Nov 4 2007, 09:32 PM
I don't think it is possible to trade for ADP at this point. Offers rejected so far ( I made the offers)
1. Gore, Parker and Holt
2. Gore, Parker, S. Holmes, and Brandon Marshall
3. Parker, Barber and Reggie Wayne
1. Gore, Parker and Holt
2. Gore, Parker, S. Holmes, and Brandon Marshall
3. Parker, Barber and Reggie Wayne
say what you want but to reject a parker gore holmes marshall for peterson is INSANE. That owner is a moron
QUOTE (Steelers22 @ Nov 4 2007, 11:36 PM) 
say what you want but to reject a parker gore holmes marshall for peterson is INSANE. That owner is a moron
I strongly disagree. You win in fantasy football by having the best player(s). Right now, Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady are the difference makers. It's easy to find starters to plug into your lineup every week. The key is to find the elite difference makers.
And it only gets better for Peterson owners in dynasty leagues.
QUOTE (pgreenfan @ Nov 4 2007, 08:32 PM)
I don't think it is possible to trade for ADP at this point. Offers rejected so far ( I made the offers)
1. Gore, Parker and Holt
2. Gore, Parker, S. Holmes, and Brandon Marshall
3. Parker, Barber and Reggie Wayne
1. Gore, Parker and Holt
2. Gore, Parker, S. Holmes, and Brandon Marshall
3. Parker, Barber and Reggie Wayne
I don't think it's been possible since the pre-season in dynasty leagues....unless you found a Peterson owner with his head in the sand.
QUOTE (Steelers22 @ Nov 4 2007, 11:36 PM)
say what you want but to reject a parker gore holmes marshall for peterson is INSANE. That owner is a moron
It would certainly seem that way on paper, and it depends what the rest of his team looks like. But as a Peterson dynasty owner, I have to think that he has the ability to outscore the 4 of them combined certain weeks of the year. So I'm looking at it as "Am I better with those four players, or AP, a lower tier RB like Portis/KJ and 2 similar WR's (Holmes and Marshall aren't elite by any means, at least not yet)
Plus, there's something about being on the ground floor of a career that has a chance to be absolutely historic. Makes it really hard to determine exactly what level "selling high" is. Imagine having Barry Sanders 8 games into his rookie season. If you turned down an offer of Neal Anderson, Bobby Humphrey, Anthony Miller and Haywood Jeffires in mid-1989, a lot of people would have thought you were nuts. But which side won out in the end?
My point is, I'm not saying I WOULDN'T do it but I don't think it's fair to call the guy a moron either.
QUOTE (Ted Lange as your Bartender @ Nov 5 2007, 12:31 AM)
QUOTE (Steelers22 @ Nov 4 2007, 11:36 PM)
say what you want but to reject a parker gore holmes marshall for peterson is INSANE. That owner is a moron
It would certainly seem that way on paper, and it depends what the rest of his team looks like. But as a Peterson dynasty owner, I have to think that he has the ability to outscore the 4 of them combined certain weeks of the year. So I'm looking at it as "Am I better with those four players, or AP, a lower tier RB like Portis/KJ and 2 similar WR's (Holmes and Marshall aren't elite by any means, at least not yet)
Plus, there's something about being on the ground floor of a career that has a chance to be absolutely historic. Makes it really hard to determine exactly what level "selling high" is. Imagine having Barry Sanders 8 games into his rookie season. If you turned down an offer of Neal Anderson, Bobby Humphrey, Anthony Miller and Haywood Jeffires in mid-1989, a lot of people would have thought you were nuts. But which side won out in the end?
My point is, I'm not saying I WOULDN'T do it but I don't think it's fair to call the guy a moron either.
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. Your job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
F&L, what do you think is in store for Torry Holt after this year?
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
QUOTE (Ted Lange as your Bartender @ Nov 5 2007, 12:31 AM)
QUOTE (Steelers22 @ Nov 4 2007, 11:36 PM)
say what you want but to reject a parker gore holmes marshall for peterson is INSANE. That owner is a moron
It would certainly seem that way on paper, and it depends what the rest of his team looks like. But as a Peterson dynasty owner, I have to think that he has the ability to outscore the 4 of them combined certain weeks of the year. So I'm looking at it as "Am I better with those four players, or AP, a lower tier RB like Portis/KJ and 2 similar WR's (Holmes and Marshall aren't elite by any means, at least not yet)
Plus, there's something about being on the ground floor of a career that has a chance to be absolutely historic. Makes it really hard to determine exactly what level "selling high" is. Imagine having Barry Sanders 8 games into his rookie season. If you turned down an offer of Neal Anderson, Bobby Humphrey, Anthony Miller and Haywood Jeffires in mid-1989, a lot of people would have thought you were nuts. But which side won out in the end?
