd thread about the exact same topic?
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=697549#entry16157861
My issue is with your statementIf 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.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.![]()
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.What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
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.My issue is with your statement
The answer is, while he has not been lighting it up, CJ has outperformed TRich pretty much all season.What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
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.Lets reverse the question, what has TRich done all year to be ranked ahead of CJ?
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.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.My issue is with your statement
The answer is, while he has not been lighting it up, CJ has outperformed TRich pretty much all season.What has Chris Johnson done all year to be ranked ahead of Richardson this week?
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.Lets reverse the question, what has TRich done all year to be ranked ahead of CJ?
Perhaps you should stop playing him.Another missed kick
I am tired of losing points on this fat kicker