Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

Thanks EBF but as you prolly expect some to say, there's no way i can take Richardson in the 1st next year.

I'm sure a lot of people feel that way. I think it's going to depend on to what extent you believe his current performance is an accurate reflection of his actual level. I won't rehash all the arguments here, but my general take is that his situation is crippling his output to a large extent.

Look at all of the recent top 10 overall RB draft picks who have failed to convince right off the bat (Benson, Bush, T Jones, McFadden, Spiller). They all eventually found a groove and showed (at least for a while) why they were considered top talents in the first place. Lynch is another example of a guy who looked totally normal on one team and has looked outstanding on another. Situation is a big, big factor for these guys.

I'm high enough on Trent's pure talent to think he's more Lynch than Dayne. In time I think we'll see that this was just a really rough patch for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fear & Loathing

    2096

  • Concept Coop

    1467

  • SSOG

    1403

  • EBF

    1210

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brewtown, the other day I posted that you were the worst thing to happen to draft discussion here in a long time--within hours it had 7-8 likes. That should tell you something.

I've been a part of this thread almost from the beginning. I've learned a lot. I've made some friends. But...let's please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. It isn't fun. Tell me what you think

Good. It's settled then. I'll continue to disregard your "analysis" and you can ignore mine. I don't think anyone in this thread will miss these exchanges.

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totally with EBF on Richardson. Every scout had him as the most complete prospect since ADP. Awesome production and size/speed ratio. He's had some injury issues and has yet to assimilate well with the Colts. Still, I'm a believer and would take him top 8 in dynasty. Feel like with an off season and a full slate of camp/workouts that he will look like the talent we all saw at Alabama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks EBF but as you prolly expect some to say, there's no way i can take Richardson in the 1st next year.

I'm sure a lot of people feel that way. I think it's going to depend on to what extent you believe his current performance is an accurate reflection of his actual level. I won't rehash all the arguments here, but my general take is that his situation is crippling his output to a large extent.

Look at all of the recent top 10 overall RB draft picks who have failed to convince right off the bat (Benson, Bush, T Jones, McFadden, Spiller). They all eventually found a groove and showed (at least for a while) why they were considered top talents in the first place. Lynch is another example of a guy who looked totally normal on one team and has looked outstanding on another. Situation is a big, big factor for these guys.

I'm high enough on Trent's pure talent to think he's more Lynch than Dayne. In time I think we'll see that this was just a really rough patch for him.

Yeah, ive read your take on him but after 24 games played hes really showed me next to nothing. Thats about a 1/3 of a typical runningbacks career already over. Even with the Browns he was more compiler than dynamic. In 24 games, he has 3 games with over 100 yards rushing and 5 games with over a pedestrian 4 YPC. Its not just the boxscore either. Watching him run, he stinks right now. Start stop with no reacceleration. If it wasnt for his power he would have no redeemable qualities. Way too much risk for me that he bounces back mainly because im not even sure what he can bounce back to. First round dynasty guy for me has to be a young sure thing.

Edited by fruity pebbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been posting these stats in the Jordan Reed hype thread, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to cross-post them over here:

Here is a complete list of every single TE in the entire NFL who has scored 8+ points in every game this year (PPR scoring):

  1. Jordan Reed

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more yards per game than Jordan Reed.

  1. Mike Ditka

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more receptions per game than Jordan Reed.

Here are the top 10 tight ends in career receiving yards per game (minimum 8 games played):

  1. Rob Gronkowski - 64.07
  2. Jimmy Graham - 62.85
  3. Kellen Winslow, Sr. - 61.84
  4. Jordan Reed - 60.88
  5. Antonio Gates - 57.23
  6. Tony Gonzalez - 56.27
  7. Jason Witten - 56.27
  8. Aaron Hernandez - 51.47
  9. Kellen Winslow, Jr. - 51.19
  10. Shannon Sharpe - 49.56

Here is a complete list of every tight end with 5+ career receptions per game:

  1. Jordan Reed (5.50)
  2. Jason Witten (5.07)

Kellen Winslow Sr. (4.96 r/g) makes it to if you round.

Edit: The receiving yards per game list ignores Reed's 18 yard rush attempt. Run the list again with all offensive yards and Reed jumps to 2nd with 63.13 yards per game

As a Reed owner, this makes me happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

Especially for EBF :hophead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EBF's rankings.

If this is PPR, I don't know why you have an everydown bellcow RB like Stacy so far down below Lacy. Still not a believer in his talent? Yet you have Morris who offers nothing in the pass game right above Lacy.

Ivory way too low. Mediocre? He's only 5 months older than Ben Tate and is just as talented and has the same level of injury questions. He's also the unquestioned starter as long as he's healthy. Tate's immediate situation next year isn't so clear.

Don't know why Foster is so high. He's already out for the year. And might never be the same after back surgery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EBF's rankings.

If this is PPR, I don't know why you have an everydown bellcow RB like Stacy so far down below Lacy. Still not a believer in his talent? Yet you have Morris who offers nothing in the pass game right above Lacy.

Definitely not 100% sold on Stacy yet or else he'd be higher on the list. Think it's far more likely that the Rams draft/sign a prominent RB than the odds of the Packers doing the same.

Morris is on his way to consecutive top 15 finishes and while that probably doesn't justify a RB8 pick, there's something to be said for the stability and youth combination. He's really more of a high end FF RB2 than a guy who can carry your team though and that's unlikely to change unless he suddenly turns into a receiver, which I don't expect.

Might have Foster too high. I have a feeling it would be tough for me to pull the trigger on him that high if I were really on the clock and forced to make a decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

A few top 10 seasons are one thing, but a top 5 dynasty RB that does not make, which is where you have Richardson ranked. Correct me if I'm wrong, but after their initial struggles I don't think guys like Bush/Benson/Jones ever even approached the top 5 in any dynasty rankings. For a guy that preaches so much about exit value, that should mean something to you.

Spiller is the only one that ever really reached/maintained a top 5 dynasty ranking and he was never nearly as bad, and not for nearly as long as Richardson. By this point in CJ Spiller's career he was already ripping off 5+ ypc and everyone was excited to see what he could do as a feature back. Richardson has already had that opportunity, and failed, twice.

As to the situation, what concerns me about blaming everything on that is that the Indy situation only became "terrible" after Richardson started struggling in it. All we heard all offseason about Vick Ballard was how he was a nothing talent that benefitted from playing in Indy. All we heard when Richardson was traded to the Colts was about how much he was going to excel there. How mediocre guys like Ballard and Bradshaw were good fantasy assets there so we could only imagine what was going to happen now that they had a RB that was actually good. The whole idea that Indy is an awful situation only popped up after Richardson failed to do what everyone else in Indy had done, and after the statute of limitations on "he's still learning the playbook!" ran out. I don't recall anyone saying "well hold on a minute, he might be better off staying in Cleveland" when the trade was announced.

