Yudkin's 400 touches article (1 Viewer)

[Tiger Fan]

Link

What scoring system did you use?

 

[Bri]

it's doug like and I mean that as a high compliment

 

[David Yudkin]

There's been a lot of talk about what it all means and what conclusions to draw from it. (I see Doug lurking, maybe he can shed some light.)

When comparing 400+ touch backs to not 400 touch backs that ranked Top 5, there was not a great difference on average in the following year's results. BOTH sets fell a fair amount (both were in the RB14 to RB16 range)

Part of the problem is guys in either data set got injured the following year, so the question becomes what to do with those guys. Was an intense workload part of the issue or not?

Chase and I are looking into other data to see if there is a way to better analyze the results.

If we uncover more info, we'll pass it along.

For more input, see a THREAD I started on the article and another one DEBUNKING it.

 

[John Mamula]

Another =thumbup for Yudkin.

 

[Cajun Cannon]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

That would be a great thing to look into.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

We'll help you out CC.What sort of stuff would you want to look for?

 

[David Yudkin]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

That would be a great thing to look into.

If you guys could develop a crystal ball on who can stay healty enough to GET 400 touches, I'll forward you my address.As I have been harping on again and again all offseason, the best way to predict which RB will be in line for the greatest production.

- Immacualte health

- Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

I noticed in the latest ADPs is that Reggie Bush is going as RB20 and Deuce McAllister at RB26. But Tatum Bell is going as RB25 with Ron Dayne at RB36.

Let's compare:

Denver RB 2005: 2,745 total yards/28 total TD = 442.5 fantasy points

New Orleans RB 2005: 1,894 total yards/6 total TD = 225.4 fantasy points

The Saints have a RB coming back from major knee surgery and a rookie playing for a new coach in a new system with a new QB. The Broncos have pretty much everything the same as last year (with Dayne taking over for Anderson).

I surveyed 100 monkeys, and 8 out of 10 agreed that this makes NO SENSE. Not even a little bit.

Bsically the two higher rated RB are starting with HALF the fantasy production to fight over in a MUCH WORSE situation.

 

[John Mamula]

ADP doesn't take into account team production. It takes into account people's perception on individual players' abilities and many people obviously have different perceptions.

Given the hype around Bush and McAllister's former top 10 status, it makes sense that each on their own would go approximately as high or higher than Bell who has never carried a full load or Dayne who has never done anything.

There is more uncertainty around Dayne and Bell so individually each are ranked lower. It does make sense. It's not a ranking. If it was someone's ranking, yes that would not make sense.

Fantasy player A thinks Bush is the best thing since sliced bread. He drafts him RB20.

Fantasy player B doesn't think that Bush will take the majority of the rushing yards and drafts McAllister RB26.

Likewise, given the uncertainty of another RB being traded into Denver in addition to both Bell and Dayne never having produced at a top level, they both have more perceived risk and are correspondingly drafted lower.

ADP <> rankings which is the beauty of the draft. A lot of arbitrage opportunities.

 

[David Yudkin]

ADP doesn't take into account team production. It takes into account people's perception on individual players' abilities and many people obviously have different perceptions.

Given the hype around Bush and McAllister's former top 10 status, it makes sense that each on their own would go approximately as high or higher than Bell who has never carried a full load or Dayne who has never done anything.

There is more uncertainty around Dayne and Bell so individually each are ranked lower. It does make sense. It's not a ranking. If it was someone's ranking, yes that would not make sense.

Fantasy player A thinks Bush is the best thing since sliced bread. He drafts him RB20.

Fantasy player B doesn't think that Bush will take the majority of the rushing yards and drafts McAllister RB26.

Likewise, given the uncertainty of another RB being traded into Denver in addition to both Bell and Dayne never having produced at a top level, they both have more perceived risk and are correspondingly drafted lower.

ADP <> rankings which is the beauty of the draft. A lot of arbitrage opportunities.

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator. Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ADP doesn't take into account team production. It takes into account people's perception on individual players' abilities and many people obviously have different perceptions.

Given the hype around Bush and McAllister's former top 10 status, it makes sense that each on their own would go approximately as high or higher than Bell who has never carried a full load or Dayne who has never done anything.

There is more uncertainty around Dayne and Bell so individually each are ranked lower. It does make sense. It's not a ranking. If it was someone's ranking, yes that would not make sense.

Fantasy player A thinks Bush is the best thing since sliced bread. He drafts him RB20.

Fantasy player B doesn't think that Bush will take the majority of the rushing yards and drafts McAllister RB26.

