Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

:IBTL: It's time.

Why? Is there another thread containing good continuing Dynasty discussions? We got some occasional ranking threads which quite often are poorly written and seem nothing more than an audition to become a staff member. This is has been the spot for several years for hardcore Dynasty people to congregate. No reason to shut it down - if you don't like it, then don't click on the thread or start your own one and perhaps people will go there instead.The thread does go off-the-rails occasionally, but it always self corrects.
Why? There's four straight pages not discussing in any way dynasty rankings or players or anything close to that subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:IBTL: It's time.

Why? Is there another thread containing good continuing Dynasty discussions? We got some occasional ranking threads which quite often are poorly written and seem nothing more than an audition to become a staff member. This is has been the spot for several years for hardcore Dynasty people to congregate. No reason to shut it down - if you don't like it, then don't click on the thread or start your own one and perhaps people will go there instead.The thread does go off-the-rails occasionally, but it always self corrects.
Why? There's four straight pages not discussing in any way dynasty rankings or players or anything close to that subject.
Um, this thread has always been more than just simply rankings and player discussion (and there was some of that in the last four pages, contrary to your assertion). Yes, most of the talk has centered around evaluating player talent and scouting, but IMO that is a legitimate topic discussion. Again, no one is forcing you to come here - you should start your own Dynasty rankings thread and then you can police any digressions that do not meet your standards. Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:IBTL: It's time.

Why? Is there another thread containing good continuing Dynasty discussions? We got some occasional ranking threads which quite often are poorly written and seem nothing more than an audition to become a staff member. This is has been the spot for several years for hardcore Dynasty people to congregate. No reason to shut it down - if you don't like it, then don't click on the thread or start your own one and perhaps people will go there instead.The thread does go off-the-rails occasionally, but it always self corrects.
Why? There's four straight pages not discussing in any way dynasty rankings or players or anything close to that subject.
Um, this thread has always been more than just simply rankings and player discussion (and there was some of that in the last four pages, contrary to your assertion). Yes, most of the talk has centered around evaluating player talent and scouting, but IMO that is a legitimate topic discussion. Again, no one is forcing you to come here - you should start your own Dynasty rankings thread and then you can police any digressions that do not meet your standards.
And who, exactly, is forcing you to respond to my tongue-in-cheek "lock it" post which was simply showing my displeasure over the four-page thread hijack?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Moreno's value going into next season? High risk/high reward? what kind of upside, is mcgahee done? hillman a threat? Picked him up off waiver need to decide if i sign him to 1,2, ir 3 yr deal...

Hillman is still a threat. Moreno's due 1.7 next yr with a club option at > 5m in 2014, so he's not making it to '14 unless he restructures. I can definitely see him staying in '13 if he doesn't mess up (no "dammit Knowshon" moments). He's next year's Donald Brown at best. Small chance at Addai like value (no buzz, no trade value, but 2 or 3 years of top 15 RB). I would feel fine signing him through 2013 if you were short at RB but anything past that is pushing it real hard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an actual football note, AJ Jenkins is in line to possibly get some PT for the Niners now that Kyle Williams is out. Could be something to monitor since his value is awfully low for a guy that Harbaugh and company deemed worthy of a first round pick.

I'm eager to see if he's done anything with his practice time this year. I don't need much, just a glimmer of hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:IBTL: It's time.

Why? Is there another thread containing good continuing Dynasty discussions? We got some occasional ranking threads which quite often are poorly written and seem nothing more than an audition to become a staff member. This is has been the spot for several years for hardcore Dynasty people to congregate. No reason to shut it down - if you don't like it, then don't click on the thread or start your own one and perhaps people will go there instead.The thread does go off-the-rails occasionally, but it always self corrects.
Why? There's four straight pages not discussing in any way dynasty rankings or players or anything close to that subject.
Um, this thread has always been more than just simply rankings and player discussion (and there was some of that in the last four pages, contrary to your assertion). Yes, most of the talk has centered around evaluating player talent and scouting, but IMO that is a legitimate topic discussion. Again, no one is forcing you to come here - you should start your own Dynasty rankings thread and then you can police any digressions that do not meet your standards.
And who, exactly, is forcing you to respond to my tongue-in-cheek "lock it" post which was simply showing my displeasure over the four-page thread hijack?
Myself, because I don't want this thread locked.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced he sabatoged Gabbert by playing half speed all year until he got hurt. Henne hasn't been the answer to the Jags' problems (although he is better than Gabbert), Blackmon just started playing with an ounce of effort.

What? Why would he do that?
To get a new QB.
So he purposely made Gabbert look bad to get a different QB? It wasn't just that Gabbert was bad? Did he not like his long hair or something, and wanted a clean cut Henne under center? And you figured this all out from all the Jaguar games you watch on TV?
I think Blackmon is a pretty stupid person, so it would not surprise me to see him make a stupid decision. I see why he chose to loaf, I just don't think it was the right way to go about getting accomplished what he wanted done. I don't think there's any other reason for him to loaf it unless he wanted someone else under center.
or maybe you're just making up a theory since you have a preconceived notion that he's "a pretty stupid person."

Did he make a stupid decision with his drunk driving? Sure, but there's a long line of people that have made that dumb choice (and I'd be on that line a few times when in my 20s). Are you aware of the story of his freindship with the young girl with Leukemia and what he's done for this girl? He's not some dumb thug.

Then please tell me why he was so awful for the first 9 games of the season. From what I saw he ran half speed and quit on plays. All the time. Why would he do that?
I don't know why he was "awful" (although Gabbert is the worst QB in the NFL so that could be a big part of it), but I also don't beleive you saw what you saw. How were you able to see every route he ran? Did you attend every Jax game, home and away?
Well, most of his routes have been < 10 yards off the line of scrimmage so it's been pretty easy to watch him suck it up from my couch. He was not running like the same player I watched in college nor the one I've seen in the last 2 games. Keep dodging my question though.
Which question am I dodging, the one where you asked why Blackmon was "awful" for the first 9 games? I answered that saying I don't know, but rookies don't always burst onto the scene in the NFL and Gabbert is one of the worst QBs in the league.

Or are you referring to your question as to why he didn't run hard on ALL of his routes if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched? I answered that one as well, by saying I don't think what you are saying is the reality or that you could even possibly know that unless you attened every Jacksonville game home and away and focused on Blackmon.

You called him "stupid" and accused him of trying to get Gabbert benched (which frankly makes no sense) without knowing anything about him so I just think you're biased for some reason. I don't own Blackmon in any league nor would I claim to be a fan of his - but I just don't see why someone would just throw out wild, ridiculous and unsubstantiaed accusations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where would you guys rank Dwayne Bowe going forward?