My point is, I'm not saying I WOULDN'T do it but I don't think it's fair to call the guy a moron either.
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
I agree with both of you. I think the package is fair but don't think I would do it if I were the team that had ADP. This league allows you to keep 5 players and he would only keep 3 of them.
F&L - are you comfortable with Maroney ranked so high? IT's hard to see his role expanding as long as Kevin Faulk is around. Yesterday's game is a good example. Close game, Pats are within 6 pts the whole time, Maroney has 9 carries for 48 yds in the first half. Then in the 2nd half he barely touches the ball. Curious if you really think he's 2nd tier still, or if this is a downgrade waiting to happen. Not sure who I'd bump up above him, definitely Marshawn Lynch (carries a full load, also a receiving threat), probably Jones-Drew (at least he produces at a high level with limited touches), ditto for Barber III. TIA.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
This is the best post I've seen all year. I live by this philosophy.
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
This is the best post I've seen all year. I live by this philosophy.
I tend to agree with the philosophy, but it is not always the case. I wouldnt call guys like Parker, Gore "depth". Those guys are legit studs on a low. Those are the exact guys i am tying to trade for right now. I would have a hard time trading AD in a dynasty, but the smart play would be to trade him right now, assuming you can get the inflated price everyone is willing to pay.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
is it time to bump Addai up into tier 1 yet?
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Nov 5 2007, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
This is the best post I've seen all year. I live by this philosophy.
I tend to agree with the philosophy, but it is not always the case. I wouldnt call guys like Parker, Gore "depth". Those guys are legit studs on a low. Those are the exact guys i am tying to trade for right now. I would have a hard time trading AD in a dynasty, but the smart play would be to trade him right now, assuming you can get the inflated price everyone is willing to pay.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
Who says the other starters are waiver wire material? Chances are most will at least have serviceable starters to go with AP. I will take my chances building around the best before trading him for a package of lesser talent. I'm not doggng the likes of Gore and Parker, but they aren't AP. The fact remains, if you have the best, you don't need as strong of a supporting cast to win. If you have the best, and add some studs along the way, you will be the team to beat for many years. And that should be the objective...build a dynasty.
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Nov 5 2007, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
This is the best post I've seen all year. I live by this philosophy.
I tend to agree with the philosophy, but it is not always the case. I wouldnt call guys like Parker, Gore "depth". Those guys are legit studs on a low. Those are the exact guys i am tying to trade for right now. I would have a hard time trading AD in a dynasty, but the smart play would be to trade him right now, assuming you can get the inflated price everyone is willing to pay.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
Who says the other starters are waiver wire material? Chances are most will at least have serviceable starters to go with AP. I will take my chances building around the best before trading him for a package of lesser talent. I'm not doggng the likes of Gore and Parker, but they aren't AP. The fact remains, if you have the best, you don't need as strong of a supporting cast to win. If you have the best, and add some studs along the way, you will be the team to beat for many years. And that should be the objective...build a dynasty.
I am in four dynasty leagues, only one team with AD has a winning record. Of course those teams were bad the previous year, and that how they ended up with AD, but fact is, they dont have alot to go along with Peterson. I would bet alot of money those teams would be better if they had Parker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes instead of Peterson. All of those guys are young, so i dont think you can argue that the trade would be any worse for the future as it would be now.
No doubt AD is the best player to own in a dynasty league(i dont even think LT is that close right now), but he would have to put up 2500 yard and 30 TD's a year to be more valuable than those four players or others like them. You must also take into account that AD is one injury away from being useless. Thats is a risk you lessen by having multiple quality players.
QUOTE (Little Big Head @ Nov 5 2007, 10:33 AM)
is it time to bump Addai up into tier 1 yet?
Didn't your mama ever teach you to look both ways before crossing the street...?
j/k -- I moved him up last night.