Likewise, given the uncertainty of another RB being traded into Denver in addition to both Bell and Dayne never having produced at a top level, they both have more perceived risk and are correspondingly drafted lower.

ADP <> rankings which is the beauty of the draft. A lot of arbitrage opportunities.

I never thought about it like that.

 

[John Mamula]

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator. Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

Maybe there is a staff meeting you can bring this up at.

 

[Bri]

If you guys could develop a crystal ball on who can stay healty enough to GET 400 touches, I'll forward you my address.

18 carry games are a measuring stick I've used for years. I'd imagine the guys with the top # of 18 carry games year in/year out are on your list of 400.I know Curtis, Shaun, Edge, Dillon, Tiki, Emmitt, Jamal were often on those lists

 

[John Mamula]

Also, I am sure that there are a lot of receptions / receiving yards that staff projections have going from Saints TEs / WRs to Bush. That is the difficult aspect of projections for a new situation. How much production shifts from year to year both within and between positions on a team, and if team production as a whole increases, decreases, or stays the same.

Given all 4 of these guys' ADPs, I doubt I will have any of them on my teams. There are better alternatives out there for my draft value in the 3rd round.

 

[David Yudkin]

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator.  Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

Maybe there is a staff meeting you can bring this up at.

I SUSPECT that come September things will be less cloudy and situations throughout the league will be more settled. I hope at that time these rankings will adapt to current market conditions (whatever they turn out to be). IMO, whoever the guys(s) are in Denver will have more value than the guy(s) in N.O. unless there are injuries that come into play and say Bush becomes the sole heir to the #1 job in New Orleans.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Also, I am sure that there are a lot of receptions / receiving yards that staff projections have going from Saints TEs / WRs to Bush. That is the difficult aspect of projections for a new situation. How much production shifts from year to year both within and between positions on a team, and if team production as a whole increases, decreases, or stays the same.

Given all 4 of these guys' ADPs, I doubt I will have any of them on my teams. There are better alternatives out there for my draft value in the 3rd round.

These things are always hard to project. I remember being down on Shockey his rookie year because Giants tight ends totalled 164 receiving yards the previous year. You knew that number would rise, but it ballooned to 1094 in 2002.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

That would be a great thing to look into.

If you guys could develop a crystal ball on who can stay healty enough to GET 400 touches, I'll forward you my address.As I have been harping on again and again all offseason, the best way to predict which RB will be in line for the greatest production.

- Immacualte health

- Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

I noticed in the latest ADPs is that Reggie Bush is going as RB20 and Deuce McAllister at RB26. But Tatum Bell is going as RB25 with Ron Dayne at RB36.

Let's compare:

Denver RB 2005: 2,745 total yards/28 total TD = 442.5 fantasy points

New Orleans RB 2005: 1,894 total yards/6 total TD = 225.4 fantasy points

The Saints have a RB coming back from major knee surgery and a rookie playing for a new coach in a new system with a new QB. The Broncos have pretty much everything the same as last year (with Dayne taking over for Anderson).

I surveyed 100 monkeys, and 8 out of 10 agreed that this makes NO SENSE. Not even a little bit.

Bsically the two higher rated RB are starting with HALF the fantasy production to fight over in a MUCH WORSE situation.

I would concentrate on predicting that without injuries affecting it. As you point out, you really can't take injury status into account without having a crystal ball. So what about the other situations? - Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

Looking at those independant of injuries is the way to go. I would add:

- established coach and offensive system

How often is a 400 carry RB from a team in transition, with new coach, offensive coordinator or rookie RB?

 

[David Yudkin]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

That would be a great thing to look into.

If you guys could develop a crystal ball on who can stay healty enough to GET 400 touches, I'll forward you my address.As I have been harping on again and again all offseason, the best way to predict which RB will be in line for the greatest production.

- Immacualte health

- Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

I noticed in the latest ADPs is that Reggie Bush is going as RB20 and Deuce McAllister at RB26. But Tatum Bell is going as RB25 with Ron Dayne at RB36.

Let's compare:

Denver RB 2005: 2,745 total yards/28 total TD = 442.5 fantasy points

New Orleans RB 2005: 1,894 total yards/6 total TD = 225.4 fantasy points

The Saints have a RB coming back from major knee surgery and a rookie playing for a new coach in a new system with a new QB. The Broncos have pretty much everything the same as last year (with Dayne taking over for Anderson).

I surveyed 100 monkeys, and 8 out of 10 agreed that this makes NO SENSE. Not even a little bit.

Bsically the two higher rated RB are starting with HALF the fantasy production to fight over in a MUCH WORSE situation.