Hold, then re-evaluate once he signs somewhere else in March. He strikes me as the type to chase the $, so I'd be wary of him not signing with a winner. Probably would sell, but would want to wait and see what else the offseason for his new team has in store.
this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it's intuitive. That doesn't make it right. Beware intuitive explanations, because our cognitive process is so riddled with bias that being obvious cannot be taken as a proxy for being right.

Just because you read it in your psych 1 textbook doesn't mean it always applies. Plenty of intuitive beliefs happen to have merit.
:yes:

For more on this read Gladwell's Blink. Gut reactions aren't invalid because they're based on simple intuition.

I've been waiting to reply to this until I had more time, but I wanted to put a placeholder to make sure I don't forget. I'm familiar with Blink- I think I argued in this thread that maybe we should sometimes be more accepting of answers like "I don't know" or "just because" when someone is saying why they prefer one player over another, a concept inspired by Blink and which would probably be worth reviving and rehashing. With that said, Blink doesn't really grant human intuition carte blanche to decide whatever it decides without evaluation. Gladwell makes a point of discussing when intuition fails. There are all sorts of easy ways to demonstrate how easily intuition can lead us astray (I'll post more later, but here's a quick one- together, a bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? See what your intuition has to say about that one). Gladwell argued that, for highly trained individuals who had logged countless hours gaining expertise, their intuition proved especially insightful in the narrow range of their expertise- the example of the tennis coach knowing about tennis serves, or the chicken sexers being able to quickly determine gender. The problem is that, as far as I know, "structural integrity of human joints across a relatively narrow range of body types" doesn't fall under anyone here's field of expertise.

Of course, the other problem with Gladwell is that pop psychology is not psychology. Gladwell is rewarded for being counterintuitive, shocking, fresh, and interesting. He's rewarded to a far lesser extent for accuracy. The unsurprising result is that in his rush to pull together large numbers of disparate studies to support a single unified theory is that he often latches on to studies that fit his narrative, but which prove difficult to replicate or easily debunked. The 10,000 hour theory of expertise has been shot full of holes. His choice paradox and subconscious priming studies have proven difficult to replicate. Gladwell is a smart guy who is genuinely inquisitive about the way the world works, and he's a very interesting read, but I wouldn't take him as an authority on anything. Daniel Kahneman has a whole lot of research on intuition and the way our mind works (it's very, very lazy), and his paints a much less rosy picture of the reliability of our subconcious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which question am I dodging, the one where you asked why Blackmon was "awful" for the first 9 games? I answered that saying I don't know, but rookies don't always burst onto the scene in the NFL and Gabbert is one of the worst QBs in the league.Or are you referring to your question as to why he didn't run hard on ALL of his routes if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched? I answered that one as well, by saying I don't think what you are saying is the reality or that you could even possibly know that unless you attened every Jacksonville game home and away and focused on Blackmon.You called him "stupid" and accused him of trying to get Gabbert benched (which frankly makes no sense) without knowing anything about him so I just think you're biased for some reason. I don't own Blackmon in any league nor would I claim to be a fan of his - but I just don't see why someone would just throw out wild, ridiculous and unsubstantiaed accusations.

I'm throwing the accusations out there because he has done a laundry list of dumb things (DUI #1 - bad interviews leading up to the draft - DUI #2) then on top of all of the above I have watched him exclusively in a half dozen games (what else is there to watch on Jacksonville) and have noted him dogging it throughout games. Not just a couple of routes - consistently. Plays called for him that went his way anyway, plays that looked called for him and went somewhere else because he cut off his route or couldn't separate from an inferior athlete, and plays that didn't look called for him in the first place. This isn't one isolated game, two games, or just a handful of plays from several different games - it happened all the time. Then the light turned on once Henne came on the field and he all of a sudden looked like the guy from Oklahoma State that I liked so much pre draft. The question I'm saying you haven't answered is if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched then why was he dogging it for the first 9 games? I see your answer above as a cop out. I have no personal vendetta against the guy, you can search my post history on him if you really want, I had nothing but positive things to say up until about mid April. Red flags have been going off non-stop since then and it all came together when I sat down and started actually watching their games. It's been like watching a completely different player from the one that consistently dominated at the college level. Not talking stats, I'm talking abusing defenders, whether he was in space or in traffic he beat you anyway. He got to the pros and started jogging, not finishing his routes, not going after the ball - he's just going through the motions. Don't believe me? Think I'm crazy? Watch the tape. It's all over it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it's intuitive. That doesn't make it right. Beware intuitive explanations, because our cognitive process is so riddled with bias that being obvious cannot be taken as a proxy for being right.

Just because you read it in your psych 1 textbook doesn't mean it always applies. Plenty of intuitive beliefs happen to have merit.
:yes:

For more on this read Gladwell's Blink. Gut reactions aren't invalid because they're based on simple intuition.

I've been waiting to reply to this until I had more time, but I wanted to put a placeholder to make sure I don't forget. I'm familiar with Blink- I think I argued in this thread that maybe we should sometimes be more accepting of answers like "I don't know" or "just because" when someone is saying why they prefer one player over another, a concept inspired by Blink and which would probably be worth reviving and rehashing. With that said, Blink doesn't really grant human intuition carte blanche to decide whatever it decides without evaluation. Gladwell makes a point of discussing when intuition fails. There are all sorts of easy ways to demonstrate how easily intuition can lead us astray (I'll post more later, but here's a quick one- together, a bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? See what your intuition has to say about that one). Gladwell argued that, for highly trained individuals who had logged countless hours gaining expertise, their intuition proved especially insightful in the narrow range of their expertise- the example of the tennis coach knowing about tennis serves, or the chicken sexers being able to quickly determine gender. The problem is that, as far as I know, "structural integrity of human joints across a relatively narrow range of body types" doesn't fall under anyone here's field of expertise.

Of course, the other problem with Gladwell is that pop psychology is not psychology. Gladwell is rewarded for being counterintuitive, shocking, fresh, and interesting. He's rewarded to a far lesser extent for accuracy. The unsurprising result is that in his rush to pull together large numbers of disparate studies to support a single unified theory is that he often latches on to studies that fit his narrative, but which prove difficult to replicate or easily debunked. The 10,000 hour theory of expertise has been shot full of holes. His choice paradox and subconscious priming studies have proven difficult to replicate. Gladwell is a smart guy who is genuinely inquisitive about the way the world works, and he's a very interesting read, but I wouldn't take him as an authority on anything. Daniel Kahneman has a whole lot of research on intuition and the way our mind works (it's very, very lazy), and his paints a much less rosy picture of the reliability of our subconcious.

Kahneman and Gary Klein (who is one of the main pro-intuition researchers cited in Blink) have a paper on when intuitions are likely to reflect skilled expertise titled "Conditions for Intuitive Expertise A Failure to Disagree". (Kahneman also has a chapter in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow which is based on that paper.)

