switz
Footballguy
Yes it is extremely flawed. James > Addai >>> Keith >> Rhodes.Does the system help, sure. But the system alone is not the reason James and Addai were top-5 fantasy RBs.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why have a pre-NFL Draft ranking for Top Rooks. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maroney=Speed
- Start date
switz
Footballguy
Addai was rated very well coming out, just a few questions about his workload. Jackson climbed due to situation and that was a bad move.Again, pre-draft is based on talent, and talent wins out over situation. Hence pre-draft is generally better than post-draft. The exception is when you have players nearly equal in talent, and one goes to a better situation, then that may elevate one player over the other.Interseptopus
Footballguy
Nature vs Nuture... same debate right here. The case can be made for either side. However, I did a quick 5 minute search on the 2001 NFL pre-draft RB rankings:
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/archive/2...01rankings.html
Besides LT, Rudi Johnson has to be the 2nd best RB out of that class... yet he was ranked 8th. (An argument can be made for McAllister too, yes). For that list, Bennett was ranked #1... Now if my memory serves me correctly, LT was the consensus top RB at the draft, but even so, he wasn't touted as the second coming as he turned out to be... Being in WI, there was a LOT of hype about Bennett. I was really bumed to see him go to MIN because now I had to "hate" him... but he was regarded as the second best back the the draft. He was considered a raw prospect, yes, but top 2 or 3 nonetheless with plenty of upside. He was definately not upgraded just because he was a starter right away in MIN...
Okay, so that's too long ago huh? How about last year:
PREdraft
http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stories/041807aaw.html
I'll save you the trouble:
1- AP
2- Lynch
3- Leonard
4- Pittman (cut by his drafted team)
5- Hunt
6- Irons
7- Booker
8- Bush
9- Wynn
10- B.Jackson
So you hold the 1.03, 1.04 pick in your draft, you really want a RB... and you take Leonard? Pittman?? You'd be stuck with your RB being a backup or flat out cut. Why not take a gamble and try to grab B. Jackson... selected 2nd round with no one in front of him starting... I'd rather have that than someone who's slated to be a backup from the start. That didn't pan out, but at least I would have had a chance at success than being doomed from the get go (and yes I'm aware Leonard started for Jackson while he was hurt, but he didn't do that well...)
POSTdraft (going off of SI.com, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/fant...ngs/index.html)
1. Lynch- My guess is he's #1 because no one is starting in front of him, he's starter from day 1
2. AP- He's really good, but before the draft injury was a concern and not to mention the LOCATION he was drafted in had Chester Taylor starting
3. B. Jackson- He's starting from the get-go too
4. Chris Henry- He wasn't even on that list of top 10... but given Travis Henry left TEN, and White proved nothing his rookie year, Chris Henry was a back who had a good opportunity
5. Booker- A backup
6. Leonard- A backup to who many thought would be the #1 RB that season
7. Selvin Young- Not on that top 10 list, but in DEN so DEN RBs get automatically upgraded.
8-10 not even worth mentioning... On this SI.com rankings list Young was at 64 overall among RBs, I highly doubt teams will be drafting 7 RBs each...
So how many of those were correct with the PREdraft rankings?
I think the question that really needs to be asked is- how many of you guys actually perform a rookie draft BEFORE the NFL draft????????
...
...
...
... anyone?
...
...
... Bueller....
... Bueller...
Okay, so no one, so why even have these discussions pre-draft? Keep your pants on, and wait until after the draft... yes, predraft is based off of pure talent, but what if that pure talent has to SIT behind an awesome starter... then he's no longer the best RB in that class that year...
Interseptopus
Footballguy
So Leonard and Pittman will have better careers than Irons or B. Jackson? Kind of hard to say that since they both play ON THE SAME TEAM!Jackson at least started to grasp the offense towards the end of the season, and will be able to contribute in a sort of 2 RB system...Addai was rated very well coming out, just a few questions about his workload.
Jackson climbed due to situation and that was a bad move.
Again, pre-draft is based on talent, and talent wins out over situation. Hence pre-draft is generally better than post-draft.
The exception is when you have players nearly equal in talent, and one goes to a better situation, then that may elevate one player over the other.
switz
Footballguy
So Leonard and Pittman will have better careers than Irons or B. Jackson? Kind of hard to say that since they both play ON THE SAME TEAM!Jackson at least started to grasp the offense towards the end of the season, and will be able to contribute in a sort of 2 RB system...
Jackson climbed due to situation and that was a bad move.
Again, pre-draft is based on talent, and talent wins out over situation. Hence pre-draft is generally better than post-draft.