I would concentrate on predicting that without injuries affecting it. As you point out, you really can't take injury status into account without having a crystal ball. So what about the other situations? - Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

Looking at those independant of injuries is the way to go. I would add:

- established coach and offensive system

How often is a 400 carry RB from a team in transition, with new coach, offensive coordinator or rookie RB?

I kinda did this analysis in a Top 5 RB article I wrote in the 2004 season. I believe I reverse engineered the analysis to look at the year BEFORE they were Top 5 RB.LINK

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator.  Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

Maybe there is a staff meeting you can bring this up at.

I SUSPECT that come September things will be less cloudy and situations throughout the league will be more settled. I hope at that time these rankings will adapt to current market conditions (whatever they turn out to be). IMO, whoever the guys(s) are in Denver will have more value than the guy(s) in N.O. unless there are injuries that come into play and say Bush becomes the sole heir to the #1 job in New Orleans.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

 

[David Yudkin]

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator.  Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

Maybe there is a staff meeting you can bring this up at.

I SUSPECT that come September things will be less cloudy and situations throughout the league will be more settled. I hope at that time these rankings will adapt to current market conditions (whatever they turn out to be). IMO, whoever the guys(s) are in Denver will have more value than the guy(s) in N.O. unless there are injuries that come into play and say Bush becomes the sole heir to the #1 job in New Orleans.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

That's what I was alluding to--that come 9/1 we should have a better idea of what's going on.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

That would be a great thing to look into.

If you guys could develop a crystal ball on who can stay healty enough to GET 400 touches, I'll forward you my address.As I have been harping on again and again all offseason, the best way to predict which RB will be in line for the greatest production.

- Immacualte health

- Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

I noticed in the latest ADPs is that Reggie Bush is going as RB20 and Deuce McAllister at RB26. But Tatum Bell is going as RB25 with Ron Dayne at RB36.

Let's compare:

Denver RB 2005: 2,745 total yards/28 total TD = 442.5 fantasy points

New Orleans RB 2005: 1,894 total yards/6 total TD = 225.4 fantasy points

The Saints have a RB coming back from major knee surgery and a rookie playing for a new coach in a new system with a new QB. The Broncos have pretty much everything the same as last year (with Dayne taking over for Anderson).

I surveyed 100 monkeys, and 8 out of 10 agreed that this makes NO SENSE. Not even a little bit.

Bsically the two higher rated RB are starting with HALF the fantasy production to fight over in a MUCH WORSE situation.

I would concentrate on predicting that without injuries affecting it. As you point out, you really can't take injury status into account without having a crystal ball. So what about the other situations? - Doesn't have to fight others for carries OR Plays on a team that utilizes RB A TON

- Plays in a system that supports huge RB production

- Gets lots of goal line love

- Hopefully chips in receiving

Looking at those independant of injuries is the way to go. I would add:

- established coach and offensive system

How often is a 400 carry RB from a team in transition, with new coach, offensive coordinator or rookie RB?

I kinda did this analysis in a Top 5 RB article I wrote in the 2004 season. I believe I reverse engineered the analysis to look at the year BEFORE they were Top 5 RB.LINK

I had forgotten about that article, frankly. Good stuff. Hey, maybe you can adjust it for 2006 and submit it as a freelance?

 

[SSOG]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

The link:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...4900&hl=touches

The quote:

I'm also planning on doing some more analysis later this offseason looking at numbers from year N-1 to see if there are any sort of trends to help identify the next 350+ carry RBs.

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator. Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

I've been harping that point all offseason. Even if an RB gets a mere 40% of the Denver pie, that RB is still starter-caliber.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

Nope. Only once in the Shanahan era has one RB overtaken another in the middle of the season for any reason other than injury. In 2004, Reuben Droughns overtook Quentin Griffin for the starting job based on performance alone. For that to happen, Griffin had to put up 3 straight HORRIBLE games (not bad games, but HORRIBLE games)... and remember, too, that Griffin wasn't even the annointed starter- he had the job handed to him by an injury to Anderson.In 1999, Gary got the job because Davis got injured. In 2000, Anderson got the job because Davis and Gary got injured. In 2001, Anderson had the job when Davis was injured and Davis had the job when he was healthy. In 2002, Shanahan said that he was opening with a committee until one back established himself. That back wound up being Portis. In 2004, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell were all injured in training camps, giving Griffin the job, with Droughns winning it shortly thereafter. In 2005, it was Anderson all the way.