Kahneman & Klein's take is that a person can develop intuitive skill in a domain, which allows them to make accurate predictions (often without being able to justify them). They basically just become really good at pattern recognition, where the pattern is that such-and-such an outcome tends to end up happening in such-and-such a situation. In order to develop this expertise, they need to have lots of experience in the domain (making observations and then getting feedback about how things turned out), and the domain needs to be regular enough to actually have strong patterns which a person could learn.

The problem is that this kind of skilled intuition feels pretty much the same as any other intuition (and that many environments are not regular enough to have strong patterns). People also develop intuitions for lots of bad reasons, which Kahneman has covered in detail in his research on heuristics & biases (e.g., seeing patterns that aren't there because they have a plausible story in mind for why that pattern should be there, or because they happened to be exposed first to a subset of the data which sorta resembled that pattern just because of random variation). So if a person feels a strong intuition, and is really confident in that intuition, that doesn't tell us whether the intuition is based on expert pattern-recognition or is just uninformed gut-thinking.

Here is how Kahneman & Klein put it in their paper (which you can find on Google Scholar):

[*]Our starting point is that intuitive judgments can arise from genuine skill—the focus of the NDM approach—but that they can also arise from inappropriate application of the heuristic processes on which students of the HB tradition have focused.

[*]Skilled judges are often unaware of the cues that guide them, and individuals whose intuitions are not skilled are even less likely to know where their judgments come from.

[*]True experts, it is said, know when they don’t know. However, nonexperts (whether or not they think they are) certainly do not know when they don’t know. Subjective confidence is therefore an unreliable indication of the validity of intuitive judgments and decisions.

[*]The determination of whether intuitive judgments can be trusted requires an examination of the environment in which the judgment is made and of the opportunity that the judge has had to learn the regularities of that environment.

[*]We describe task environments as “high-validity” if there are stable relationships between objectively identifiable cues and subsequent events or between cues and the outcomes of possible actions. Medicine and firefighting are practiced in environments of fairly high validity. In contrast, outcomes are effectively unpredictable in zero-validity environments. To a good approximation, predictions of the future value of individual stocks and long-term forecasts of political events are made in a zero-validity environment.

[*]Validity and uncertainty are not incompatible. Some environments are both highly valid and substantially uncertain. Poker and warfare are examples. The best moves in such situations reliably increase the potential for success.

[*]An environment of high validity is a necessary condition for the development of skilled intuitions. Other necessary conditions include adequate opportunities for learning the environment (prolonged practice and feedback that is both rapid and unequivocal). If an environment provides valid cues and good feedback, skill and expert intuition will eventually develop in individuals of sufficient talent.

[*]Although true skill cannot develop in irregular or unpredictable environments, individuals will sometimes make judgments and decisions that are successful by chance. These “lucky” individuals will be susceptible to an illusion of skill and to overconfidence (Arkes, 2001). The financial industry is a rich source of examples.

[*]The situation that we have labeled fractionation of skill is another source of overconfidence. Professionals who have expertise in some tasks are sometimes called upon to make judgments in areas in which they have no real skill. (For example, financial analysts may be skilled at evaluating the likely commercial success of a firm, but this skill does not extend to the judgment of whether the stock of that firm is underpriced.) It is difficult both for the professionals and for those who observe them to determine the boundaries of their true expertise.

[*]We agree that the weak regularities available in low-validity situations can sometimes support the development of algorithms that do better than chance. These algorithms only achieve limited accuracy, but they outperform humans because of their advantage of consistency. However, the introduction of algorithms to replace human judgment is likely to evoke substantial resistance and sometimes has undesirable side effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which question am I dodging, the one where you asked why Blackmon was "awful" for the first 9 games? I answered that saying I don't know, but rookies don't always burst onto the scene in the NFL and Gabbert is one of the worst QBs in the league.Or are you referring to your question as to why he didn't run hard on ALL of his routes if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched? I answered that one as well, by saying I don't think what you are saying is the reality or that you could even possibly know that unless you attened every Jacksonville game home and away and focused on Blackmon.You called him "stupid" and accused him of trying to get Gabbert benched (which frankly makes no sense) without knowing anything about him so I just think you're biased for some reason. I don't own Blackmon in any league nor would I claim to be a fan of his - but I just don't see why someone would just throw out wild, ridiculous and unsubstantiaed accusations.

I'm throwing the accusations out there because he has done a laundry list of dumb things (DUI #1 - bad interviews leading up to the draft - DUI #2) then on top of all of the above I have watched him exclusively in a half dozen games (what else is there to watch on Jacksonville) and have noted him dogging it throughout games. Not just a couple of routes - consistently. Plays called for him that went his way anyway, plays that looked called for him and went somewhere else because he cut off his route or couldn't separate from an inferior athlete, and plays that didn't look called for him in the first place. This isn't one isolated game, two games, or just a handful of plays from several different games - it happened all the time. Then the light turned on once Henne came on the field and he all of a sudden looked like the guy from Oklahoma State that I liked so much pre draft. The question I'm saying you haven't answered is if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched then why was he dogging it for the first 9 games? I see your answer above as a cop out. I have no personal vendetta against the guy, you can search my post history on him if you really want, I had nothing but positive things to say up until about mid April. Red flags have been going off non-stop since then and it all came together when I sat down and started actually watching their games. It's been like watching a completely different player from the one that consistently dominated at the college level. Not talking stats, I'm talking abusing defenders, whether he was in space or in traffic he beat you anyway. He got to the pros and started jogging, not finishing his routes, not going after the ball - he's just going through the motions. Don't believe me? Think I'm crazy? Watch the tape. It's all over it.
Whenever I watched games, I saw that Blackmon was NEVER Gabbert's intended receiver. He never looked his way. Ever. He locked on the primary receiver the second the ball was snapped and threw it to him as fast as he could to avoid getting hit. Every play. And Blackmon was never that primary receiver. That's what I saw whenever I watched. Not pretending I saw every play, but it was quite a few from all their games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it's intuitive. That doesn't make it right. Beware intuitive explanations, because our cognitive process is so riddled with bias that being obvious cannot be taken as a proxy for being right.

Just because you read it in your psych 1 textbook doesn't mean it always applies. Plenty of intuitive beliefs happen to have merit.
:yes:

For more on this read Gladwell's Blink. Gut reactions aren't invalid because they're based on simple intuition.