Consider this. The Colts have played 10 games this year. Their 3 best games rushing are the 3 games where someone not named Trent Richardson received the majority of the carries. Even if we considered the idea that Richardson and the other RBs were all equal, what is the statistical probability that, based on random variance, the 3 best games Indy had rushing would be the exact 3 games where Richardson wasn't the lead back? Mathematically the chances of that happening are 0.0013875 or basically one tenth of one percent. Now if we operate under the assumption that Richardson is actually better than those guys, what is the statistical probability that, just through absurd luck, Indy had their 3 best games running with other guys? It is absurdly low. Almost unfathomable.

You have said before that you refuse to believe that Richardson is this bad, so something must be up. From a talent standpoint, I believe you. However, his vision is just awful. It really is this bad. I don't know if it's that he never learned it because he didn't need to at Alabama or if the massive holes at Bama just hid his lack of vision from us, but either way it's a huge problem.

I've been paying closer attention to this the last few weeks. Every game you watch you see running backs finding places to run that aren't necessarily where the play was designed to go. They get the ball, make a quick decision and quick burst into the proper hole. A 4th and 1 in a Dolphins' game really comes to mind. Daniel Thomas got the handoff on a play designed to run between the RG and RT. Instead he made an immediate cut away from the FB lead and between the C and LG and exploded through a small hole in the line for an 18 yard gain. This was Danield Thomas, so it's not like we're talking about a skill reserved for the Adrian Peterson's of the league here. There is almost no doubt in my mind that if Richardson had gotten that exact same carry he would have put his hand on his FB's back, lowered his head and picked up a half a yard. Then we would have come back here and the Richardson supporters would have told us how amazing it was that he picked up half a yard on a play where there was a brick wall in front of him.

Richardson can still be good, maybe even great. But to do so HE needs to improve, not just his situation. He needs to shed some weight to get that burst back that we haven't seen all season, and he needs to significantly improve his ability to find a hole and decisively burst through it. Blaming it all on a situation that's not nearly as bad as the one many other guys are playing well in is just another in a laundry list of excuses and free passes that FFers have given Richardson for his own deficiencies. At this point, I'm fairly certain that if Richardson had been traded to Denver instead of Indy in week 3 you'd be trying to convince me that Denver isn't nearly as good a situation for FF RB production as we were all lead to believe.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

Consider this. The Colts have played 10 games this year. Their 3 best games rushing are the 3 games where someone not named Trent Richardson received the majority of the carries. Even if we considered the idea that Richardson and the other RBs were all equal, what is the statistical probability that, based on random variance, the 3 best games Indy had rushing would be the exact 3 games where Richardson wasn't the lead back? Mathematically the chances of that happening are 0.0013875 or basically one tenth of one percent. Now if we operate under the assumption that Richardson is actually better than those guys, what is the statistical probability that, just through absurd luck, Indy had their 3 best games running with other guys? It is absurdly low. Almost unfathomable.

You made a lot of good points in your post. But the above paragraph was not one of them. There's no less than dozens of other variables to consider than simply who the RB getting the carry on any given play is, such as the opponent, the opponent's gameplan, the offensive gameplan, the O-line play, the QB play, etc. etc. etc. Safe to say your much better off not even trying to put a number on something like this when you can't easily and rationally control just about any of the dozen of other variables.

Edited by Time Kibitzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

Consider this. The Colts have played 10 games this year. Their 3 best games rushing are the 3 games where someone not named Trent Richardson received the majority of the carries. Even if we considered the idea that Richardson and the other RBs were all equal, what is the statistical probability that, based on random variance, the 3 best games Indy had rushing would be the exact 3 games where Richardson wasn't the lead back? Mathematically the chances of that happening are 0.0013875 or basically one tenth of one percent. Now if we operate under the assumption that Richardson is actually better than those guys, what is the statistical probability that, just through absurd luck, Indy had their 3 best games running with other guys? It is absurdly low. Almost unfathomable.

You made a lot of good points in your post. But the above paragraph was not one of them. There's no less than dozens of other variables to consider than simply who the RB getting the carry on any given play is, such as the opponent, the opponent's gameplan, the offensive gameplan, the O-line play, the QB play, etc. etc. etc. Safe to say your much better off not even trying to put a number on something like this when you can't easily and rationally control just about any of the dozen of other variables.

That was kind of my point. The chances that those variables just happened to line up the best for those 3 games where Richardson wasn't the lead back is 1/10 * 1/9 * 1/8 = 0.0013875.

ETA: Actually that was bad math. My old stats teacher would be mad at me. It's actually 3/10 * 2/9 * 1/8 = 0.0083325. So almost up to a 1% chance that Ballard/Bradshaw just lucked into starting the 3 best rushing games the Colts were going to have so far this year based only on factors outside of who the RB was.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your last paragraph, I'd say that certainly goes for you. You completely gloss over the myriad of talented prospects who never did live up to the hype. Instead, you like to point out guys like Bush, but you don't mention that you took him top 5 overall in a start up draft. Sure, he's rebounded, but that was still a terrible pick. Same goes for guys like Stewart, TRich, etc.- even if they do turn it around and aren't complete busts, that wouldn't justify your insanely high ranking of them. IIRC, you said you would trade AP for TRich before he took an NFL snap. It's almost impossible for that to be anything less than a terrible call.

Yea, I took Reggie in the top 3 of a PPR startup in 2006 and on the balance of his career that has been a fair pick. Was it the best pick humanly possible? Probably not, but the guy has been a ppg monster in that league for much of his career. If a guy is still churning out useful seasons 7-8 years down the line, it's hard to say it was a bad choice. I would say it was a pretty decent selection in hindsight. Certainly preferable to some of the trash that went in that round.

Go back and look at the list of RBs drafted in the top 10 in the past 15 years. Count the number of total busts. I don't think I am "completely glossing over" all the various misses. There aren't very many. In recent history maybe Cadillac and Ronnie Brown were total disasters (and they each had one 1000+ yard season anyway). McFadden had been mostly bad. Benson was a disappointment, but at least a useful NFL starter. Subjectively, I never felt any of those guys were in the same ballpark as Richardson in terms of talent and pro outlook. And that's part of where my analysis on Richardson comes from. If you think a player is very good, you're a lot more likely to write off his struggles to circumstantial or situational factors. And you might be right. Reggie Bush on the Saints could not crack 4.0 YPC in any of his first three seasons. On Miami he had a 5.0 YPC season and now he's at 4.7 YPC with the Lions. Where are all the Bush haters now?