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Nov 5 2007, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
This is the best post I've seen all year. I live by this philosophy.
I tend to agree with the philosophy, but it is not always the case. I wouldnt call guys like Parker, Gore "depth". Those guys are legit studs on a low. Those are the exact guys i am tying to trade for right now. I would have a hard time trading AD in a dynasty, but the smart play would be to trade him right now, assuming you can get the inflated price everyone is willing to pay.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
Who says the other starters are waiver wire material? Chances are most will at least have serviceable starters to go with AP. I will take my chances building around the best before trading him for a package of lesser talent. I'm not doggng the likes of Gore and Parker, but they aren't AP. The fact remains, if you have the best, you don't need as strong of a supporting cast to win. If you have the best, and add some studs along the way, you will be the team to beat for many years. And that should be the objective...build a dynasty.
This makes sense if rosters are not too deep and/or you only start 2RB/2WR. But in my dynasty you need depth because we start 2/3 RB and 3/4 WR. This means that you need to field six RB/WRs every week and it can be hard to find that much consistent depth. Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes are not filler types of guys; they are all very good players. I would probably take that trade.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Nov 5 2007, 10:24 AM)
I tend to agree with the philosophy, but it is not always the case. I wouldnt call guys like Parker, Gore "depth". Those guys are legit studs on a low. Those are the exact guys i am tying to trade for right now. I would have a hard time trading AD in a dynasty, but the smart play would be to trade him right now, assuming you can get the inflated price everyone is willing to pay.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
I'm not trying to pick on you Burning Sensation, but....aside from general immaturity, lack of civility, over-the-top homerism, and raging Pats-bashing, this is the #1 problem with the Shark Pool.
I can't tell you how many times I see guys on this board talking about "the smart play is to trade him now at peak value." Huh? You wanna rainbow curve that one by me one more time? Seriously, I've seen posts after every good game Peterson has had this year advocating selling high because he can't possibly be this good. Guess what? He is. (And it's not just an ADP thing....you see this after any player has a good couple of weeks -- time to sell high?)
You're not selling high if the best is yet to come. It's not the Shark MoveTM to slyly deal him away coming off his record-breaking performance. The winning move is to keep him, build around him, and enjoy the ride while you have an advantage over every other team in your league for the next few years. It just is.
QUOTE (Anthony Borbely @ Nov 5 2007, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 01:04 AM)
Look at this way: if you have Parker, Gore, Marshall, & Holmes in your starting lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league? Geez, I don't know. Some weeks you will, some weeks you won't. Everybody has players like that in their lineups. Now if you have Adrian Peterson in your lineup, do you feel like you have a weekly advantage over every other team in the league. Ya, you bet your ### I do.
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
There's only one Adrian Peterson. You're job is to acquire him and build around him, not trade him away for a passel of lesser players.
One of the things that has been evident to me in fantasy football and fantasy baseball as long as I've been playing: winning owners always look to put together a package of less valuable players in return for one difference maker. Losing owners, usually struggling to field a competitive lineup at several positions, often resort to trading a true stud for startable depth. Just an observation...
This is the best post I've seen all year. I live by this philosophy.
I totally agree. I traded FOR ADP in the preseason to an owner who had a less than stellar draft. 1st year IDP ppr dynasty, and he takes Merriman in the 1st round! I traded this guy Benson, B Edwards, and my 1st for ADP and his 2nd.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Nov 5 2007, 10:24 AM)
I tend to agree with the philosophy, but it is not always the case. I wouldnt call guys like Parker, Gore "depth". Those guys are legit studs on a low. Those are the exact guys i am tying to trade for right now. I would have a hard time trading AD in a dynasty, but the smart play would be to trade him right now, assuming you can get the inflated price everyone is willing to pay.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes, that is far better starting lineup than AD, one RB and two WR's you could pick up of the waiver wire. Now, if you managed to put togteher a dynasty team where PArker, Gore, Marshall and Holmes would sit on your bench, then maybe you hold AD, but other than that, no way.
I'm not trying to pick on you Burning Sensation, but....aside from general immaturity, lack of civility, over-the-top homerism, and raging Pats-bashing, this is the #1 problem with the Shark Pool.