I've been waiting to reply to this until I had more time, but I wanted to put a placeholder to make sure I don't forget. I'm familiar with Blink- I think I argued in this thread that maybe we should sometimes be more accepting of answers like "I don't know" or "just because" when someone is saying why they prefer one player over another, a concept inspired by Blink and which would probably be worth reviving and rehashing. With that said, Blink doesn't really grant human intuition carte blanche to decide whatever it decides without evaluation. Gladwell makes a point of discussing when intuition fails. There are all sorts of easy ways to demonstrate how easily intuition can lead us astray (I'll post more later, but here's a quick one- together, a bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? See what your intuition has to say about that one). Gladwell argued that, for highly trained individuals who had logged countless hours gaining expertise, their intuition proved especially insightful in the narrow range of their expertise- the example of the tennis coach knowing about tennis serves, or the chicken sexers being able to quickly determine gender. The problem is that, as far as I know, "structural integrity of human joints across a relatively narrow range of body types" doesn't fall under anyone here's field of expertise.

Of course, the other problem with Gladwell is that pop psychology is not psychology. Gladwell is rewarded for being counterintuitive, shocking, fresh, and interesting. He's rewarded to a far lesser extent for accuracy. The unsurprising result is that in his rush to pull together large numbers of disparate studies to support a single unified theory is that he often latches on to studies that fit his narrative, but which prove difficult to replicate or easily debunked. The 10,000 hour theory of expertise has been shot full of holes. His choice paradox and subconscious priming studies have proven difficult to replicate. Gladwell is a smart guy who is genuinely inquisitive about the way the world works, and he's a very interesting read, but I wouldn't take him as an authority on anything. Daniel Kahneman has a whole lot of research on intuition and the way our mind works (it's very, very lazy), and his paints a much less rosy picture of the reliability of our subconcious.

Kahneman and Gary Klein (who is one of the main pro-intuition researchers cited in Blink) have a paper on when intuitions are likely to reflect skilled expertise titled "Conditions for Intuitive Expertise A Failure to Disagree". (Kahneman also has a chapter in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow which is based on that paper.)

Kahneman & Klein's take is that a person can develop intuitive skill in a domain, which allows them to make accurate predictions (often without being able to justify them). They basically just become really good at pattern recognition, where the pattern is that such-and-such an outcome tends to end up happening in such-and-such a situation. In order to develop this expertise, they need to have lots of experience in the domain (making observations and then getting feedback about how things turned out), and the domain needs to be regular enough to actually have strong patterns which a person could learn.

The problem is that this kind of skilled intuition feels pretty much the same as any other intuition (and that many environments are not regular enough to have strong patterns). People also develop intuitions for lots of bad reasons, which Kahneman has covered in detail in his research on heuristics & biases (e.g., seeing patterns that aren't there because they have a plausible story in mind for why that pattern should be there, or because they happened to be exposed first to a subset of the data which sorta resembled that pattern just because of random variation). So if a person feels a strong intuition, and is really confident in that intuition, that doesn't tell us whether the intuition is based on expert pattern-recognition or is just uninformed gut-thinking.

Here is how Kahneman & Klein put it in their paper (which you can find on Google Scholar):

[*]Our starting point is that intuitive judgments can arise from genuine skill—the focus of the NDM approach—but that they can also arise from inappropriate application of the heuristic processes on which students of the HB tradition have focused.

[*]Skilled judges are often unaware of the cues that guide them, and individuals whose intuitions are not skilled are even less likely to know where their judgments come from.

[*]True experts, it is said, know when they don’t know. However, nonexperts (whether or not they think they are) certainly do not know when they don’t know. Subjective confidence is therefore an unreliable indication of the validity of intuitive judgments and decisions.

[*]The determination of whether intuitive judgments can be trusted requires an examination of the environment in which the judgment is made and of the opportunity that the judge has had to learn the regularities of that environment.

[*]We describe task environments as “high-validity” if there are stable relationships between objectively identifiable cues and subsequent events or between cues and the outcomes of possible actions. Medicine and firefighting are practiced in environments of fairly high validity. In contrast, outcomes are effectively unpredictable in zero-validity environments. To a good approximation, predictions of the future value of individual stocks and long-term forecasts of political events are made in a zero-validity environment.

[*]Validity and uncertainty are not incompatible. Some environments are both highly valid and substantially uncertain. Poker and warfare are examples. The best moves in such situations reliably increase the potential for success.

[*]An environment of high validity is a necessary condition for the development of skilled intuitions. Other necessary conditions include adequate opportunities for learning the environment (prolonged practice and feedback that is both rapid and unequivocal). If an environment provides valid cues and good feedback, skill and expert intuition will eventually develop in individuals of sufficient talent.

[*]Although true skill cannot develop in irregular or unpredictable environments, individuals will sometimes make judgments and decisions that are successful by chance. These “lucky” individuals will be susceptible to an illusion of skill and to overconfidence (Arkes, 2001). The financial industry is a rich source of examples.

[*]The situation that we have labeled fractionation of skill is another source of overconfidence. Professionals who have expertise in some tasks are sometimes called upon to make judgments in areas in which they have no real skill. (For example, financial analysts may be skilled at evaluating the likely commercial success of a firm, but this skill does not extend to the judgment of whether the stock of that firm is underpriced.) It is difficult both for the professionals and for those who observe them to determine the boundaries of their true expertise.

[*]We agree that the weak regularities available in low-validity situations can sometimes support the development of algorithms that do better than chance. These algorithms only achieve limited accuracy, but they outperform humans because of their advantage of consistency. However, the introduction of algorithms to replace human judgment is likely to evoke substantial resistance and sometimes has undesirable side effects.

I was planning on grabbing T:F&S and re-reading that chapter to make sure I had the details right, but you saved me all the effort, so instead I'll just slap up a :goodposting: and continue on my merry little way.

None of us here has developed enough expertise on the likelihood of repetitive injuries to joints across a relatively narrow range of body types for our intuitions to carry much, if any, weight. I'm not even sure if it would be possible to develop expertise in such an area, since the validity is indeterminate, the samples are small, and the feedback is heavily delayed (quick feedback is vital for the development of expertise- the quicker the better). That's why I'd much rather place my trust in an algorithm developed based on the study of the data, or in the people (front offices) who likely would have developed such an algorithm (whether formally or informally). In other words... make like Jerry MacGuire and shooooooow me the data!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not this again.

The fact that almost all of the elite RBs of the past 15 years had a certain general body type is pretty convincing evidence that the requirements of the position favor a pretty specific set of physical qualities.

And while NFL front offices routinely draft non-ideal backs, you don't see many of those banks ranking among the NFL leaders in touches. The fact that guys like Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden, CJ Spiller, and Jamaal Charles haven't been trusted with a full workload despite their talent actually offers pretty good support for the idea that NFL people are aware of the fact that you can't work these backs like you can a Ricky/Edge/Tomlinson.

I don't think durability is completely unpredictable. I said guys like Murray, Mathews, McFadden, and Beanie would struggle with injuries. Is it just blind luck that all of them have? Highly unlikely. It is always strange to me that some people who spend hours daily on FF boards reading opinions from non-professionals will go to great lengths to convince themselves that none of these people could possibly know anything. I mean, if professional scouts and executives are the only ones who know anything about players, there's basically no reason to ever visit these forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not this again.