Basically, unless they get injured, the guys getting the ball in Denver are never unexpected.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

The link:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...4900&hl=touches

The quote:

I'm also planning on doing some more analysis later this offseason looking at numbers from year N-1 to see if there are any sort of trends to help identify the next 350+ carry RBs.

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator. Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

I've been harping that point all offseason. Even if an RB gets a mere 40% of the Denver pie, that RB is still starter-caliber.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

Nope. Only once in the Shanahan era has one RB overtaken another in the middle of the season for any reason other than injury. In 2004, Reuben Droughns overtook Quentin Griffin for the starting job based on performance alone. For that to happen, Griffin had to put up 3 straight HORRIBLE games (not bad games, but HORRIBLE games)... and remember, too, that Griffin wasn't even the annointed starter- he had the job handed to him by an injury to Anderson.In 1999, Gary got the job because Davis got injured. In 2000, Anderson got the job because Davis and Gary got injured. In 2001, Anderson had the job when Davis was injured and Davis had the job when he was healthy. In 2002, Shanahan said that he was opening with a committee until one back established himself. That back wound up being Portis. In 2004, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell were all injured in training camps, giving Griffin the job, with Droughns winning it shortly thereafter. In 2005, it was Anderson all the way.

Basically, unless they get injured, the guys getting the ball in Denver are never unexpected.

I disagree with this statement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but in mid to late August of 2004. a large majority of fantasy football fans expected Griffin to be the DEN RB. No expected Droughns to do anything. He went undrafted in almost every league.

 

[David Yudkin]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

The link:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...4900&hl=touches

The quote:

I'm also planning on doing some more analysis later this offseason looking at numbers from year N-1 to see if there are any sort of trends to help identify the next 350+ carry RBs.

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator.  Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

I've been harping that point all offseason. Even if an RB gets a mere 40% of the Denver pie, that RB is still starter-caliber.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

Nope. Only once in the Shanahan era has one RB overtaken another in the middle of the season for any reason other than injury. In 2004, Reuben Droughns overtook Quentin Griffin for the starting job based on performance alone. For that to happen, Griffin had to put up 3 straight HORRIBLE games (not bad games, but HORRIBLE games)... and remember, too, that Griffin wasn't even the annointed starter- he had the job handed to him by an injury to Anderson.In 1999, Gary got the job because Davis got injured. In 2000, Anderson got the job because Davis and Gary got injured. In 2001, Anderson had the job when Davis was injured and Davis had the job when he was healthy. In 2002, Shanahan said that he was opening with a committee until one back established himself. That back wound up being Portis. In 2004, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell were all injured in training camps, giving Griffin the job, with Droughns winning it shortly thereafter. In 2005, it was Anderson all the way.

Basically, unless they get injured, the guys getting the ball in Denver are never unexpected.

I disagree with this statement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but in mid to late August of 2004. a large majority of fantasy football fans expected Griffin to be the DEN RB. No expected Droughns to do anything. He went undrafted in almost every league.

As I read it, I believe the Griffin/Droughns situation was cited as the only time something changed without an injury involved and made due to poor performance.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Nope. Only once in the Shanahan era has one RB overtaken another in the middle of the season for any reason other than injury. In 2004, Reuben Droughns overtook Quentin Griffin for the starting job based on performance alone. For that to happen, Griffin had to put up 3 straight HORRIBLE games (not bad games, but HORRIBLE games)... and remember, too, that Griffin wasn't even the annointed starter- he had the job handed to him by an injury to Anderson.In 1999, Gary got the job because Davis got injured. In 2000, Anderson got the job because Davis and Gary got injured. In 2001, Anderson had the job when Davis was injured and Davis had the job when he was healthy. In 2002, Shanahan said that he was opening with a committee until one back established himself. That back wound up being Portis. In 2004, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell were all injured in training camps, giving Griffin the job, with Droughns winning it shortly thereafter. In 2005, it was Anderson all the way.Basically, unless they get injured, the guys getting the ball in Denver are never unexpected.

when players take over due to injuries, it is unexpected to nearly every person drafting and ranking players during the offseason. unless you are expecting the Broncos starting RB to get injured every year.

 

[Bri]

when players take over due to injuries, it is unexpected to nearly every person drafting and ranking players during the offseason. unless you are expecting the Broncos starting RB to get injured every year.

I'm torn here. What you're saying is true but then again it's like Freddy T of years ago in that you just knew he'd get hurt. Denver RBs got hurt with such regularity it became a good drafting move to take their backups, remember?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

The link:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...4900&hl=touches

The quote:

I'm also planning on doing some more analysis later this offseason looking at numbers from year N-1 to see if there are any sort of trends to help identify the next 350+ carry RBs.