I can't tell you how many times I see guys on this board talking about "the smart play is to trade him now at peak value." Huh? You wanna rainbow curve that one by me one more time? Seriously, I've seen posts after every good game Peterson has had this year advocating selling high because he can't possibly be this good. Guess what? He is. (And it's not just an ADP thing....you see this after any player has a good couple of weeks -- time to sell high?)
You're not selling high if the best is yet to come. It's not the Shark MoveTM to slyly deal him away coming off his record-breaking performance. The winning move is to keep him, build around him, and enjoy the ride while you have an advantage over every other team in your league for the next few years. It just is.
I dont think your "picking on me", as a matter of fact i tend to agree with your point. I misspoke and probably should have said the smart move "might" be to trade him now. I am certainly not saying that Peterson should be traded because his value is so high, but more that no matter how good a player is, no player should ever be untradable, and right now AD is getting value as if he is guaranteed 10 consectutive 2000 yard 25 TD seasons. So to not at least consider trading him while his value is this high is not very "sharky"
QUOTE (az_prof @ Nov 5 2007, 11:20 AM)
This makes sense if rosters are not too deep and/or you only start 2RB/2WR. But in my dynasty you need depth because we start 2/3 RB and 3/4 WR. This means that you need to field six RB/WRs every week and it can be hard to find that much consistent depth. Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes are not filler types of guys; they are all very good players. I would probably take that trade.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
No, you shoudn't have. Lock him away in a safe corner of your roster and throw away the key.
Finding starters isn't that difficult. Beat guys to waiver wire before a hidden gem is all the rage the next week, use a guy's name rather than his actual value when you've lost faith in him, pluck a potential starter from an unappreciative owner's roster....there are many ways to find fantasy football starters. Are you not confident in your ability to do this? If you have confidence in your ability to judge players better than the other guys in your league, that's another huge advantage you have over them -- in addition to owning Peterson. Going into every season, now you have two advantages over all of the rest of the owners in your league. Good times will ensue.
What do they call this in video games? Beating the Final Boss? Once you learn to beat the final boss at this level, Grasshopper, then you're on to the next level...
If you can consistently bring in valuable talent at little to no cost, then you will have the confidence to turn down that trade for Adrian Peterson. Most owners never get to that point where they can beat the Final Boss in dynasty leagues. You can, az_prof....I know you can.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (az_prof @ Nov 5 2007, 11:20 AM)
This makes sense if rosters are not too deep and/or you only start 2RB/2WR. But in my dynasty you need depth because we start 2/3 RB and 3/4 WR. This means that you need to field six RB/WRs every week and it can be hard to find that much consistent depth. Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes are not filler types of guys; they are all very good players. I would probably take that trade.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
No, you shoudn't have. Lock him away in a safe corner of your roster and throw away the key.
Finding starters isn't that difficult. Beat guys to waiver wire before a hidden gem is all the rage the next week, use a guy's name rather than his actual value when you've lost faith in him, pluck a potential starter from an unappreciative owner's roster....there are many ways to find fantasy football starters. Are you not confident in your ability to do this? If you have confidence in your ability to judge players better than the other guys in your league, that's another huge advantage you have over them -- in addition to owning Peterson. Going into every season, now you have two advantages over all of the rest of the owners in your league. Good times will ensue.
What do they call this in video games? Beating the Final Boss? Once you learn to beat the final boss at this level, Grasshopper, then you're on to the next level...
If you can consistently bring in valuable talent at little to no cost, then you will have the confidence to turn down that trade for Adrian Peterson. Most owners never get to that point where they can beat the Final Boss in dynasty leagues. You can, az_prof....I know you can.
He said he should have acceoted a trade in which he received AD.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (az_prof @ Nov 5 2007, 11:20 AM)
This makes sense if rosters are not too deep and/or you only start 2RB/2WR. But in my dynasty you need depth because we start 2/3 RB and 3/4 WR. This means that you need to field six RB/WRs every week and it can be hard to find that much consistent depth. Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes are not filler types of guys; they are all very good players. I would probably take that trade.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
No, you shoudn't have. Lock him away in a safe corner of your roster and throw away the key.
Finding starters isn't that difficult. Beat guys to waiver wire before a hidden gem is all the rage the next week, use a guy's name rather than his actual value when you've lost faith in him, pluck a potential starter from an unappreciative owner's roster....there are many ways to find fantasy football starters. Are you not confident in your ability to do this? If you have confidence in your ability to judge players better than the other guys in your league, that's another huge advantage you have over them -- in addition to owning Peterson. Going into every season, now you have two advantages over all of the rest of the owners in your league. Good times will ensue.