The fact that almost all of the elite RBs of the past 15 years had a certain general body type is pretty convincing evidence that the requirements of the position favor a pretty specific set of physical qualities.

And while NFL front offices routinely draft non-ideal backs, you don't see many of those banks ranking among the NFL leaders in touches. The fact that guys like Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden, CJ Spiller, and Jamaal Charles haven't been trusted with a full workload despite their talent actually offers pretty good support for the idea that NFL people are aware of the fact that you can't work these backs like you can a Ricky/Edge/Tomlinson.

I don't think durability is completely unpredictable. I said guys like Murray, Mathews, McFadden, and Beanie would struggle with injuries. Is it just blind luck that all of them have? Highly unlikely. It is always strange to me that some people who spend hours daily on FF boards reading opinions from non-professionals will go to great lengths to convince themselves that none of these people could possibly know anything. I mean, if professional scouts and executives are the only ones who know anything about players, there's basically no reason to ever visit these forums.

:goodposting:

The bolded is all I'm saying.

some people invest vast amounts of time on this stuff in the SP.

to simply brush peoples knowledge and opinions off as non-professional hogwash(just wanted to say it) is something I don't understand.

give a little credit here, both to yourself and others.

Clearly there's a huge disadvantage not having all the tools a professional organization have. nobody is debating NFL teams would make better decisions than a few dudes sitting on their couch with spaghetti stains on their White-Ts.

As sad as it sounds, unless you are a savant of sorts, you need to be connected and know the right people in order to get certain positions in the business world.

Look at our most recent presidential election... would anyone genuinely say that Obama and Romney were the two best candidates our country has to offer? What about George Bush? Life is not fair people, The most qualified do not always get the position.

Do I think any average joe can be a GM? absolutely not. Do I think a guy with an above average IQ who gets the chance to spend 8-10 years around the league can be a decent GM? I think he would have a shot.

Edited by wiscstlatlmia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not this again. The fact that almost all of the elite RBs of the past 15 years had a certain general body type is pretty convincing evidence that the requirements of the position favor a pretty specific set of physical qualities. And while NFL front offices routinely draft non-ideal backs, you don't see many of those banks ranking among the NFL leaders in touches. The fact that guys like Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden, CJ Spiller, and Jamaal Charles haven't been trusted with a full workload despite their talent actually offers pretty good support for the idea that NFL people are aware of the fact that you can't work these backs like you can a Ricky/Edge/Tomlinson. I don't think durability is completely unpredictable. I said guys like Murray, Mathews, McFadden, and Beanie would struggle with injuries. Is it just blind luck that all of them have? Highly unlikely. It is always strange to me that some people who spend hours daily on FF boards reading opinions from non-professionals will go to great lengths to convince themselves that none of these people could possibly know anything. I mean, if professional scouts and executives are the only ones who know anything about players, there's basically no reason to ever visit these forums.

I'd argue that Murray already had the injury risk baked in, which is why a first round talent became a third round pick. As for the others... yeah, non-ideal backs like McFadden and Beanie have gotten injured. So have ideal backs like Stewart and Mendenhall. Ideal backs have put up huge workloads. So have non-ideal backs like Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LeSean McCoy, Brian Westbrook, and Warrick Dunn. You keep mentioning Charles as an example of a team not trusting a guy with the workload, but Charles is 9th in the league in carries and averaging 20 touches per game despite some inexplicable games where the coaching staff had no idea they weren't giving him any carries. You can produce a lot of anecdotes supporting your position. I can post a ton of anecdotes contradicting it, despite your loosey-goosey "I know it when I see it" approach to defining ideal body type. The question then becomes where the preponderance of the anecdotes lie. Do first round backs with non-ideal body types average more injuries than their ideal peers? Shorter careers? Fewer touches? Most importantly (since none of us plays in points per touch leagues), do they average fewer VBD? If you look at the most productive RBs, are ideal backs over represented after you account for things like their proportion of the overall population and average draft position? The only answers I'm getting to this question are "I don't know, but trust me anyway." Or perhaps "here are a few anecdotes to prove I am right. Pay no mind to the selective nature of my examples". It's like the concept of chokers. Intuitively, I think everyone agrees that chokers exist in the real world. We all know people who simply cannot handle stress. The problem is, 8 years of competitive football prior to the NFL weeds those chokers out, ensuring that almost none of them actually make the league. In the same way, maybe small backs as a whole are more prone to injury, while the ones that make the league are not. Again... show me the data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your guys thoughts about Job Baldwin? Hasn't had an opportunity to be "the guy" and his QB situation is awful. However, I have yet to see anything to show that this kid is getting it. He is a former high first round pick...

I'm down on him compared to a year ago, but I wouldn't read much into his lack of production. There's not much you can do on 31 targets from Matt Cassel and Brady Quinn. His playing time has expanded. They just don't throw him the ball. And his QBs are garbage. Not a recipe for success.I think he's still worth a late 1st-early 2nd round type of rookie pick or prospect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have ideal backs like Stewart and Mendenhall. Ideal backs have put up huge workloads. So have non-ideal backs like Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LeSean McCoy, Brian Westbrook, and Warrick Dunn. You keep mentioning Charles as an example of a team not trusting a guy with the workload, but Charles is 9th in the league in carries and averaging 20 touches per game despite some inexplicable games where the coaching staff had no idea they weren't giving him any carries.

A lot of those success stories don't even belong in the conversation. Brian Westbrook is actually an ideal BMI guy. 5'8.3" 200 pounds. 30.1 BMI. That's about the same as Ray Rice. LeSean McCoy has a 29.0 BMI. Not quite ideal, but not far off, and he doesn't have much wasted weight in his upper body. Dunn was never really a high volume guy, but even so he was all legs. Don't confuse short for small. Guys like Sproles, Rice, and Westbrook fall into the ideal BMI range. Peterson and Johnson are legit examples of thin backs becoming long term high volume guys. The problem with BMI is that it just tells you weight per height, but it doesn't tell you anything about the distribution of that weight. A guy like Reggie Bush who is top-heavy will look the same on paper as a guy like LeSean McCoy who is built different. And running style is a big factor in durability too. Players who seek contact are going to get hurt more often than players who evade. I've always had Ryan Mathews pegged as an injury risk for this reason even though he falls into the ideal range physically. The problem with a guy like McFadden or Murray is not only that he's thin, but also that he struggles to evade. When you have light backs who run really hard, it's the perfect recipe for injuries. I'm a little more optimistic about a guy like Charles simply because his running style is pure make-you-miss agility. Subjectively, Peterson is not a small back. He's just not. He runs with power and has strong legs. But that's not reflected in what you see on paper. Assessing players always involves a certain degree of subjectivity. That's just the nature of the art. For example, I think everyone would agree with the statement that "AJ Green is a great athlete." Well guess what? Nothing in the measurables supports that claim. Average height. Average speed. Average hops. And yet every subjective observer would object to the idea that he isn't a great athlete because their eyeballs tell them otherwise. As much as we'd all like to have some magical formula to quantify what athletes can do, it simply doesn't exist. So you use a combination of measurables and the eyeball test. There's no real hypocrisy in it. And there's no better system. BMI is currently the best way to quantify power and body type, but it is just a starting point. Ironically, "I know it when I see it" is really the golden rule of scouting. It reigns supreme above all else.