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator. Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

I've been harping that point all offseason. Even if an RB gets a mere 40% of the Denver pie, that RB is still starter-caliber.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

Nope. Only once in the Shanahan era has one RB overtaken another in the middle of the season for any reason other than injury. In 2004, Reuben Droughns overtook Quentin Griffin for the starting job based on performance alone. For that to happen, Griffin had to put up 3 straight HORRIBLE games (not bad games, but HORRIBLE games)... and remember, too, that Griffin wasn't even the annointed starter- he had the job handed to him by an injury to Anderson.In 1999, Gary got the job because Davis got injured. In 2000, Anderson got the job because Davis and Gary got injured. In 2001, Anderson had the job when Davis was injured and Davis had the job when he was healthy. In 2002, Shanahan said that he was opening with a committee until one back established himself. That back wound up being Portis. In 2004, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell were all injured in training camps, giving Griffin the job, with Droughns winning it shortly thereafter. In 2005, it was Anderson all the way.

Basically, unless they get injured, the guys getting the ball in Denver are never unexpected.

I disagree with this statement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but in mid to late August of 2004. a large majority of fantasy football fans expected Griffin to be the DEN RB. No expected Droughns to do anything. He went undrafted in almost every league.

As I read it, I believe the Griffin/Droughns situation was cited as the only time something changed without an injury involved and made due to poor performance.

Ahh..OK. I thought he was saying it never happened. Thanks.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

when players take over due to injuries, it is unexpected to nearly every person drafting and ranking players during the offseason. unless you are expecting the Broncos starting RB to get injured every year.

I'm torn here. What you're saying is true but then again it's like Freddy T of years ago in that you just knew he'd get hurt. Denver RBs got hurt with such regularity it became a good drafting move to take their backups, remember?

I'm just saying there's a good chance that Bell and Dayne won't be the only 2 RBs in Denver this year...so ranking them both higher than Bush and Deuce simply b/c the Broncos running game will produce more than the Saints running game might not be the safest thing to do. The Broncos running game could wind up outproducing the Saints running game this year, but Bush and Deuce could still wind up outperforming Bell & Dayne.I don't think SSOG really addressed the main point of my comment, which was refuting Yudkin's comment about the relative rankings of Bush, Deuce, Bell, and Dayne.

Bell and Dayne certainly have upside based on their situation, but since I have a very low opinion of their talent level and ability, it is hard for me to rank them higher than two backs who I think are much more talented even if they are in a worse situation.

 

[David Yudkin]

when players take over due to injuries, it is unexpected to nearly every person drafting and ranking players during the offseason. unless you are expecting the Broncos starting RB to get injured every year.

I'm torn here. What you're saying is true but then again it's like Freddy T of years ago in that you just knew he'd get hurt. Denver RBs got hurt with such regularity it became a good drafting move to take their backups, remember?

I'm just saying there's a good chance that Bell and Dayne won't be the only 2 RBs in Denver this year...so ranking them both higher than Bush and Deuce simply b/c the Broncos running game will produce more than the Saints running game might not be the safest thing to do. The Broncos running game could wind up outproducing the Saints running game this year, but Bush and Deuce could still wind up outperforming Bell & Dayne.I don't think SSOG really addressed the main point of my comment, which was refuting Yudkin's comment about the relative rankings of Bush, Deuce, Bell, and Dayne.

Bell and Dayne certainly have upside based on their situation, but since I have a very low opinion of their talent level and ability, it is hard for me to rank them higher than two backs who I think are much more talented even if they are in a worse situation.

I have often looked at how and why players did as well as they have done, and IMO Deuce McAllister did well in the past based mostly on the fact that there was practically no one else on the roster to help give him a blow.For starters, I will say that predicting what will happen in New Orleans with a new coach, adding a new banged up QB, recovering from the post-hurricane issues, drafting the greatest supposed can't miss RB in history, and factoring a return of Deuce post ACL is a daunting and almost impossible task.

But consider this. When McAllister ranked as the RB6 and RB7 in 2002 and 2003, he did so grabbing 89% and 91% of the RB touches in New Orleans. Needless to say, that is AN INSANE percentage. In those years, the team ranked 20th and 15th in rushing attempts. Unless the Saints start adding A TON to their RB workload and subsequent production, Deuce will be handing his production on a silver platter right to Bush. Maybe the Saints give the ball a lot more to RB than they did in the past, and perhaps they do a lot more with it than in the past . . .