What do they call this in video games? Beating the Final Boss? Once you learn to beat the final boss at this level, Grasshopper, then you're on to the next level...
If you can consistently bring in valuable talent at little to no cost, then you will have the confidence to turn down that trade for Adrian Peterson. Most owners never get to that point where they can beat the Final Boss in dynasty leagues. You can, az_prof....I know you can.
he turned down a trade offer to get ADP
QUOTE (Steelers22 @ Nov 4 2007, 11:36 PM)
say what you want but to reject a parker gore holmes marshall for peterson is INSANE. That owner is a moron
I am a moron then, no way I would trade him for that.
QUOTE (Burning Sensation @ Nov 5 2007, 12:08 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (az_prof @ Nov 5 2007, 11:20 AM)
This makes sense if rosters are not too deep and/or you only start 2RB/2WR. But in my dynasty you need depth because we start 2/3 RB and 3/4 WR. This means that you need to field six RB/WRs every week and it can be hard to find that much consistent depth. Gore, Parker, Marshall and Holmes are not filler types of guys; they are all very good players. I would probably take that trade.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
Guy with AD in my league offered me AD, J. Russell, Lendale White, and D. Owens for McNabb, Ronnie Brown (pre-injury), KJ, B. Marshall, and First Round Rookie pick (looked to be high at the time).
I turned him down. I should have made that trade but that was about three weeks ago.
No, you shoudn't have. Lock him away in a safe corner of your roster and throw away the key.
Finding starters isn't that difficult. Beat guys to waiver wire before a hidden gem is all the rage the next week, use a guy's name rather than his actual value when you've lost faith in him, pluck a potential starter from an unappreciative owner's roster....there are many ways to find fantasy football starters. Are you not confident in your ability to do this? If you have confidence in your ability to judge players better than the other guys in your league, that's another huge advantage you have over them -- in addition to owning Peterson. Going into every season, now you have two advantages over all of the rest of the owners in your league. Good times will ensue.
What do they call this in video games? Beating the Final Boss? Once you learn to beat the final boss at this level, Grasshopper, then you're on to the next level...
If you can consistently bring in valuable talent at little to no cost, then you will have the confidence to turn down that trade for Adrian Peterson. Most owners never get to that point where they can beat the Final Boss in dynasty leagues. You can, az_prof....I know you can.
He said he should have acceoted a trade in which he received AD.
to myself for being a dolt. Sorry, az_prof.I think I was thrown off when az_prof said he would in fact pull the trigger on the hypothetical trade getting rid of Peterson in return for the 4-player package.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 11:14 AM)
QUOTE (Little Big Head @ Nov 5 2007, 10:33 AM)
is it time to bump Addai up into tier 1 yet?
Didn't your mama ever teach you to look both ways before crossing the street...?
j/k -- I moved him up last night.
did watching the game last night change your opinion of his talent level? That was probably the best game Ive seen him play so far. I continue to believe that the talent level between Gore and Addai isnt this huge gap that some people believe.
QUOTE (pgreenfan @ Nov 4 2007, 09:32 PM)
I don't think it is possible to trade for ADP at this point. Offers rejected so far ( I made the offers)
1. Gore, Parker and Holt
2. Gore, Parker, S. Holmes, and Brandon Marshall
3. Parker, Barber and Reggie Wayne
1. Gore, Parker and Holt
2. Gore, Parker, S. Holmes, and Brandon Marshall
3. Parker, Barber and Reggie Wayne
Wanted to add one more that was rejected.
Gore, Parker, Edwards, Holt and Manning for Fitzgerald, Peterson and Romo.
QUOTE (Little Big Head @ Nov 5 2007, 12:54 PM)
did watching the game last night change your opinion of his talent level? That was probably the best game Ive seen him play so far. I continue to believe that the talent level between Gore and Addai isnt this huge gap that some people believe.
Yes. Yes it did. I was very impressed. But my stance on Addai was never really about talent level (I still believe Gore is easily the better talent).
