Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The last Mike Anderson thread of the season... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SSOG
- Start date
That's almost quote worthy.
atsselfonback: smileyora :tootsownhorn: smiley
SSOG
Moderator
Well, if you've never once in your life had an "I told you so" moment, then you're a bigger man (or woman?) than I am, and I have no qualms with admitting that.
It was 60/40 when no one had played a single snap of preseason football. It was 80/20 as soon as Shanny confirmed that Anderson was the starter by starting him in the preseason. I could have come out with a stronger number than that to begin the offseason, but that would simply be misleading. I'm not a psychic, and I certainly didn't want to misrepresent my prediction as anything other than "I'm pretty sure that Anderson's going to win the job, and will be almost certain if he keeps this up".And with all due respect to your 50/50 comparison... 95% of the football world at the time thought it was a 90/10 chance that Bell won the job. I was saying a 16th rounder had a better chance of winning the job than a 2nd rounder. Tatum Bell was on the cover of a fantasy magazine. Mike Anderson was frequently the fourth Denver RB drafted, or even undrafted entirely. That's a pretty bold statement no matter WHAT percentages I gave. This isn't like a coinflip where it's a 50/50 shot. If it were a 50/50 shot, everyone would be drafting Bell and Anderson in the same round. It's like I picked up a 10 sided die and said "I'm 60% sure that I'm going to roll a 1".
Allow me to re-emphasize- at the time I made the prediction, it WASN'T a two-horse race. Dayne, Clarett, and Griffin were all still in the mix. I looked up on Antsports.com to see what the ADP was of the 5 Denver RBs in mid-August.
Bell - 28th overall.
Anderson - 161th overall.
Clarett - 172th overall.
Griffin - 228th overall.
So in other words, I was saying that a guy drafted 161 overall was an odds-on favorite to be a top-10 performer at his position? And you're saying that wasn't a strong statement?
Everyone told me all season that they'd be making a thread to remind me at the end of the year when I was wrong. So I responded all season that I'd be making a thread to remind them if I wasn't.
I thought you were done with the thread. Hopefully you actually READ the thread, because I went through a lot of trouble to dignify you with a response.
Here's the problem with those statistics- first, as far as I know, all of those guys were the primary ballcarrier on their teams the season they accomplished the feat. Second, here is the ypc breakdown for Bell this season:Carries 1-5: 65/369/2, 5.7 per.
Carries 6-10: 53/399/2, 7.5 per.
Carries 11-15: 34/92/1, 2.7 per.
Carries 16-20: 4/9/0, 2.3 per.
Those aren't the sort of stats that inspire confidence in a player as your primary ballcarrier.
CalBear
Footballguy
The flaw in SSOG's argument is pretty simple; his definition of "stud" is wrong. The other two RBs ahead of Anderson are Jordan and Portis; the two RBs behind are Stephen Jackson and Thomas Jones. Those aren't studs; good fantasy RBs, but not studs. Anderson outperformed his draft position, and helped many players (including me) to Super Bowls. (Though ours is combined weeks 16 and 17 and now I'm starting Marion Barber). But he wasn't a stud in 2005.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Napoleon Kaufman split time with Harvey Williams in Oakland in 1996.James Brooks took over for Icky Woods after his injury in Cincy in 1989.Franco Harris had a very slight majority of carries over John Fuqua in Pittsburgh in 1972.Paul Lowe had majority (but not by much) of the carries in SD over Keith Lincoln in 1963. John David Crow only had 40% of the Cardinals' carries in 1960. Abner Haynes had about half of Dallas' carries in 1960.I was not saying that Bell was a great candidate to be Denver's full time starter, only that not may people have had a ypc of 5.5 or better.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Yes.
SSOG
Moderator
My definition of "stud" isn't wrong, since I *SET* the definition of stud. He might not have been a stud by YOUR definition, but I said "I define stud as a top 10 RB, and by that definition, Anderson is a stud".It'd be like if I said "I define a successful fantasy week as double digit points, and by that definition, Anderson only had 3 unsuccessful weeks over the last 13", and then you came out and said "No, your definition of successful is wrong, Anderson had FIVE unsuccessful weeks!". I made it clear from the OUTSET what my definition of stud was. You can have a higher standard for your definition of a stud, but you CANNOT tell me that Mike Anderson wasn't a stud by the definition that I set forth.
Besides, looking at ADP, there were on average 10 RBs, 1 QB, and 1 WR taken in the first round. Therefore, the top 10 RBs were all first-round talents. Sounds pretty studly to me. I mean, if everyone would have known before the season that Anderson would finish in the top 10 at RB, every single person would have drafted him in the first round.
The only thing I'm 100% certain of is my own existance. Everything else is shades of uncertainty. I would argue that in the business of football projections, 80% positive is pretty darn positive. Ask the FBG staff how many players they were 80% sure would finish in the top 10 at their position.
SSOG
Moderator
Read it again. I don't see how that's "comparing" myself to the staff at FBGs. Unless, of course, you're referring to the fact that we both do projections. In which case, yes, I'm comparing myself to the staff at FBGs. They do projections... I do projections. Comparison made.This is not a QUALITATIVE comparison, this is a simple categorical comparison. They make projections. I make projections. Therefore, FBGs and I both make projections. Do you DISAGREE with this comparison?
If anything, any implied qualitative comparisons would cast me in a more negative light. The only way I can read that as a qualitative comparison is if I'm saying "Look, I doubt even the FOOTBALL GUYS are ever 80% sure on a guy", which would be implying that they are the gold standard for fantasy football projections. It would also lead to the conclusion that if the GOLD STANDARD is rarely 80% sure on a guy, then 80% sure is pretty gosh darn sure, as far as fantasy football projections go.
Fear The Turtle
Footballguy
Bri, speaking as a guy who was heavily invested in the Denver RB situation all year long let me tell you that nothing was EVER 100% concerning that situation. I, for one, will compare SSOG to the FBG staff and say that I'll trust him (or her) with Broncos' fantasy-related opinion/info over ANYONE, with perhaps a little love thrown Cecil's way.
SSOG
Moderator
They might have known who the starter was in game 1. I wasn't claiming Mike Anderson was the game 1 starter. I was claiming he would be the starter all SEASON, which wasn't the popular opinion until week 15 or so.In fact, most people didn't give Anderson a better than 50% chance to win the job until he ran for a 93 yard TD against Indy in game 3 of the preseason.
Similar threads