The exception is when you have players nearly equal in talent, and one goes to a better situation, then that may elevate one player over the other.
I don't see how your reply has anything to do with what you are replying to... that is the bolded part.Are you saying that Pittman and Leonard are more talented than Jackson, but that Jackson will outperform them? What argument are you making?Because before the draft they were all rated as backup, role player type running backs, and that's what they all are. It was only after the draft that people convinced themselves that Jackson was starter material.
Last edited by a moderator:
Addai was rated very well coming out, just a few questions about his workload. Jackson climbed due to situation and that was a bad move.Again, pre-draft is based on talent, and talent wins out over situation. Hence pre-draft is generally better than post-draft. The exception is when you have players nearly equal in talent, and one goes to a better situation, then that may elevate one player over the other.
switz
Footballguy
I'm not sure, but I think the list you have linked was updated after the draft, as it's the FINAL list. Believe me, Bennett was not ranked #1 before the draft by anyone. And while LT may not have been cast as "the second coming" he was widely viewed as the most complete prospect coming out. McAllister was ranked well, and played well when not injured. Johnson is like the player in most drafts who plays better than expected, there is usually one aberration per draft, that doesn't nullify all pre-draft rankings though. Bennett was the guy who made the big leap by situation, and that's the flaw with waiting until after the draft to rank.
Hmmm... ADP, Lynch, Leonard all had decent production, and AP and Lynch were THE ONLY RBs slotted as starting material. So that was very accurate. Pittman didn't work out in NO, but his situation AFTER the draft didn't impact him immediate ranking anyway. I don't see how you are proving anything. In fact... this only helps the side of pre-draft being better than post-draft - with BJackson being the perfect example... he was ranked #10 per this list. How many people after the draft took him too high??? A lot! They would have saved themselves a wasted pick, had they listened to the pre-draft rankings, and realized that Lynch and ADP were the only starting material RBs in the class.
More than those in the post-draft. For instace pre-draft ADP #1, end of season among rookies ADP #1. But post-draft they dropped him to #2. Mistake. Lynch, conversely... and I saw it in my dynasty league... everyone knew ADP was more talented, but Lynch was the #1 rookie off the board. That owner is going to be kicking himself for years. B. Jackson? Climbed to #3 at RB, and was a total bust. If they had listened to pre-draft rankings they would have seen he was not starting material.Again, pre-draft was more accurate in determining starter capable RBs than post-draft.
That's why you do pre-draft rankings, and then adjust after the draft. Pre-draft allows you to focus on talent. Then post-draft allows you to adjust by situation. But when you solely do post-draft you may overly inflate situation (as in Michael Bennett, or Brandon Jackson) and that's a mistake.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I agree 100%. By no means am I saying that post-draft rankings rule all. All I'm trying to say is that this Maroney=Tool is making a case that pre-draft rules all... when that's clearly not the case- location matters a LOT.I agree, that you look at both pre and post draft rankings when considering who to take in your rookie draft. For those who felt that Aaron Rodgers was the #1 or 2 QB in the draft, he was drafted into a location where he sat for 3 years. He may have a better career than Alex Smith because of it, but how much of that is talent and how much is from what he learned? I say a little of both (Nature AND Nurture). I just think it's a bit of a waste of time to dwell on pre-draft rankings as Maroney=Tool does, but at the same time by no means am I saying ignore them completely. What should be done is everyone should wait until after the draft and then dwell on rankings:"Well this guy was looked at as the #7 RB, but he was drafted by a team with no starting RB... he's got potential to be good but he was only the 7th RB in this draft, so use caution". None of this "Oh my you have PlayerA ranked 4th among RBs predraft!?!?" That's nonsenseThere is no set way to do things 100% correct. You will always have the Marques Colstons, Tom Bradys, Ryan Grants.. but at the same time you will always have the Ryan Leafs, Michael Bennetts, and Troy Williamsons... the NFL draft is a crapshoot. You can overanalyze it all you want, but in the end you're just out-coaching yourself. Beleive me, I've been on both ends. I've disected the NFL and found myself just doing too much and out-coaching myself and finishing low in the standings... I've been on the other end where I've done minimal research and finished 1st in the regular season (only to lose in the playoffs and take 4th, thanks LT 2006...) But it's just too big of a crapshoot to put THAT much thought into it so early... give it a rest, take a break. I'm excited as the next person for the draft and for FFB season to start again, but take a rest, tailgate at a Brewers game and never make it actually into the game... that's what offseason is all about- just having a fun time and not worrying about this stuff as much... People seem to dwell on these types of things so early in the offseason because they have nothing else better to do and are just that much into football... kind of sad really. Unless you've got thousands of dollars at stake for your league, no hobby is worth this much of someone's time... "But Ro, you're hear and you're making these posts just like the rest of us" Yeah, I am. I'm on the last day of my break from working on my DPT degree and I need to kill some time, just trying to keep up with football news actually. You won't see me in here much at all during my modules... (All rejoice right? I know Maroney=Tool will have a beer... er, an orange juice... in celebration)