And I think Portis is very talented as well, but I had the same concerns with him. I love Addai's situation as far as playing for the Colts. I was concerned more about splitting carries and the difference between what Addai can do in the offense versus what Kenton Keith can do.
Still, it's seems pretty clear to me now that Addai is going to get a large workload in that Colts' offense as long as he's healthy and the Colts need him.
Edit to add: I have no problem moving Addai up after yesterday's game.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 5 2007, 07:51 PM)
QUOTE (Little Big Head @ Nov 5 2007, 12:54 PM)
did watching the game last night change your opinion of his talent level? That was probably the best game Ive seen him play so far. I continue to believe that the talent level between Gore and Addai isnt this huge gap that some people believe.
Yes. Yes it did. I was very impressed. But my stance on Addai was never really about talent level (I still believe Gore is easily the better talent).
And I think Portis is very talented as well, but I had the same concerns with him. I love Addai's situation as far as playing for the Colts. I was concerned more about splitting carries and the difference between what Addai can do in the offense versus what Kenton Keith can do.
Still, it's seems pretty clear to me now that Addai is going to get a large workload in that Colts' offense as long as he's healthy and the Colts need him.
Hello! I hope all is well....and as always appreciate your advice!
I am in a three player keeper league.
For next year I have Gore at 7.00, Parker at 9.00 and would like to trade one of these 3 players because of there low price.
Michael Turner at 8.00, Maroney at 10.00 and Brandon Jacobs at 7.00
Any thought on who to add...as far as projecting for value for next year.
Thanks!
I think that the time has come to elevate Holmes over Ward and Jennings over Driver. The guard has been changed in GB and Pitt. Also, I can't imagine that Harrison is still a tier two talent. I would have a tough time giving up most of the guys in tier three for him. The longer he stays out, the further he slips. The fall is accentuated by the fact that no one knows how many years are left for him in the NFL.
QUOTE (OddibeMcD @ Nov 6 2007, 12:53 AM)
I think that the time has come to elevate Holmes over Ward and Jennings over Driver. The guard has been changed in GB and Pitt. Also, I can't imagine that Harrison is still a tier two talent. I would have a tough time giving up most of the guys in tier three for him. The longer he stays out, the further he slips. The fall is accentuated by the fact that no one knows how many years are left for him in the NFL.
We'll see...
I'm open-minded about it, but I'm not quite ready to write off the vets yet. I think all 3 are in for great 2nd halves.
I'm waiting to hear something more definitive on Harrison, but in the meantime he'll probably move down again.
There's a fine line between getting too down on a player because of a bad week or a couple weeks off due to injury. Is he on the downside never to return, or has he just had a couple bad weeks only to return just as strong? I've wondered the same thing about all 3 of those guys this year, but I think it's still too early to put them out to pasture...
I try never to get too caught up in any one week of the NFL season. It's tough.
QUOTE (Michael J Fox @ Nov 5 2007, 08:37 AM)
F&L - are you comfortable with Maroney ranked so high? IT's hard to see his role expanding as long as Kevin Faulk is around. Yesterday's game is a good example. Close game, Pats are within 6 pts the whole time, Maroney has 9 carries for 48 yds in the first half. Then in the 2nd half he barely touches the ball. Curious if you really think he's 2nd tier still, or if this is a downgrade waiting to happen. Not sure who I'd bump up above him, definitely Marshawn Lynch (carries a full load, also a receiving threat), probably Jones-Drew (at least he produces at a high level with limited touches), ditto for Barber III. TIA.
No, as a matter of fact, I'm not very comfortable with Maroney's ranking at all. He's clearly a talented RB in a dominant offense, but who knows how the Patriots are going to use him next week much less in the future. My gut tells me they're going to need to lean on the running game much more come late November & December in weather-affected games, but Kevin Faulk has been in the game on more plays than Maroney for two straight weeks.
I've had Maroney on a buy-low list for awhile now, but I'm just not sure. Can you ever picture him getting goal-line carries?
I haven't really reviewed the rankings since Sunday afternoon, so I'll try to re-evaluate everything in the next day or so as I get time.
QUOTE (basenjiwarrior @ Nov 5 2007, 09:59 PM)
Hello! I hope all is well....and as always appreciate your advice!
I am in a three player keeper league.
For next year I have Gore at 7.00, Parker at 9.00 and would like to trade one of these 3 players because of there low price.