I try to find more of a standalone evaluation of player's ability and anchor to that instead of just looking at yesterday's box scores. That can get you into trouble at times. It's also a good way to ensure that you don't panic sell guys like Dez, Crabtree, Reggie, and Lynch when they're mired in a cold period. If you think Richardson is more like William Green and Ron Dayne than Ricky Williams and Marshawn Lynch, of course you're going to think anyone is foolish for not seeing the obvious. I just don't happen to agree with that assessment and that's pretty much where the debate ends for me. I think the people ripping on Trent are pretty much just sequels of the people ripping on Thomas Jones, Reggie Bush, and Marshawn Lynch in previous years.

I'm not going to get into a big debate about it. History is full of bad players who had bad starts to their careers and also good players who had bad starts to their careers. I think he's one thing. Other people think he's something else. I think I'm right. They think they're right. Nothing to see here. Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A great read on Richardson is here: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/10/23/analysis-notebook-bonus-edition/.

I'm not sold on him, nor do I have him on any teams (despite a couple of offers) but I can't shake the feeling that people are going to get rid of him right before he breaks out, just like Lynch.

That being said, it's easier to hold onto him in dynasty leagues than it is to figure out where to take him in a startup. I certainly wouldn't take him ahead of Lacy, who plays all three downs and runs with power, agility, and patience. He's great at play-action and ranks 11th in pass blocking. Only Marshawn Lynch forced more than Lacy’s 24 missed tackles on the ground this month, and Lacy ranks sixth with 2.6 ypc after contact. Downplaying him reminds me a lot of how people said that Morris wasn't that talented last year.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A great read on Richardson is here: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/10/23/analysis-notebook-bonus-edition/.

I'm not sold on him, nor do I have him on any teams (despite a couple of offers) but I can't shake the feeling that people are going to get rid of him right before he breaks out, just like Lynch.

That being said, it's easier to hold onto him in dynasty leagues than it is to figure out where to take him in a startup. I certainly wouldn't take him ahead of Lacy, who plays all three downs and runs with power, agility, and patience. He's great at play-action and ranks 11th in pass blocking. Only Marshawn Lynch forced more than Lacy’s 24 missed tackles on the ground this month, and Lacy ranks sixth with 2.6 ypc after contact. Downplaying him reminds me a lot of how people said that Morris wasn't that talented last year.

Doing an in-season mock for DLF, and I just grabbed Trent Richardson with pick 3.04. At a time where there are maybe 4 backs under 24 with a pulse (Gio, Lacy, Bell, and Richardson), I'll gladly take that gamble. If it doesn't pay out, it doesn't pay out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question: why has every single RB looked fantastic in Tampa this season... except for Doug Martin?

Martin's game log:

24 for 65 (2.7 YPC)

29 for 144 (5.0 YPC)

20 for 88 (4.4 YPC)

27 for 45 (1.7 YPC)

16 for 67 (4.2 YPC)

11 for 47 (4.3 YPC)

So one bad game to start the season one absolutely dreadful game against Arizona. Otherwise pretty good. He had more solid outings than bad ones. Just didn't get into the end zone to pad his FF stats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been posting these stats in the Jordan Reed hype thread, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to cross-post them over here:

Here is a complete list of every single TE in the entire NFL who has scored 8+ points in every game this year (PPR scoring):

  1. Jordan Reed

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more yards per game than Jordan Reed.

  1. Mike Ditka

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more receptions per game than Jordan Reed.

Here are the top 10 tight ends in career receiving yards per game (minimum 8 games played):

  1. Rob Gronkowski - 64.07
  2. Jimmy Graham - 62.85
  3. Kellen Winslow, Sr. - 61.84
  4. Jordan Reed - 60.88
  5. Antonio Gates - 57.23
  6. Tony Gonzalez - 56.27
  7. Jason Witten - 56.27
  8. Aaron Hernandez - 51.47
  9. Kellen Winslow, Jr. - 51.19
  10. Shannon Sharpe - 49.56

Here is a complete list of every tight end with 5+ career receptions per game:

  1. Jordan Reed (5.50)
  2. Jason Witten (5.07)

Kellen Winslow Sr. (4.96 r/g) makes it to if you round.

Edit: The receiving yards per game list ignores Reed's 18 yard rush attempt. Run the list again with all offensive yards and Reed jumps to 2nd with 63.13 yards per game

As a Reed owner, this makes me happy.

If you like that, you'll love this week's "Jordan Reed Stat of the Week(tm)":

So, as noted, Jordan Reed's 5.5 receptions per game currently stands as the most by a rookie TE in history. Just how far ahead of the rest of the field is that figure, though? Consider: only four rookie TEs have even topped 4 receptions per game. Jordan Reed is as far ahead of the guy in 7th place (Rob Awalt, with 3.5 receptions per game) as Awalt is in front of the guy in 128th place (an 8-way tie with 1.5 receptions per game).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

Consider this. The Colts have played 10 games this year. Their 3 best games rushing are the 3 games where someone not named Trent Richardson received the majority of the carries. Even if we considered the idea that Richardson and the other RBs were all equal, what is the statistical probability that, based on random variance, the 3 best games Indy had rushing would be the exact 3 games where Richardson wasn't the lead back? Mathematically the chances of that happening are 0.0013875 or basically one tenth of one percent. Now if we operate under the assumption that Richardson is actually better than those guys, what is the statistical probability that, just through absurd luck, Indy had their 3 best games running with other guys? It is absurdly low. Almost unfathomable.

You made a lot of good points in your post. But the above paragraph was not one of them. There's no less than dozens of other variables to consider than simply who the RB getting the carry on any given play is, such as the opponent, the opponent's gameplan, the offensive gameplan, the O-line play, the QB play, etc. etc. etc. Safe to say your much better off not even trying to put a number on something like this when you can't easily and rationally control just about any of the dozen of other variables.

That was kind of my point. The chances that those variables just happened to line up the best for those 3 games where Richardson wasn't the lead back is 1/10 * 1/9 * 1/8 = 0.0013875.

ETA: Actually that was bad math. My old stats teacher would be mad at me. It's actually 3/10 * 2/9 * 1/8 = 0.0083325. So almost up to a 1% chance that Ballard/Bradshaw just lucked into starting the 3 best rushing games the Colts were going to have so far this year based only on factors outside of who the RB was.