You can produce a lot of anecdotes supporting your position. I can post a ton of anecdotes contradicting it, despite your loosey-goosey "I know it when I see it" approach to defining ideal body type. The question then becomes where the preponderance of the anecdotes lie. Do first round backs with non-ideal body types average more injuries than their ideal peers? Shorter careers? Fewer touches? Most importantly (since none of us plays in points per touch leagues), do they average fewer VBD? If you look at the most productive RBs, are ideal backs over represented after you account for things like their proportion of the overall population and average draft position? The only answers I'm getting to this question are "I don't know, but trust me anyway." Or perhaps "here are a few anecdotes to prove I am right. Pay no mind to the selective nature of my examples".

The best proof is the fact that almost every HOF type RB fits the narrow physical mold. Do you think it's pure coincidence that guys like Portis, Ricky, Edge, LT, and Faulk were all built more or less the same? All of those guys were squatty with strong lower bodies and a high weight-per-height ratio. The job requirements of a workhorse NFL RB clearly favor this type of body, so it makes sense to favor it when seeking the next great workhorses. I'd like to see a study that looked at draft position, BMI, and touches. My suspicion is that high BMI types would dominate the high volume rankings. Guys like Reggie Bush, CJ Spiller, and Jamaal Charles often become effective NFL players, but apart from Chris Johnson I can't think of any who have reached LT/Ricky/Edge levels of volume. My current philosophy after looking at this stuff for years is to favor ideal body types within tiers, but to generally shy away from using at as the justification for moving players between tiers. For example, I would much rather invest a rookie pick in a non-ideal rookie RB who went in the top 15 picks of the NFL draft than an ideal back who fell to the third round. However, in the case where you have two players of similar draft pedigrees who demonstrate similar talent on the field, give me the ideal back over the non-ideal back every time. I'm perfectly fine to adhere to my "know it when I see it" philosophy as long as it continues being right so often. ALL RBs get injured, but at the same time, it's patently obvious that certain combinations of body type and running style are a lot more likely to reach the ultra high volume levels that yield so many of the the true difference-maker FF backs. And while NFL teams value guys like Spiller and Bush for their dynamic abilities, this type of back is not well-represented when you look at the ultra high volume seasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with BMI has ben the majority of RBs in the NFL fall within whatever range has been deemed as proper. Other words, if 80 plus % of ALL rbs in the NFL are around the same BMI, it is logical that most of the elite RBs also fall within the "proper" BMI range. and when we see some RBs, outside of the range, many of them were never drafted to be every down payers (see a chris rainey). BMI is not significant because most of the RBs who are elite, prospect, average, suspect, awful are largely in the same body type/BMI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish I had taken Brown more seriously. Only have him in one league. Funny thing is I think I offered him to someone for a third round rookie pick early in the season and got turned down. Whew. He's been a demon the last couple weeks. Has some power and a real burst. Not surprising from a guy who was touted as the best player in the country in high school, but definitely surprising considering how pedestrian he looked at Tennessee and Kansas State.

Philly is a really friendly system, which has probably caused us to overrate McCoy a bit. He obviously has a lot of talent, but he also benefited from playing in the same offense that made Westbrook dominant and is now doing the same for Brown. I don't think we'll see a passing of the torch just yet, but this looks destined for a RBBC. The Eagles have tried to add a big back into the mix for years and it looks like they've found that guy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LeSean McCoy or Bryce Brown next season and beyond?

Come on. Don't be crazy. Talk about Whathaveyoudoneformelately-itis. McCoy is an underutilized stud. Brown is a perfectly utilized, talented RB getting his shot after the injury to a player who didn't get the same opportunities.The best thing for the eagles would be for a coach who loves to run the ball to get the job. Would be a nice change after a decade+ of Reid, and with these studs at RB.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LeSean McCoy or Bryce Brown next season and beyond?

Come on. Don't be crazy. Talk about Whathaveyoudoneformelately-itis. McCoy is an underutilized stud. Brown is a perfectly utilized, talented RB getting his shot after the injury to a player who didn't get the same opportunities.The best thing for the eagles would be for a coach who loves to run the ball to get the job. Would be a nice change after a decade+ of Reid, and with these studs at RB.
Don't be crazy? Have you watched this kid? He's big, fast and explosive. He was also touted, coming out of high school, as the best player in the country. I'm an eagles homer and wouldn't mind if they said McCoy sit out the rest of the year. Brown could runaway with the job if he holds on to the ball.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LeSean McCoy or Bryce Brown next season and beyond?

Come on. Don't be crazy. Talk about Whathaveyoudoneformelately-itis. McCoy is an underutilized stud. Brown is a perfectly utilized, talented RB getting his shot after the injury to a player who didn't get the same opportunities.The best thing for the eagles would be for a coach who loves to run the ball to get the job. Would be a nice change after a decade+ of Reid, and with these studs at RB.
Don't be crazy? Have you watched this kid? He's big, fast and explosive. He was also touted, coming out of high school, as the best player in the country. I'm an eagles homer and wouldn't mind if they said McCoy sit out the rest of the year. Brown could runaway with the job if he holds on to the ball.
I wasn't saying Brown wasn't great. I was saying don't be crazy about McCoy possibly losing his job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish I had taken Brown more seriously. Only have him in one league. Funny thing is I think I offered him to someone for a third round rookie pick early in the season and got turned down. Whew. He's been a demon the last couple weeks. Has some power and a real burst. Not surprising from a guy who was touted as the best player in the country in high school, but definitely surprising considering how pedestrian he looked at Tennessee and Kansas State. Philly is a really friendly system, which has probably caused us to overrate McCoy a bit. He obviously has a lot of talent, but he also benefited from playing in the same offense that made Westbrook dominant and is now doing the same for Brown. I don't think we'll see a passing of the torch just yet, but this looks destined for a RBBC. The Eagles have tried to add a big back into the mix for years and it looks like they've found that guy again.

the value of both brown and mccoy remains to be seen with the likely departure of Reid and Vick. RBBC seems *very* likely but the question for the future is which player gets to be the lead dog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what we know about Bryce Brown, as far as what he can do in the NFL: He's really fast, especially for his size. That's really it. He hasn't had to do much, beyond display that.