Michael Turner at 8.00, Maroney at 10.00 and Brandon Jacobs at 7.00
Any thought on who to add...as far as projecting for value for next year.
Thanks!
I am in a three player keeper league.
For next year I have Gore at 7.00, Parker at 9.00 and would like to trade one of these 3 players because of there low price.
Michael Turner at 8.00, Maroney at 10.00 and Brandon Jacobs at 7.00
Any thought on who to add...as far as projecting for value for next year.
Thanks!
basenjiwarrior,
Send me a PM on something this specific to your team/league. It's just easier that way.
Thanks,
F&L
QUOTE (shenski31 @ Nov 4 2007, 06:45 PM)
Hey F&L,
Who do you see as the best dynasty buy-lows? Specifically for teams out of the running this year, who would you target? I'm talking about guys like Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams.
Thanks for your help.
Who do you see as the best dynasty buy-lows? Specifically for teams out of the running this year, who would you target? I'm talking about guys like Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams.
Thanks for your help.
Just taking a quick glance at the list, these are guys I've been keeping in the back of my mind for next season:
Vince Young
Philip Rivers
Matt Leinart
Byron Leftwich
Chad Pennington
Frank Gore
Laurence Maroney
Maurice Jones-Drew
Ronnie Brown
DeAngelo Williams
Brandon Jackson
Calvin Johnson
Torry Holt
Hines Ward
Santana Moss
Mark Clayton
Reggie Brown
Todd Heap
Vernon Davis
Ben Troupe
I'll try to put some more thought into this at some point in the next week or two.
QUOTE (AC05 @ Nov 5 2007, 01:23 AM)
F&L, what do you think is in store for Torry Holt after this year?
Missed this one yesterday...
He's a roll of the dice. You want to say that he's an obvious buy-low bounceback candidate for dynasty leaguers (Did I just morph into Hubie Brown there?
). Would it surprise anyone if all of the Rams come back healthy next year, they add an O-lineman or two, and they revert to pre-2007 form? Probably not. Would it surprise anyone if they fail to fix the O-line, Holt's knee never fully recovers, Bulger gets hurt again or remains ineffective in the redzone, and Bruce falls off the cliff? Probably not.I don't have any instinct for Torry Holt's future. If you see an opportunity to grab a surefire Top 10 dynasty WR, then buy low. If not, stay away. Do you feel lucky? I think that's what it comes down to with Holt in dynasty leagues. I'd buy for the right price, but I would insist on setting my own price for him. I prefer to seek fair trade matchups and then make the offers myself rather than fielding offers coming in.
Through Week 9
2007 WORST PERSON IN FANTASY FOOTBALL AWARD
Pre-Season: Jack Del Rio
Week 1: Cam Cameron
Week 2: Cam Cameron / Norv Turner
Week 3: Rex Grossman / Lovie Smith
Week 4: Brad Childress
Week 5: Travis Henry
Week 6: Adrian Peterson doubters / Shaun Alexander
Week 7: Cleo Lemon + Randall Gay = Ronnie Brown
Week 8: Anyone associated with the slopfest in Wembley Stadium / Out-of-their-minds Patriots bashers
Week 9: Abhorrent QB play around league as personified by David Carr
THRU WEEK 9 POWER RANKINGS
AFC
1. New England Patriots, 9-0 / +208 / 100%**
2. Indianapolis Colts, 7-1 / +118 / 99.7%
3. Pittsburgh Steelers, 6-2 / +124 / 95.4%
4. Tennessee Titans, 6-2 / +41 / 91.0%
5. San Diego Chargers, 4-4 / +25 / 54.1%
6. Jacksonville Jaguars, 5-3 / +4 / 53.5%
7. Cleveland Browns, 5-3 / -6 / 39.0%
8. Buffalo Bills, 4-4 / -26 / 11.0%
TIE: Kansas City Chiefs, 4-4 / -22 / 41.3%
NFC
1. Dallas Cowboys, 7-1 / +90 / 99.4%
2. Green Bay Packers, 7-1 / +52 / 97.4%
3. New York Giants 6-2 / +41 / 64.9%