Given that all those variables are simultaneously reacting with each other multi-directionally on each individual play, it doesn't really make much sense to rank all those variables on a game-by-game basis, or at all for that matter. There's really no way of determining the degree to which a play/game situation was better/worse than any other given all the variables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been posting these stats in the Jordan Reed hype thread, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to cross-post them over here:

Here is a complete list of every single TE in the entire NFL who has scored 8+ points in every game this year (PPR scoring):

  1. Jordan Reed

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more yards per game than Jordan Reed.

  1. Mike Ditka

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more receptions per game than Jordan Reed.

Here are the top 10 tight ends in career receiving yards per game (minimum 8 games played):

  1. Rob Gronkowski - 64.07
  2. Jimmy Graham - 62.85
  3. Kellen Winslow, Sr. - 61.84
  4. Jordan Reed - 60.88
  5. Antonio Gates - 57.23
  6. Tony Gonzalez - 56.27
  7. Jason Witten - 56.27
  8. Aaron Hernandez - 51.47
  9. Kellen Winslow, Jr. - 51.19
  10. Shannon Sharpe - 49.56

Here is a complete list of every tight end with 5+ career receptions per game:

  1. Jordan Reed (5.50)
  2. Jason Witten (5.07)

Kellen Winslow Sr. (4.96 r/g) makes it to if you round.

Edit: The receiving yards per game list ignores Reed's 18 yard rush attempt. Run the list again with all offensive yards and Reed jumps to 2nd with 63.13 yards per game

As a Reed owner, this makes me happy.

If you like that, you'll love this week's "Jordan Reed Stat of the Week":

So, as noted, Jordan Reed's 5.5 receptions per game currently stands as the most by a rookie TE in history. Just how far ahead of the rest of the field is that figure, though? Consider: only four rookie TEs have even topped 4 receptions per game. Jordan Reed is as far ahead of the guy in 7th place (Rob Awalt, with 3.5 receptions per game) as Awalt is in front of the guy in 128th place (an 8-way tie with 1.5 receptions per game).

At what point do we stop comparing Reed's stats in his 'TE-in-name-only' position to TEs and start comparing him to WRs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're kind of going in circles at this point, but there are 3 really scary things about those "best case" scenarios where top 10 picks bounced back.

  • Very few of them ever ended up actually becoming top 5 dynasty backs (where you currently have Richardson ranked)
  • None of them were ever as bad as Richardson has been this year
  • Most if not all of them were in worse spots than Richardson is in this year, and few of them were on a team where all the other RBs produced fine in the same situation they struggled in like Richardson is

McFadden and Bush have had some very productive PPR seasons when healthy. Thomas Jones had back-to-back top 10 seasons and is one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. From a style standpoint, Richardson is most like Lynch and we've seen what he has become once removed from the pit that is Buffalo.

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last. They lost their best blocking TE before the season started. They lost their best WR. Their OL can't block a soul and their defense is looking very suspect. Since Wayne went down they are falling behind very early in games and abandoning the run. The few times when they try to run the ball, they're getting dominated in the trenches. I have been watching some of the games since Trent went there. I don't know that there's a RB alive who would be excelling in the same situation. He's getting very few carries and when he's getting the ball there's usually instant pressure in the backfield. It's ugly to watch. I understand why people think he sucks. That's what the box scores suggest. I just don't buy that as the comprehensive explanation.

The saying that "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it" is very applicable in FF. The Richardson backlash feels eerily similar to the Lynch, Bush, and Jones backlash of years past. Basically people taking an accurate observation (Trent Richardson is having a bad season) and overgeneralizing its meaning (Trent Richardson sucks and is hopeless moving forward). It proved dead wrong on Reggie and Lynch. I think it's dead wrong on Richardson. I think I have a decent take on his abilities and I don't think his current statistical output reflects those abilities. If people disagree, that's fine. They can rank him wherever they want. I don't really care ultimately.

This happens a lot. People generally give Rbs far too much credit for their success, and far too much blame when they fail. Kind of fascinating, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't do that. Gio's to good.

I just offered an early/mid first + Bilal Powell for Trent Richardson In my dynasty league. The owner is considering it.

My thought is the Colts are at least going to give him the ball so his floor is low end flex but if he turns it around he's a cornerstone player for the next 4-5 years.

Rolling the dice. Screw it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivory way too low. Mediocre? He's only 5 months older than Ben Tate and is just as talented and has the same level of injury questions. He's also the unquestioned starter as long as he's healthy. Tate's immediate situation next year isn't so clear.

IMO Ivory is the definition of mediocre. He hasn't been noticeably more effective than Bilal Powell, who is certainly mediocre. He adds nothing as a receiver. He's certainly not entrenched as an "unquestioned starter" -- he has more touches than Powell in exactly two of the eight games they've been on the field together -- it's a true RBBC based on hot hand, week specific game plan, or in game situation.

Both Ivory and Powell could easily be made irrelevant at any time moving forward if the Jets hit on a RB in the middle rounds. They're JAGs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last.

This is absurd. There's obviously no point in further discussing Richardson himself with you, but the Colts are absolutely not a terrible team. They are 6-3 with wins over SF, Seattle, and Denver. If you want to say that they're a year or two away from being a legitimate Super Bowl contender, fine. But calling them terrible is ridiculous excuse making. They've also been good enough for RBs not named Trent Richardson to average almost 5.2 YPC cumulatively. Maybe Trent bounces back moving forward, but saying he personally has done anything other than flat out suck this year is disingenuous.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last.

This is absurd. There's obviously no point in further discussing Richardson himself with you, but the Colts are absolutely not a terrible team. They are 6-3 with wins over SF, Seattle, and Denver. If you want to say that they're a year or two away from being a legitimate Super Bowl contender, fine. But calling them terrible is ridiculous excuse making. They've also been good enough for RBs not named Trent Richardson to average almost 5.2 YPC cumulatively. Maybe Trent bounces back moving forward, but saying he personally has done anything other than flat out suck this year is disingenuous.

They fell behind huge to a weak Houston team two weeks ago and were lucky to win. They just got crushed by a very mediocre Rams team. Yes, they stole a couple wins from good teams in tight games, but that was before Wayne went down. That was a massive setback for them. I think they'll slide down the stretch, back into the playoffs, and get eliminated immediately. This is still a team that lacks talent across the board and has been raiding other teams just to fill up the 53.

As far as the other Colts RBs doing well, that's overblown. Bradshaw and Ballard played what...1...2 games this season? Brown gets about 5-6 carries per game and typically in more favorable situations. When they need to run out the clock, it's Richardson who gets the call and his YPC gets killed.