He has played the Panthers, who make everyone look great, and the Cowboys whose interior defense is all on the sideline. Well, that and he has Tiki-scale fumbling issues.

His owners should be very happy, don't get me wrong. As should the Eagles. In a different situation, he could have Doug Martin value. But Shady is one of the best RBs in the NFL and has an established track record; not two games against poor run defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which question am I dodging, the one where you asked why Blackmon was "awful" for the first 9 games? I answered that saying I don't know, but rookies don't always burst onto the scene in the NFL and Gabbert is one of the worst QBs in the league.

Or are you referring to your question as to why he didn't run hard on ALL of his routes if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched? I answered that one as well, by saying I don't think what you are saying is the reality or that you could even possibly know that unless you attened every Jacksonville game home and away and focused on Blackmon.

You called him "stupid" and accused him of trying to get Gabbert benched (which frankly makes no sense) without knowing anything about him so I just think you're biased for some reason. I don't own Blackmon in any league nor would I claim to be a fan of his - but I just don't see why someone would just throw out wild, ridiculous and unsubstantiaed accusations.

I'm throwing the accusations out there because he has done a laundry list of dumb things (DUI #1 - bad interviews leading up to the draft - DUI #2) then on top of all of the above I have watched him exclusively in a half dozen games (what else is there to watch on Jacksonville) and have noted him dogging it throughout games. Not just a couple of routes - consistently. Plays called for him that went his way anyway, plays that looked called for him and went somewhere else because he cut off his route or couldn't separate from an inferior athlete, and plays that didn't look called for him in the first place. This isn't one isolated game, two games, or just a handful of plays from several different games - it happened all the time. Then the light turned on once Henne came on the field and he all of a sudden looked like the guy from Oklahoma State that I liked so much pre draft.

The question I'm saying you haven't answered is if he wasn't trying to get Gabbert benched then why was he dogging it for the first 9 games? I see your answer above as a cop out. I have no personal vendetta against the guy, you can search my post history on him if you really want, I had nothing but positive things to say up until about mid April. Red flags have been going off non-stop since then and it all came together when I sat down and started actually watching their games. It's been like watching a completely different player from the one that consistently dominated at the college level. Not talking stats, I'm talking abusing defenders, whether he was in space or in traffic he beat you anyway. He got to the pros and started jogging, not finishing his routes, not going after the ball - he's just going through the motions. Don't believe me? Think I'm crazy? Watch the tape. It's all over it.

You want me to answer a question about something that I don't believe happened? Unless you have a magical TV there's really no way for you to know how hard Backmon was running on all of his routes. The television coverage I watch follows the QB after he takes the snap and moves downfield after the throw - we don't really see the WR running his routes (except for some occasional replays).

Sure some WRs don't run complete routes when they know they are not getting the ball, but answer this question honeslty. How many times did you actually witness Blackmon "dogging it", "not finishing his routes" or "going through the motions"? I doubt you could honeslty answer more than once, maybe twice. I don't want to sidetrack this thread or get into a pissing contest so I'll let you answer if you want and I'll move on. I just think you said something foolish and are now burying yourself deeper into a hole.

Edited by Dr. Octopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what we know about Bryce Brown, as far as what he can do in the NFL: He's really fast, especially for his size. That's really it. He hasn't had to do much, beyond display that.

He's also shown very nice vision (has a real knack for knowing when to take the ball to the outside) and better than average power on his inside runs. His size/speed combo is pretty rare as well.Sure he's faced two below average run defenses (Cowboys being decimated), but he's put up over 300 yards and socred 4 TDs against those defenses, that's not exactly just expolitong "weak" defenses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what we know about Bryce Brown, as far as what he can do in the NFL: He's really fast, especially for his size. That's really it. He hasn't had to do much, beyond display that.

He's also shown very nice vision (has a real knack for knowing when to take the ball to the outside) and better than average power on his inside runs. His size/speed combo is pretty rare as well.Sure he's faced two below average run defenses (Cowboys being decimated), but he's put up over 300 yards and socred 4 TDs against those defenses, that's not exactly just expolitong "weak" defenses.
The 2 TDs against the Cowboys were walks to the endzone. I don't say that to discredit what he's done any more than to put it into perspective. He has looked good, and bouncing it to the outside against Carolina and last nights Dallas worked; but will it always? That can be a bad habit that a lot of young speed guys have. Especially, I presume, guys who haven't really played since high school. He still has a big transition to make, although signs are certainly good, right now. Again, his owners should be excited, as should the Eagles. But talk about Shady potentially being replaced is premature. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are thoughts on TY Hilton going forward? Seems like a talented kid. I was able to scoop him and Chris Givens off the wire earlier this season. I think those are some nice solid WR3 options moving forward. Both have talented young QBs that were #1 overall picks. Both have wheels too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bryce Brown Michael "The Burner" Turner 2.0?

Serious question. At the beggining of Turner's career, he was playing behind LT2 - a great RB that everyone knew he would never supplant as the starter. After a few years of playing 2nd fiddle to a stud, he was finally moved, and became (for a while anyway) a solid RB1.

Thoughts on this type of situation playing out in Philly? That is B. Brown stays on as the backup for 2-3 years, then is eventually moved to a team as the lead dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are thoughts on TY Hilton going forward? Seems like a talented kid. I was able to scoop him and Chris Givens off the wire earlier this season. I think those are some nice solid WR3 options moving forward. Both have talented young QBs that were #1 overall picks. Both have wheels too.

They are both WR2/3 options right now. If you are only hoping for solid WR3 production, I think you are undervaluing them, or their potential, at the very least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bryce Brown Michael "The Burner" Turner 2.0?Serious question. At the beggining of Turner's career, he was playing behind LT2 - a great RB that everyone knew he would never supplant as the starter. After a few years of playing 2nd fiddle to a stud, he was finally moved, and became (for a while anyway) a solid RB1.Thoughts on this type of situation playing out in Philly? That is B. Brown stays on as the backup for 2-3 years, then is eventually moved to a team as the lead dog.

My guess: Brown continues to cut into Shady's touch total, continuing to handle some goal line work, and a couple series a game. I still expect a 70/30 or 60/40 split in Shady's favor. Beyond that, I have no clue, as far as what happens to both players long-term, in Philly. I think we'd need to see Brown continue his produciton and work on his fumbling issues before being able to project his value to NFL teams, including Philly. As for Shady, I think he will always be worthy of a good deal of carries. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bryce Brown Michael "The Burner" Turner 2.0?Serious question. At the beggining of Turner's career, he was playing behind LT2 - a great RB that everyone knew he would never supplant as the starter. After a few years of playing 2nd fiddle to a stud, he was finally moved, and became (for a while anyway) a solid RB1.Thoughts on this type of situation playing out in Philly? That is B. Brown stays on as the backup for 2-3 years, then is eventually moved to a team as the lead dog.