Last edited by a moderator:
switz
Footballguy
up to this point. And Rodgers is an excellent example of where post-draft rankings will drastically change for a player (from an FF perspective)
Well, I agree with the sentiment that jumping on a guy for his rankings is stupid. The fact someone puts their stuff out their should be commended, not ripped apart. And there is a huge difference between discussing someone's rankings ("Why do you have so and so ranked #x? Did you know such and such about him? What is your take on this or that situation affecting the payer?") versus attacking someone for their rankings ("You're an idiot if you don't think player Z is going to be a stud - for no other reason than I think he will be." Or "Player B sucks because I have no clue how they measure vertical leap, and I think player B's vert was the only one done wrong"). The attacking comments add nothing to these boards, and unfortunately, even if the poster has something valuable in his argument, it's generally overlooked due to the attacking, toolish tone.On the other hand, I know I myself learn a TON from the wealth of information added to this board when people post their pre-draft rankings. I don't think you can dwell on them too much. I just think the way some people respond could be improved dramatically.Ro3384 said:
In reality, the draft is more hits than misses. And so a good analysis is going to elicit good results. Yes, there are some misses, but really - Leaf? Everyone knew he was a headcase, they ranked him wrongly due to the combine. Bennett, Williamson - both were said to be very raw prospects, and were rated highly in FF due to where they were drafted, not due to NFL readiness. Point is, the rankings BEFORE the combine would have helped people draft better, if they weren't overshadowed by post-draft rankings.Ro3384 said:
Eh... for some people FF is really just a source of fun. And people take even games at all different levels of seriousness. While you may think it's a waste of time, because it's only a game, others may view it as "just a game" but still take it very seriously. No one is right, no one is wrong - unless we criticize people simply for not seeing things our way. Then we all end up acting like Maroney=Speed, but about different topics.Ro3384 said:
I think both pre and post are going to carry some weight, however, i think the most important aspect is sticking to your own guns. Look at chris henry, brandon Jackson, etc.....everyone bought into the hype last year, let your leaguemates do the same.
If a GM like Polian or AJ Smith drafts a skilled guy, I am paying attention....those two have hit on more(LT/edge, turner, addai) than they have missed.
The NFL is a copycat league, us FF geeks can do the same
If a GM like Polian or AJ Smith drafts a skilled guy, I am paying attention....those two have hit on more(LT/edge, turner, addai) than they have missed.
The NFL is a copycat league, us FF geeks can do the same
Interseptopus
Footballguy
up to this point. And Rodgers is an excellent example of where post-draft rankings will drastically change for a player (from an FF perspective)
Well, I agree with the sentiment that jumping on a guy for his rankings is stupid. The fact someone puts their stuff out their should be commended, not ripped apart. And there is a huge difference between discussing someone's rankings ("Why do you have so and so ranked #x? Did you know such and such about him? What is your take on this or that situation affecting the payer?") versus attacking someone for their rankings ("You're an idiot if you don't think player Z is going to be a stud - for no other reason than I think he will be." Or "Player B sucks because I have no clue how they measure vertical leap, and I think player B's vert was the only one done wrong"). The attacking comments add nothing to these boards, and unfortunately, even if the poster has something valuable in his argument, it's generally overlooked due to the attacking, toolish tone.On the other hand, I know I myself learn a TON from the wealth of information added to this board when people post their pre-draft rankings. I don't think you can dwell on them too much. I just think the way some people respond could be improved dramatically.Ro3384 said:In reality, the draft is more hits than misses. And so a good analysis is going to elicit good results. Yes, there are some misses, but really - Leaf? Everyone knew he was a headcase, they ranked him wrongly due to the combine. Bennett, Williamson - both were said to be very raw prospects, and were rated highly in FF due to where they were drafted, not due to NFL readiness. Point is, the rankings BEFORE the combine would have helped people draft better, if they weren't overshadowed by post-draft rankings.Ro3384 said:Eh... for some people FF is really just a source of fun. And people take even games at all different levels of seriousness. While you may think it's a waste of time, because it's only a game, others may view it as "just a game" but still take it very seriously. No one is right, no one is wrong - unless we criticize people simply for not seeing things our way. Then we all end up acting like Maroney=Speed, but about different topics.Ro3384 said:
I agree