His performance this year has been totally disappointing. That's undeniable. The question is how much of that is a reflection of his ability and how much of it is circumstance? I think this is where the sympathizers and haters differ in their take. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments to explain myself. Suffice to say I don't think there are any RBs in the league short of maybe Peterson who would be lighting it up on this Colts team though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been posting these stats in the Jordan Reed hype thread, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to cross-post them over here:

Here is a complete list of every single TE in the entire NFL who has scored 8+ points in every game this year (PPR scoring):

  1. Jordan Reed

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more yards per game than Jordan Reed.

  1. Mike Ditka

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more receptions per game than Jordan Reed.

Here are the top 10 tight ends in career receiving yards per game (minimum 8 games played):

  1. Rob Gronkowski - 64.07
  2. Jimmy Graham - 62.85
  3. Kellen Winslow, Sr. - 61.84
  4. Jordan Reed - 60.88
  5. Antonio Gates - 57.23
  6. Tony Gonzalez - 56.27
  7. Jason Witten - 56.27
  8. Aaron Hernandez - 51.47
  9. Kellen Winslow, Jr. - 51.19
  10. Shannon Sharpe - 49.56

Here is a complete list of every tight end with 5+ career receptions per game:

  1. Jordan Reed (5.50)
  2. Jason Witten (5.07)

Kellen Winslow Sr. (4.96 r/g) makes it to if you round.

Edit: The receiving yards per game list ignores Reed's 18 yard rush attempt. Run the list again with all offensive yards and Reed jumps to 2nd with 63.13 yards per game

As a Reed owner, this makes me happy.

If you like that, you'll love this week's "Jordan Reed Stat of the Week":

So, as noted, Jordan Reed's 5.5 receptions per game currently stands as the most by a rookie TE in history. Just how far ahead of the rest of the field is that figure, though? Consider: only four rookie TEs have even topped 4 receptions per game. Jordan Reed is as far ahead of the guy in 7th place (Rob Awalt, with 3.5 receptions per game) as Awalt is in front of the guy in 128th place (an 8-way tie with 1.5 receptions per game).

At what point do we stop comparing Reed's stats in his 'TE-in-name-only' position to TEs and start comparing him to WRs?

When we give Jimmy Graham (and, retroactively, Aaron Hernandez) the same treatment? :shrug:

Jordan Reed is hardly the first TE to be a glorified WR. Hell, when Indy franchised Dallas Clark, he argued that he should be franchised at the WR rate because he played more than 50% of his snaps out wide. We still compare those guys to their TE peers without much complaint. Why should Reed be any different? As long as he keeps his TE designation in fantasy leagues, I don't think it makes sense to quibble about whether he's a "real" TE, or whether he's a "hybrid" TE, or whether he's a "fake" TE, and then go through the trouble of assigning all other TEs to those respective categories and deciding which we can compare him to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're so egotistic that you'll never admit it, but the Bush pick was bad. The trade AP for TRich call was awful. The rankings of uber stud never-lose-value guys like JStew and TRich were awful. That's fine, we all make mistakes- the part that irks me the most about you is your insistence that your weren't wrong. You try and spin everything, and some of it is entirely ridiculous.

Oh, and I see you aren't backing off your holier-than-thou box-score schtick, which is priceless coming from a guy who bases most of his evaluations on BMI and workout numbers.

The Bush pick was fine. If you want, you can go back and look at that draft and tell me who I should have picked instead:

http://football99.myfantasyleague.com/2005/options?L=73850&O=17

Which of those players had more career VBD from that point on in a PPR league? Steven Jackson and Larry Fitzgerald are probably the only two in the first round, and I picked one of those guys. You can keep insisting that this Bush pick was somehow a mistake, but that's nonsense.

As far as the other stuff, I think you're guilty of reaching premature verdicts on these players. If Trent Richardson's career continues on its current trajectory, yes it will have been foolish to treat him as a top asset. That's far from certain though. I wouldn't insist that someone who traded a lot for Tavon Austin or Cordarrelle Patterson this offseason was dead wrong just because he's had a weak rookie year overall. The story of a career isn't always written in 1-2 years.

Just look at Reggie Bush. He was a PPR monster early in New Orleans. Then he hit a rough patch with injuries and limited usage. If you were around back then, you probably would've been one of those people insisting that he was a bust and that anyone who held out hope for him was delusional/arrogant/whatever. Turns out you would have been completely wrong.

Ironically, I think you're as guilty of being "egotistical" as I am since you can't seem to accept the notion that someone honestly disagrees with you. If I disagree with you about Richardson it must be because I'm "egotistical" and not because I might...you know...actually be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't insist that someone who traded a lot for Tavon Austin or Cordarrelle Patterson this offseason was dead wrong just because he's had a weak rookie year overall. The story of a career isn't always written in 1-2 years.

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation and you did just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been posting these stats in the Jordan Reed hype thread, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to cross-post them over here:

Here is a complete list of every single TE in the entire NFL who has scored 8+ points in every game this year (PPR scoring):

  1. Jordan Reed

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more yards per game than Jordan Reed.

  1. Mike Ditka

Here is a complete list of every rookie tight end in NFL history who has averaged more receptions per game than Jordan Reed.

Here are the top 10 tight ends in career receiving yards per game (minimum 8 games played):

  1. Rob Gronkowski - 64.07
  2. Jimmy Graham - 62.85
  3. Kellen Winslow, Sr. - 61.84
  4. Jordan Reed - 60.88
  5. Antonio Gates - 57.23
  6. Tony Gonzalez - 56.27
  7. Jason Witten - 56.27
  8. Aaron Hernandez - 51.47
  9. Kellen Winslow, Jr. - 51.19
  10. Shannon Sharpe - 49.56

Here is a complete list of every tight end with 5+ career receptions per game:

  1. Jordan Reed (5.50)
  2. Jason Witten (5.07)

Kellen Winslow Sr. (4.96 r/g) makes it to if you round.

Edit: The receiving yards per game list ignores Reed's 18 yard rush attempt. Run the list again with all offensive yards and Reed jumps to 2nd with 63.13 yards per game

As a Reed owner, this makes me happy.

If you like that, you'll love this week's "Jordan Reed Stat of the Week":

So, as noted, Jordan Reed's 5.5 receptions per game currently stands as the most by a rookie TE in history. Just how far ahead of the rest of the field is that figure, though? Consider: only four rookie TEs have even topped 4 receptions per game. Jordan Reed is as far ahead of the guy in 7th place (Rob Awalt, with 3.5 receptions per game) as Awalt is in front of the guy in 128th place (an 8-way tie with 1.5 receptions per game).