I have outlined in many, many articles and posts just how much a RB machine Denver truly is. I hate roling out the stat book, but here are the year by year breakdowns of the Denver backfield since Shannahan took over:

2005: 2745 total yards/28 total TD

2004: 2595/17

2003: 2783/21

2002: 2810/26

2001: 2367/21

2000: 2143/12

1999: 2585/29

1998: 2590/18

1997: 2687/18

1996: 2350/15

That's an average of 2566/20.5 per season.

As I said, I don't know what to expect from New Orleans RBs this year. But they have a lot going against them (for starters) as outlined above. But they are starting with a baseline of 1894/6, and IMO they have TWO mountains to climb to get anywhere near what the Denver RB corps will do this year, NO MATTER WHO THEY TROT OUT TO CARRY THE BALL.

All I'm saying is that by 9/1 we should have a much better idea what the plan in Denver is, and by then one would hope that (most likely) the Dayne/Bell pairing will outrank the Bush/McAllister pairing in preseason rankings provided the Broncos don't get themselves another RB by then. But something tells me that the rankings will not change all that much, and if so that would be a grave misreading of the tea leaves.

 

[Capt Hook]

I agree with David's last post

Just though I would add some numbers from a 12 team, ppr league draft that is in progress now.

Here is the order in which they were drafted

3-7 Bell

3-10 Bush

5-9 Deuce

5-12 Dayne

Dead even in the combined draft value of the two pairs

 

[SSOG]

I disagree with this statement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but in mid to late August of 2004. a large majority of fantasy football fans expected Griffin to be the DEN RB. No expected Droughns to do anything. He went undrafted in almost every league.

Yup. That's the one instance in the past 11 years of the starting RB losing his job for any reason other than injury. Not a very bad track record, all things considered.

when players take over due to injuries, it is unexpected to nearly every person drafting and ranking players during the offseason. unless you are expecting the Broncos starting RB to get injured every year.

That's true... but that's no reason to expect the unexpected out of Denver. Just because Denver RBs have gotten injured in the past does not, in my mind, mean they are any more statistically likely to get injured again at a higher rate than league average in the future.The fact that an unexpected RB has come to the fore for Denver is pretty irrelevant, in my mind- just like the fact that nobody expected Gado to lead the Packers last year, or Goings to lead Carolina the year before. Unless you have reason to believe that something about Denver makes RBs statistically significantly more likely to sustain an injury, the fact that an unexpected back frequently leads Denver in rushing is simply a historical oddity rather than an observation with any value.

If you DO believe that Denver RBs are statistically more likely to be injured than other teams' RBs, then I would disagree with that assessment. No Denver RBs sustained a significant injury last season. Four RBs sustained an injury in 2004, but not a single one of them occurred on an offensive snap (Anderson/Griffin/Bell were all ST injuries, Hearst was just dinged up his entire stint). No RB suffered a significant injury (defined as more than 2 missed games) in 2003 or 2002. In fact, the last Denver RB to suffer a significant injury as a direct result of running the ball in Denver was Terrell Davis back in 1999.

when players take over due to injuries, it is unexpected to nearly every person drafting and ranking players during the offseason. unless you are expecting the Broncos starting RB to get injured every year.

I'm torn here. What you're saying is true but then again it's like Freddy T of years ago in that you just knew he'd get hurt. Denver RBs got hurt with such regularity it became a good drafting move to take their backups, remember?

And remember what then happened with Taylor? He started 46 consecutive games.Some players are certainly more likely to sustain an injury than others (for example, there's Wesley Duke, who has torn the ACL in his left knee three times for certain, and possibly a fourth). That said, we aren't talking about a single player... we're talking about any RB being more likely to be injured just because he has a picture of a horse on his helmet.

I'm just saying there's a good chance that Bell and Dayne won't be the only 2 RBs in Denver this year...so ranking them both higher than Bush and Deuce simply b/c the Broncos running game will produce more than the Saints running game might not be the safest thing to do. The Broncos running game could wind up outproducing the Saints running game this year, but Bush and Deuce could still wind up outperforming Bell & Dayne.

I don't think SSOG really addressed the main point of my comment, which was refuting Yudkin's comment about the relative rankings of Bush, Deuce, Bell, and Dayne.

Bell and Dayne certainly have upside based on their situation, but since I have a very low opinion of their talent level and ability, it is hard for me to rank them higher than two backs who I think are much more talented even if they are in a worse situation.