My guess: Brown continues to cut into Shady's touch total, continuing to handle some goal line work, and a couple series a game. I still expect a 70/30 or 60/40 split in Shady's favor. Beyond that, I have no clue, as far as what happens to both players long-term. I think we'd need to see Brown continue his produciton and work on his fumbling issues before being able to project his value to NFL teams, including Philly. As for Shady, I think he will always be worthy of a good deal of carries.
McCoy's contract is guaranteed through 2014. He'll restructure or get cut in 2015 almost definitely, but until them they have to give him starters carries to justify the mistake. He makes too much in 2015 to be kept by any normal football team.Brown's contract is through 2015. He'll start chirping for a new contract sometime in 2014 if he avoids serious injury. Eagles MO is to give him a healthy raise but still reasonable contract sometime next year and lock him up long term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCoy's contract is guaranteed through 2014. He'll restructure or get cut in 2015 almost definitely, but until them they have to give him starters carries to justify the mistake. He makes too much in 2015 to be kept by any normal football team.Brown's contract is through 2015. He'll start chirping for a new contract sometime in 2014 if he avoids serious injury. Eagles MO is to give him a healthy raise but still reasonable contract sometime next year and lock him up long term.

Very interesting. Makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what we know about Bryce Brown, as far as what he can do in the NFL: He's really fast, especially for his size. That's really it. He hasn't had to do much, beyond display that.He has played the Panthers, who make everyone look great, and the Cowboys whose interior defense is all on the sideline. Well, that and he has Tiki-scale fumbling issues. His owners should be very happy, don't get me wrong. As should the Eagles. In a different situation, he could have Doug Martin value. But Shady is one of the best RBs in the NFL and has an established track record; not two games against poor run defenses.

He's certainly had some nice holes to run through at times, but he's also shown more than just speed. He's made some cuts that guys his size usually can't. The biggest thing he's shown is VISION...some of those gaping holes appeared in unlikely spots, spots where inferior RBs simply don't see them in time.And he's doing this after having taken essentially two years off, and minimal work as a college freshman the year before that. The questions on this kid really aren't about talent, but about whether he can keep his head and heart in the game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's certainly had some nice holes to run through at times, but he's also shown more than just speed. He's made some cuts that guys his size usually can't. The biggest thing he's shown is VISION...some of those gaping holes appeared in unlikely spots, spots where inferior RBs simply don't see them in time.And he's doing this after having taken essentially two years off, and minimal work as a college freshman the year before that. The questions on this kid really aren't about talent, but about whether he can keep his head and heart in the game.

Perhaps poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean to suggest he has only displayed speed/size combo, just that speed/size ratio is all I "know" based on 2 games. Or all I am willing to bet on, after 2 games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's certainly had some nice holes to run through at times, but he's also shown more than just speed. He's made some cuts that guys his size usually can't. The biggest thing he's shown is VISION...some of those gaping holes appeared in unlikely spots, spots where inferior RBs simply don't see them in time.And he's doing this after having taken essentially two years off, and minimal work as a college freshman the year before that. The questions on this kid really aren't about talent, but about whether he can keep his head and heart in the game.

Perhaps poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean to suggest he has only displayed speed/size combo, just that speed/size ratio is all I "know" based on 2 games. Or all I am willing to bet on, after 2 games.
Is he a RB2 in startups next year? Same tier as David Wilson, Ben Tate, Mikel Leshoure, Alfred Morris.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's certainly had some nice holes to run through at times, but he's also shown more than just speed. He's made some cuts that guys his size usually can't. The biggest thing he's shown is VISION...some of those gaping holes appeared in unlikely spots, spots where inferior RBs simply don't see them in time.And he's doing this after having taken essentially two years off, and minimal work as a college freshman the year before that. The questions on this kid really aren't about talent, but about whether he can keep his head and heart in the game.

Perhaps poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean to suggest he has only displayed speed/size combo, just that speed/size ratio is all I "know" based on 2 games. Or all I am willing to bet on, after 2 games.
Is he a RB2 in startups next year? Same tier as David Wilson, Ben Tate, Mikel Leshoure, Alfred Morris.
I have Morris ahead of all these guys. In standard formats, I have him as a clear #1. As for the others, I think it is reasonable to put Brown in that group. I think he is a better talent than Tate and LeShoure, even. I would have a lot of work to do before ranking Brown for a startup, however. I'd happily treat him as a RB2 after drafting Shady in the first. Outside of that, again, I'd have work to do. Hopefully the rest of the year clears things up a bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's certainly had some nice holes to run through at times, but he's also shown more than just speed. He's made some cuts that guys his size usually can't. The biggest thing he's shown is VISION...some of those gaping holes appeared in unlikely spots, spots where inferior RBs simply don't see them in time.And he's doing this after having taken essentially two years off, and minimal work as a college freshman the year before that. The questions on this kid really aren't about talent, but about whether he can keep his head and heart in the game.

Perhaps poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean to suggest he has only displayed speed/size combo, just that speed/size ratio is all I "know" based on 2 games. Or all I am willing to bet on, after 2 games.
Is he a RB2 in startups next year? Same tier as David Wilson, Ben Tate, Mikel Leshoure, Alfred Morris.
I have Morris ahead of all these guys. In standard formats, I have him as a clear #1. As for the others, I think it is reasonable to put Brown in that group. I think he is a better talent than Tate and LeShoure, even. I would have a lot of work to do before ranking Brown for a startup, however. I'd happily treat him as a RB2 after drafting Shady in the first. Outside of that, again, I'd have work to do. Hopefully the rest of the year clears things up a bit.
I was grouping him in that same area. Really hard to know what he's worth with such a talent blocking his way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryce Brown has looked good, but he also stepped into a "perfect storm" situation-wise. Rookie QB so they're forced to lean more on the run, two bad / injury-riddled defenses, fresh legs late in the season.

McCoy has proven himself with 2 1/2 years of elite play; his contact is indicative of how the Eagles view him moving forward. The guy is one of the best RBs in the NFL people. He's not losing his job.

Depending on the new coach and system next year, I wouldn't be surprised if Brown is earning himself a solid role as the COP guy, but when McCoy's healthy, Brown will be a complmentary guy / handcuff and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has played the Panthers, who make everyone look great, and the Cowboys whose interior defense is all on the sideline.

Really need to look past the defenses here, he has looked special against both of them and would have carved up just about anyone. His mental midget potential keeps him well below Shady in my book, but he's one of those risky RB2 types I'd like to have behind a guy like Forte or Marshawn. The new coach in Philly, whoever it is, needs to build around both and re-do the offensive line. This looks like Buffalo 2012 if all goes to plan, which is frustratingly good for fantays owners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...