At what point do we stop comparing Reed's stats in his 'TE-in-name-only' position to TEs and start comparing him to WRs?

When we give Jimmy Graham (and, retroactively, Aaron Hernandez) the same treatment? :shrug:

Jordan Reed is hardly the first TE to be a glorified WR. Hell, when Indy franchised Dallas Clark, he argued that he should be franchised at the WR rate because he played more than 50% of his snaps out wide. We still compare those guys to their TE peers without much complaint. Why should Reed be any different? As long as he keeps his TE designation in fantasy leagues, I don't think it makes sense to quibble about whether he's a "real" TE, or whether he's a "hybrid" TE, or whether he's a "fake" TE, and then go through the trouble of assigning all other TEs to those respective categories and deciding which we can compare him to.

Seems like the logical next step to me, at least when the topic is historical statistical comparisons. I'm certainly not saying Reed shouldn't be compared to current TEs, especially in fantasy when that's all that matters. I just don't see how bringing up guys like Rob Awalt tells us anything more than the TE position has changed drastically since the 80s.

Edited by Time Kibitzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't insist that someone who traded a lot for Tavon Austin or Cordarrelle Patterson this offseason was dead wrong just because he's had a weak rookie year overall. The story of a career isn't always written in 1-2 years.

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation and you did just that.

Like most people, I was disappointed by his season up until this past weekend. He didn't have the excuse of limited opportunities because St. Louis was giving him chances and he wasn't doing anything with them. Truthfully, I've always been a bit skeptical of Austin because there's no successful precedent with his body type and playing style. I can admit that I wouldn't feel comfortable making a big commitment to him until he proves definitively that he's legit.

What I've not been doing is going into the Tavon Austin threads posting constantly about how much he sucks and telling everyone that he's a lost cause. I might not be a fan, but at the same time I think it's reasonable that the people who were fans would still be optimistic. Same with Patterson. I don't have him on any teams. I've made a few offers for him, but in all likelihood I won't own him anywhere any time soon. However, just because I might not be sold on his future doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with me is automatically a delusional idiot who can't see the obvious. Thus I'm not going into Patterson threads insisting that people agree with me, which is basically what a lot of the most negative Trent Richardson critics have done. It's not enough for them to have their own opinion. They have to make personal attacks and assault your credibility if you disagree. Obviously I'm not on board with that.

Edited by EBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts are terrible. A lot of people think because they have Luck and they made the playoffs last year that somehow the Colts are a good team. They aren't. This team is two years removed from finishing dead last.

This is absurd. There's obviously no point in further discussing Richardson himself with you, but the Colts are absolutely not a terrible team. They are 6-3 with wins over SF, Seattle, and Denver. If you want to say that they're a year or two away from being a legitimate Super Bowl contender, fine. But calling them terrible is ridiculous excuse making. They've also been good enough for RBs not named Trent Richardson to average almost 5.2 YPC cumulatively. Maybe Trent bounces back moving forward, but saying he personally has done anything other than flat out suck this year is disingenuous.

They fell behind huge to a weak Houston team two weeks ago and were lucky to win. They just got crushed by a very mediocre Rams team. Yes, they stole a couple wins from good teams in tight games, but that was before Wayne went down. That was a massive setback for them. I think they'll slide down the stretch, back into the playoffs, and get eliminated immediately. This is still a team that lacks talent across the board and has been raiding other teams just to fill up the 53.

As far as the other Colts RBs doing well, that's overblown. Bradshaw and Ballard played what...1...2 games this season? Brown gets about 5-6 carries per game and typically in more favorable situations. When they need to run out the clock, it's Richardson who gets the call and his YPC gets killed.

link?

Aren't they usually coming from behind?

I want to beleive in Richardson as well, but man oh man you're coming across as grasping at straws here. They "stole" wins against good team. They fell behind to Houston? They won that game, correct?

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

They have to make personal attacks and assault your credibility if you disagree. Obviously I'm not on board with that.

I'm glad you're coming around.

"This is consistent with your tendency to give Martin as little credit as possible for his achievements while still maintaining some facade of objectivity."

"I won't put the link on here, but you were all over one of the Doug Martin threads last September/October when he was struggling saying what an average back he was and that Mark Ingram was better. You had to come down off that stance once he started putting up numbers or else you would've taken flak for looking silly, but I think you're still attached to that assessment despite all he's done since then. You don't really like the guy and no matter what he does there's always going to be that little part of you that's still trying to protect your initial evaluation."

"Suggesting that Martin was in some way a product of the usage in Tampa is IMO a thinly-veiled and probably unconscious attempt to cling to an outdated evaluation of his talent. The idea that, "I didn't think he was that good, but he's playing extremely well, so it's probably the usage more than it's me being wrong."

"Pretty clear that you're still looking for confirmation on your original assessment."

"I think you made an initial assessment and have basically anchored to that opinion regardless of what he's done."

Link to post
Share on other sites

link?

Aren't they usually coming from behind?

I want to beleive in Richardson as well, but man oh man you're coming across as grasping at straws here. They "stole" wins against good team. They fell behind to Houston? They won that game, correct?

I don't have time to go back and sift through every game log, but here's a telling sequence against Houston two weeks ago.

1:55 left in the game. Colts up three.

1st down - Richardson up the middle for -1 yards.

2nd down - Richardson up the middle for -1 yards.

3rd down - Brown up the middle for 1 yard.

So Trent comes in at the end of the game with 22 yards on 6 carries (3.67 YPC). They pound him up the middle twice in obvious running situations. He gets stuffed. His YPC drops from a merely weak 3.67 to an outright atrocious 2.5 for the night because of those two carries. Brown comes in against the softer 3rd-and-long defense. After the game, people pile it all on Richardson without really looking at the game flow or where the numbers came from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

link?

Aren't they usually coming from behind?

I want to beleive in Richardson as well, but man oh man you're coming across as grasping at straws here. They "stole" wins against good team. They fell behind to Houston? They won that game, correct?

I don't have time to go back and sift through every game log, but here's a telling sequence against Houston two weeks ago.

1:55 left in the game. Colts up three.

1st down - Richardson up the middle for -1 yards.

2nd down - Richardson up the middle for -1 yards.

3rd down - Brown up the middle for 1 yard.

So Trent comes in at the end of the game with 22 yards on 6 carries (3.67 YPC). They pound him up the middle twice in obvious running situations. He gets stuffed. His YPC drops from a merely weak 3.67 to an outright atrocious 2.5 for the night because of those two carries. Brown comes in against the softer 3rd-and-long defense. After the game, people pile it all on Richardson without really looking at the game flow or where the numbers came from.