I just have two words to say to that. Derrick Blaylock. I don't have a very high opinion of Blaylock's ability, but he was a bona-fide stud when he was getting carries in Kansas City. Of course, there's also Olandis Gary, too. He couldn't even make the roster in Detroit, yet he still rushed for 100 yards a game in Denver.I have a hard time seeing both Bush and Deuce outranking Dayne and Bell this season. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible, but let's just say that I feel like it's as close to impossible as is possible to be, assuming all 4 stay healthy. I could see RB#1 in NO outranking RB#1 in Denver if he manages to get 70+% of the touches... but no way both RBs outrank both Denver RBs... or even come close.

All I'm saying is that by 9/1 we should have a much better idea what the plan in Denver is, and by then one would hope that (most likely) the Dayne/Bell pairing will outrank the Bush/McAllister pairing in preseason rankings provided the Broncos don't get themselves another RB by then. But something tells me that the rankings will not change all that much, and if so that would be a grave misreading of the tea leaves.

Good posting on McAllister's workload. I drafted him at #4 or #5 overall two years ago because of those numbers. He got a higher percentage of his team's touches than any other back in the league, even Tomlinson. He also got a higher percentage of touches while his team was trailing than any other RB, which demonstrated he'd still have a lot of value even if the Saints sucked. He was really getting an ABSURD workload.Also, I am constantly mystified by this lack of faith in Denver's running game. Even assuming they replicate their worst season of the past decade (2143/12), and Dayne and Bell only get 35% each (854/5), they'd still both finish as top-30 RBs and outperform their combined ADP. And that's predicting that Denver will go from its best rushing season of the decade straight to its worst rushing season of the decade.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

SSOG, where do you rank the following players for this upcoming season?

Tatum Bell

Ron Dayne

Reggie Bush

Deuce McAllister

 

[Bri]

SSOG,

I'm not quoting your mile long post. It's wrong all over the place. Have a nice night

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, where do you rank the following players for this upcoming season?

Tatum Bell

Ron Dayne

Reggie Bush

Deuce McAllister

I haven't done any hard rankings yet, I've just taken last year's offensive numbers, vaguely adjusted them upwards and downwards according to what I think will happen this upcoming season, and then divided them out in portions based on what I anticipate the split will be.I've currently got Dayne down for 210 points and Bell for 130. I haven't done any research at all into New Orleans' situation, so I haven't figured how I'm going to project the points to break down yet, but I have the total New Orleans pie projected out to 280 points, so the #1 back would need to get 75% of the total points in order to outrank Ron Dayne, and the #2 back would need to get 46.4% of the total points to outrank Bell. I don't see either as particularly likely.

It should be noted that the entire New Orleans RB corps COMBINED scored 225.4 points last season, 248.3 points the season before that, 290.3 points the season before that (in McAllister's 2000+ total yard season), and 293.4 the season before that (in McAllister's 16 TD season). Even if they replicate their single best season of this decade and split the points 50/50 without any other backs taking any points, Bush/McAllister would still score fewer points this season than Tatum Bell did last season.

SSOG,

I'm not quoting your mile long post. It's wrong all over the place. Have a nice night

Thank you, and I will. You do the same.

 

[Joe T]

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator.  Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

Maybe there is a staff meeting you can bring this up at.

I SUSPECT that come September things will be less cloudy and situations throughout the league will be more settled. I hope at that time these rankings will adapt to current market conditions (whatever they turn out to be). IMO, whoever the guys(s) are in Denver will have more value than the guy(s) in N.O. unless there are injuries that come into play and say Bush becomes the sole heir to the #1 job in New Orleans.

We have this debate every year.... and certainly had it last year when Tatum Bell was so over rated. It's nearly impossible to predict who will be the man in Denver even right up to game time the first week of the season.Last year Bell was going late second round.... was he worth it?

This year third round? I doubt he will be worth that either.

Until they have another Portis or a guy going in as a clear #1 its a crap shoot in Denver and not worth risking a second or third round pick on.

Yes, if you could draft "Denver RB" then the value is much higher... unfortunately in most leagues this is impossible.

 

[Joe T]

Has anyone analyzed Year N-1?

At the end of the article, it seems that DY offers a set up for a regression analysis to weed out correlating factors and try to find a solid causation for predicting N+1 performance.

However, has anyone tried any sort of analysis in year N-1 to "predict" a forthcoming 400+ touch season?

IMHO, I'd rather pick the upcoming 400 touch RB than avoid the drop off to 300 touch RB.

The link:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...4900&hl=touches

The quote:

I'm also planning on doing some more analysis later this offseason looking at numbers from year N-1 to see if there are any sort of trends to help identify the next 350+ carry RBs.

