WR1? WR2? RB1? RB2? (1 Viewer)

[dawg eat dawg]

Sometimes in real football the so called experts put too much on the combine numbers and don't just look at how the guy performs when he's on the football field. In that same vein, sometimes I think too much is made of these "1" and "2" and so on labels. I've been successfully playing ff now for several years...and I have to laugh sometimes when people don't just look at the production of a player instead of his label. There's already another thread about Terry Glenn...but he's a great example. People are arguing over whether he's a WR1 or WR2!! Who cares....just shut up and play him! I'd rather have him than Moss, Owens, Chambers, Smith etc. It's not like a guy can't be a fantasy WR1 just because he's considered the #2 option in the real system.

Anyone have any other examples they'd care to share of underrated and underappreciated players...maybe ones considered a "2" or "3" but all they do is come out and outproduce the supposed number 1's??

Just curious is this bothers ANYONE else. Thanks.

 

[jim k]

I agree. "Labelling" is a bad, bad, bad thing. "Labelling" and stereotyping football players as number one, number three, running backs... etc is nearly Orwellian and/or Kafkaesque. Furthermore, there should not be any more "fantasy" drafts because "ranking" players this way is demeaning and "strips" players of their individual self esteem and self worth. Fantasy Football should be replaced with happy fun time hugging hour. The world would be a much better place. I think you are on to something! Hugs around!!!

 

[wraith5]

I agree. "Labelling" is a bad, bad, bad thing. "Labelling" and stereotyping football players as number one, number three, running backs... etc is nearly Orwellian and/or Kafkaesque. Furthermore, there should not be any more "fantasy" drafts because "ranking" players this way is demeaning and "strips" players of their individual self esteem and self worth. Fantasy Football should be replaced with happy fun time hugging hour. The world would be a much better place. I think you are on to something! Hugs around!!!

If I may be so bold as to quote the infamous Andy Dufresne:

Morons. I always forget about the morons.

 

[bigupsetter]

agreed, its nonsensical. because how many of us have with #2 guys like wayne, holt (now bruce), etc. talent is talent, i'd love to have a lot #2 instead of troy 'brick hands' williamson #1 guy who gets tons of targets and cant hold onto the rock.

 

[AB in DC]

Sometimes in real football the so called experts put too much on the combine numbers and don't just look at how the guy performs when he's on the football field. In that same vein, sometimes I think too much is made of these "1" and "2" and so on labels. I've been successfully playing ff now for several years...and I have to laugh sometimes when people don't just look at the production of a player instead of his label.

The problem with looking at past production is that it begs the real question: whether he'll see the same amount of targets/touches going forward.If a "WR2" is doing well on a team with a clear WR1, you need to determine if he just got lucky with limited opportunities, or whether he'll have just as much opportunity in the future. There are no obvious answers unless you look at them case-by-case.

 

[jonessed]

It's just a way to characterize targets/touches which is an important part of determining FF value. Makes sense to me