Richardson's YPC actually goes down on the season if you remove his clock killing carries, fyi.

ETA: That's not to mention that part of the benefit in going to Indy in the first place was that he would start getting carries to run out the clock at the end of the game.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 1000th time, I've rendered no verdict on any of these guys. I have, however, adjusted my values of them based on things besides size/strength ratios and workout numbers. I will continue to refine my opinions of their values as things evolve. Novel concept to you, I know.

How is admitting I've been wrong about guys being egotistical? I have no problem with people having a different opinion on players than I do, that's what fantasy football is about. Heck, I don't even have a strong opinion on TRich either way at the moment. My problem is when you completely spin things, sometimes pulling things completely out of your ### instead of facing facts. The cherry on top is talking down to people while you do so, that's a nice touch.

I've moved him down too. He would've been a slam dunk top 2 RB for me going into the season. Now I've got him at RB5.

I think what I was getting at with the "egotistical" stuff is that it's a pot-kettle-black situation. We have different opinions on players like Richardson and Stewart. You think I'm "egotistical" for ignoring what you believe are obvious negatives. The irony there is that you might be wrong in your assessment. Yet because you assume that you have an accurate take on these players, it's only the people who disagree with you who are mistaken and not you.

And yea, I've been really guilty of this at times too. I can't even deny that. Everyone on here has an ego and it's understandable that they're going to take exception when people disagree with what they believe is an obvious conclusion. The frustration that people must feel when discussing a player like Stewart with me is probably similar to the frustration that I feel when discussing a player like Michael with others.

Me pulling the "personal attacks" card is pretty hypocritical. Guilty as charged there. What I'm really saying with this Trent and Stewart stuff is that there's actually a chance that I'm completely right. With that in mind, it's hard for me to get on board with people who dismiss all the analysis as the product of ego or delusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 1000th time, I've rendered no verdict on any of these guys. I have, however, adjusted my values of them based on things besides size/strength ratios and workout numbers. I will continue to refine my opinions of their values as things evolve. Novel concept to you, I know.

How is admitting I've been wrong about guys being egotistical? I have no problem with people having a different opinion on players than I do, that's what fantasy football is about. Heck, I don't even have a strong opinion on TRich either way at the moment. My problem is when you completely spin things, sometimes pulling things completely out of your ### instead of facing facts. The cherry on top is talking down to people while you do so, that's a nice touch.

I've moved him down too. He would've been a slam dunk top 2 RB for me going into the season. Now I've got him at RB5.

I think what I was getting at with the "egotistical" stuff is that it's a pot-kettle-black situation. We have different opinions on players like Richardson and Stewart. You think I'm "egotistical" for ignoring what you believe are obvious negatives. The irony there is that you might be wrong in your assessment. Yet because you assume that you have an accurate take on these players, it's only the people who disagree with you who are mistaken and not you.

And yea, I've been really guilty of this at times too. I can't even deny that. Everyone on here has an ego and it's understandable that they're going to take exception when people disagree with what they believe is an obvious conclusion. The frustration that people must feel when discussing a player like Stewart with me is probably similar to the frustration that I feel when discussing a player like Michael with others.

Me pulling the "personal attacks" card is pretty hypocritical. Guilty as charged there. What I'm really saying with this Trent and Stewart stuff is that there's actually a chance that I'm completely right. With that in mind, it's hard for me to get on board with people who dismiss all the analysis as the product of ego or delusion.

We've beaten this horse more than enough, but this is just plain incorrect. Everyone (besides you) can see that there are very obvious negatives with those players. I have no problem with people weighing them more or less heavily than others, but you go way beyond that to the point of obvious spin and just plain making things up. Calling a 3.8 ypc "fine", for example (when it was only 3.67 at the absolute peak to begin with). Saying Stewart hasn't appeared on the injury report frequently is another. Saying TRich's ypc is being destroyed by grinding out games is another. I don't believe that many of these negatives are opinions- the magnitude or cause of them is, but not their existence.

Like I said over and over- I've never said either of those players stink or will never turn it around. I'm been putting out feelers for them over the years, trying to buy low- quite frankly, I've been very lucky that a few of my offers in the past haven't been accepted. I have no idea what their "conclusion" will be, but I do know that it's almost impossible for them to ever live up to the hype you've given them. It's pretty safe to say that those calls of top 5 overall picks (or whatever) were bad.

I feel like you lump everyone who isn't as high on these guys (which is pretty much everyone) into the same "hater" category, which is just plain lazy. I haven't written off either of those guys, I don't think they are terrible or worthless, and I agree that they aren't the only ones to blame for their lack of success. My issue has nothing to do with your opinions of these (and other) players, it's they way you go about it that I have a problem with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've beaten this horse more than enough, but this is just plain incorrect. Everyone (besides you) can see that there are very obvious negatives with those players. I have no problem with people weighing them more or less heavily than others, but you go way beyond that to the point of obvious spin and just plain making things up. Calling a 3.8 ypc "fine", for example (when it was only 3.67 at the absolute peak to begin with). Saying Stewart hasn't appeared on the injury report frequently is another.

Oh geeze, I was off by 0.13 YPC. What a gross distortion of the facts. :lol:

I don't think I ever said Stewart hasn't appeared on the injury report frequently. What I said is that his durability issues were overblown. Whether he was on the injury report or not, he played in 62 of 64 games over the first four seasons of his career. It wasn't until 2012-2013 that he missed significant time in the NFL. If you compare his games played % to guys like Charles, Peterson, Spiller, McCoy, Rice, MJD, Bush, Forte, and Foster, it's probably about average on the whole of his career. Not many posters constantly harp on durability when they talk about these players, yet quite a few have decided that Stewart can't stay healthy.

I think Stewart is a guy who gets massive criticism for the simple reason that he hasn't put up great FF stats. And in the minds of most FF players, you're only as good as your stats. So they tend to look at him through a negative lens. He does seem to have chronic ankle issues and I think it's more of a lingering concern than one fluke ACL tear or broken collarbone, but all the same it's not really accurate to paint him as a guy who has had massive trouble staying on the field. Up until this point, he has been pretty good at staying healthy enough to play. Whether or not that will continue is questionable.

My issue has nothing to do with your opinions of these (and other) players, it's they way you go about it that I have a problem with.

Great. I don't care one iota. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. I have no obligation to please you.

Edited by EBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rank 'em: Newton, RG3, Luck.

Luck

Newton

RG3

Luck and Newton are so close though.