Maybe using ADP was the wrong indicator.  Maybe my brethren staff has a better idea of reality:

FBG Projections:

Reggie 23, Deuce 29

Dayne 22, Bell 24

FBG Staff Rankings:

Reggie 23, Deuce 24

Bell 26, Dayne 32

Or maybe not.

I understand WHY people draft/rank/project these guys the way they do, but IMO they don't look at the BIG PICTURE.

I've been harping that point all offseason. Even if an RB gets a mere 40% of the Denver pie, that RB is still starter-caliber.

what if Cedric Cobbs or some other unknown winds up taking a significant piece of the RB pie in Denver? doesn't that happen almost ever year?

Nope. Only once in the Shanahan era has one RB overtaken another in the middle of the season for any reason other than injury. In 2004, Reuben Droughns overtook Quentin Griffin for the starting job based on performance alone. For that to happen, Griffin had to put up 3 straight HORRIBLE games (not bad games, but HORRIBLE games)... and remember, too, that Griffin wasn't even the annointed starter- he had the job handed to him by an injury to Anderson.In 1999, Gary got the job because Davis got injured. In 2000, Anderson got the job because Davis and Gary got injured. In 2001, Anderson had the job when Davis was injured and Davis had the job when he was healthy. In 2002, Shanahan said that he was opening with a committee until one back established himself. That back wound up being Portis. In 2004, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell were all injured in training camps, giving Griffin the job, with Droughns winning it shortly thereafter. In 2005, it was Anderson all the way.

Basically, unless they get injured, the guys getting the ball in Denver are never unexpected.

I disagree with this statement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but in mid to late August of 2004. a large majority of fantasy football fans expected Griffin to be the DEN RB. No expected Droughns to do anything. He went undrafted in almost every league.

As I read it, I believe the Griffin/Droughns situation was cited as the only time something changed without an injury involved and made due to poor performance.

2005 down?

 

[Joe T]

SSOG,

I'm not quoting your mile long post. It's wrong all over the place. Have a nice night

 

[SSOG]

2005 down?

Offseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.Preseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.

2005 season- Mike Anderson is the starter.

End result- Mike Anderson is the #10 fantasy RB in the land.

How is this an example of a season where a player lost his job for any reason other than injury?

 

[Joe T]

2005 down?

Offseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.Preseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.

2005 season- Mike Anderson is the starter.

End result- Mike Anderson is the #10 fantasy RB in the land.

How is this an example of a season where a player lost his job for any reason other than injury?

It's an example of where no one really knew who the starter would be since Bell was going before M.A. in almost every draft I looked at.

 

[SSOG]

2005 down?

Offseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.Preseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.

2005 season- Mike Anderson is the starter.

End result- Mike Anderson is the #10 fantasy RB in the land.

How is this an example of a season where a player lost his job for any reason other than injury?

It's an example of where no one really knew who the starter would be since Bell was going before M.A. in almost every draft I looked at.

That's their fault. If everyone started drafting Cecil Sapp in the first round and Ron Dayne started every game this season, that doesn't mean that the starting order changed... it just means that people drafted the backup before the starter (which I generally consider a "bad move").

 

[Joe T]

2005 down?

Offseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.Preseason- Mike Anderson is the starter.

2005 season- Mike Anderson is the starter.

End result- Mike Anderson is the #10 fantasy RB in the land.

How is this an example of a season where a player lost his job for any reason other than injury?

It's an example of where no one really knew who the starter would be since Bell was going before M.A. in almost every draft I looked at.

Who is currently listed as the starter going into this year?I seriously don't know. I want to know not because I plan on drafting that guy, but I want to track your theory.

 

[SSOG]

Who is currently listed as the starter going into this year?

I seriously don't know. I want to know not because I plan on drafting that guy, but I want to track your theory.

No one. The official depth chart hasn't been updated since last year, and still has Anderson as the #1 guy. That said, Shanny and Sundquist have both said that Dayne will be taking over Anderson's role and Bell will remain a CoP back this season.Edit: Jeff Legwold, the best reporter in Denver, also confirms that Dayne is currently #1.

The Link: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=246203

The Quote:

A1. When it comes to running back take Mike Shanahan at his word. Ron will enter camp as the starter and it will be tough to nudge him out unless he has a bad preseason or the Broncos don't swing a trade for Ashley Lelie that includes a running back.

For what it's worth, as a Denver fan, I firmly believe that nobody is a better source than Legwold. Pony Boy and Lammey, the only other FBGs who I know for sure follow Denver religiously, both agree 100%.