I'd go Newton, Luck, RG3, with all 3 of them pretty close. RG3 scares me when he runs; he's so awkward about it now. But he's a talent and puts up points, even when they're not pretty.

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a part of this thread almost from the beginning. I've learned a lot. I've made some friends. But...let's please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. It isn't fun. Tell me what you think about a player's dynasty's chances and why. Disagree with someone? Explain why. But the personal attacks are not the reason any of us are here.

Thank you in advance.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take on Richardson. I think if he were going to be a top 10 back in the future, he would have shown more than he has. He has had ample opportunity with two different teams. Those teams have had other backs be somewhat successful so I think it is hard to blame it on the team(s). He doesn't show us the "it" factor. He doesn't seem to do anything very well. For now, he has gotten the elite pick pass; but for how long?

It is possible he could have a few Benson in Cincy sort of years in Indy before they finally replace him. That is how I would value him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, you have no obligation to please me. Continue making #### up for all I care, it's not like you have any credibility to ruin.

Good. It's settled then. I'll continue to disregard your "analysis" and you can ignore mine. I don't think anyone in this thread will miss these exchanges.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rank 'em: Newton, RG3, Luck.

Luck

Newton

RG3

Luck and Newton are so close though.

I'd go Newton, Luck, RG3, with all 3 of them pretty close. RG3 scares me when he runs; he's so awkward about it now. But he's a talent and puts up points, even when they're not pretty.

I say Luck with a tier break before Newton and RG3. I think Newton and RG3 are close, but I like Newton a little more. I don't like how much they rely on their legs. I don't think that's something that is sustainable for a long career. There's just something about Luck that I love when I see him on film. His footwork is near perfect. He just looks like a top tier quarterback on tape. There's just something about him that I think he can be a perennial top 5 qb in this league for years. Something on the level of Brees, Manning, Brady over the last few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the logical next step to me, at least when the topic is historical statistical comparisons. I'm certainly not saying Reed shouldn't be compared to current TEs, especially in fantasy when that's all that matters. I just don't see how bringing up guys like Rob Awalt tells us anything more than the TE position has changed drastically since the 80s.

True, but again, the same criticism applies everywhere else. It's not fair to compare Robert Griffin, Andrew Luck, and Russell Wilson to rookie QBs from the 80s. Nor is it fair to compare A.J. Green or Julio Jones. And it's hardly fair to compare Rob Awalt to the TEs of the 60s, either- the game was radically different, and the 60s might have actually been a more TE-friendly decade than the 00s. Historical comparisons are always going to be skewed and wonky. I just don't see why they should be considered more so in Jordan Reed's case than in anyone else's case. If Tavon Austin was on pace for the most receptions by any rookie in history, I don't think it would get the same kind of pushback. I think that, to some small extent, since Reed's success was so unexpected, there's an unconscious need to qualify it. I wonder if there'd be as much equivocation if it had been Tyler Eifert averaging 5.5 catches for 60 yards, instead.

Not directing this at you, TK. I don't think you're an equivocator. I just think confirmation bias is one of the driving forces in our life. When we encounter something expected, we don't even question it. When we encounter something unexpected, we cast about for explanations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Luck with a tier break before Newton and RG3. I think Newton and RG3 are close, but I like Newton a little more. I don't like how much they rely on their legs. I don't think that's something that is sustainable for a long career.

That's why I like Newton so much. Rushing stats are so valuable but so limited in the long-term by the health concerns it brings. Newton, meanwhile, seems to have a build and style to get the rushing stats without the injury concerns. He's stayed remarkably healthy for as much as he's handled the ball and I think that can continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's gonna depend on your format a little bit. I'm in leagues with a premium on passing yards and TDs. In those formats Peyton and Brees are gods. I think Luck has a higher chance of becoming that type of passer, so I'd favor him over the other two. In a league where rushing TDs count more it would be a tougher call. I had both Luck and Newton on the same roster last year. Wasn't an easy decision, but I ultimately traded Cam. Luck is just such a great passer and I think that's going to be the key variable over the long haul. Especially once you get into the second half of their careers and they're not running as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to remember is that we're a little bit spoiled because we're currently in the middle of an era where the guys who are the most talented passers in the league and the guys who lead the league in pass attempts largely overlap. This was not always the case, and there's no reason why this has to be the case going forward. Jim Kelly was constantly nicked up and missing a couple of games a year, but he only finished higher than 5th once in his career. Troy Aikman only twice finished higher than TWELFTH. Brett Favre was unbelievable through the '90s, but starting at the turn of the century (and ignoring his disastrous final season), his average fantasy rank was 9.7. Steve McNair split the NFL MVP in 2003, but he finished 23rd in pass attempts per game. Tom Brady was universally considered a game manager going into 2007 before Belichick took the shackles off. Philip Rivers has a lot more seasons as a mid-to-low QB1 than he does as a mid-to-high QB1. A ton of phenomenal QBs have had unbelievable careers where they didn't chuck the ball around like they were playing a quick game of Madden. Guys like Brady (post-2007), Brees, Manning, and Rodgers are a bit of a historical rarity, in that it's uncommon for great QBs on great teams to still get huge attempt totals.

Now, to some degree, the league has changed. It used to be that teams weren't using the pass to set up their entire offense like they do today. A lot of teams are just going to throw and throw and throw some more, all day long. And there's a very good chance that Andrew Luck will be one of those guys, even though his current OC would very much rather run a ground-based attack, take the air out of the football once he has a lead, and deflate Luck's totals as much as possible. I'm just saying, even if Andrew Luck proves to be as good of a QB as Peyton Manning, that doesn't mean he's going to put up Peyton Manning numbers. If, instead, Andrew Luck turns out to be the fantasy equivalent of Philip Rivers or post-2000 Brett Favre, then a small handful of huge seasons from someone else could easily make them a more valuable dynasty asset over their careers. For instance, I think it's pretty clear that Daunte Culpepper and Donovan McNabb were much more valuable fantasy assets than Brett Favre after they joined the league in 1999. So I don't think it's at all crazy to value a Cam Newton or Robert Griffin III over Luck (again, rushing yardage uber alles), even if you think Luck is a much better QB who'll have a much longer career. Hell, it might not be all that crazy to still value Drew Brees over Andrew Luck. Drew Brees has 264 VBD over his last two seasons. He's on pace for 136 more this year. If he has even two more seasons left in him at this pace, then Andrew Luck will pretty much HAVE to be Peyton Manning- not just as an NFL QB, but as a fantasy QB- in order to provide more value over his entire career than Brees will provide in the next few years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...