4. Seattle Seahawks, 4-4 / +26 / 83.1%
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 5-4 / +20 / 79.8%
6. New Orleans Saints, 4-4 / -13 / 35.1%
7. Detroit Lions, 6-2 / +15 / 49.3%
8. Washington Redskins, 5-3 / -8 / 27.1%
Tie: Arizona Cardinals, 3-5 / -17 / 21.6%
Minnesota Vikings, 3-5 / +12 / 18.2%
**Football Outsiders' Playoff Odds
2007 WORST PERSON IN FANTASY FOOTBALL AWARD
Pre-Season: Jack Del Rio
Week 1: Cam Cameron
Week 2: Cam Cameron / Norv Turner
Week 3: Rex Grossman / Lovie Smith
Week 4: Brad Childress
Week 5: Travis Henry
Week 6: Adrian Peterson doubters / Shaun Alexander
Week 7: Cleo Lemon + Randall Gay = Ronnie Brown
Week 8: Anyone associated with the slopfest in Wembley Stadium / Out-of-their-minds Patriots bashers
Week 9: Abhorrent QB play around league as personified by David Carr
THRU WEEK 9 POWER RANKINGS
AFC
1. New England Patriots, 9-0 / +208 / 100%**
2. Indianapolis Colts, 7-1 / +118 / 99.7%
3. Pittsburgh Steelers, 6-2 / +124 / 95.4%
4. Tennessee Titans, 6-2 / +41 / 91.0%
5. San Diego Chargers, 4-4 / +25 / 54.1%
6. Jacksonville Jaguars, 5-3 / +4 / 53.5%
7. Cleveland Browns, 5-3 / -6 / 39.0%
8. Buffalo Bills, 4-4 / -26 / 11.0%
TIE: Kansas City Chiefs, 4-4 / -22 / 41.3%
NFC
1. Dallas Cowboys, 7-1 / +90 / 99.4%
2. Green Bay Packers, 7-1 / +52 / 97.4%
3. New York Giants 6-2 / +41 / 64.9%
4. Seattle Seahawks, 4-4 / +26 / 83.1%
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 5-4 / +20 / 79.8%
6. New Orleans Saints, 4-4 / -13 / 35.1%
7. Detroit Lions, 6-2 / +15 / 49.3%
8. Washington Redskins, 5-3 / -8 / 27.1%
Tie: Arizona Cardinals, 3-5 / -17 / 21.6%
Minnesota Vikings, 3-5 / +12 / 18.2%
**Football Outsiders' Playoff Odds
Football Outsiders Audibles at the Line Week 9:
DARRELL JACKSON:
PACKERS DEFENSE:
PRIEST HOLMES:
MARSHAWN LYNCH:
ADRIAN PETERSON:
TITANS DEFENSE:
FUTURE OF SEAHAWKS' OFFENSE:
JOE THOMAS:
LAURENCE MARONEY:
DARRELL JACKSON:
QUOTE
Vince Verhei: When the Seahawks traded Darrell Jackson to San Francisco, nobody in Seattle could understand why you’d give a division rival a chance to fill their biggest hole and get only a fourth-rounder in return. Well, the Seahawks absolutely fleeced the 49ers in that trade. Jackson is over, done, finished, gone. There is nothing left. The Seahawks were wise to get anything for him.
PACKERS DEFENSE:
QUOTE
Aaron Schatz: It’s interesting — Bigby looks awful, Al Harris doesn’t look as good as past years, the linebackers aren’t completely wowing me — I think the Packers’ defense is really all about that defensive line. It is good, it is deep, and it needs to get more attention.
PRIEST HOLMES:
QUOTE
Aaron Schatz: Priest Holmes honestly doesn’t look like he has anything left. He couldn’t keep up with A.J. Hawk on the pass Hawk intercepted.
Mike Tanier: I feel like I know how the Chiefs have been beating teams. Their defensive front four is very good. Tony Gonzalez is still playing at a very high level. They can grind with opponents. But the overall offense isn’t good. If L.J. is hurt for any period of time, they are in trouble, because I don’t get the impression that Priest Holmes has any interest in a 20-carry load or has the physical tools to deal with it.
Mike Tanier: I feel like I know how the Chiefs have been beating teams. Their defensive front four is very good. Tony Gonzalez is still playing at a very high level. They can grind with opponents. But the overall offense isn’t good. If L.J. is hurt for any period of time, they are in trouble, because I don’t get the impression that Priest Holmes has any interest in a 20-carry load or has the physical tools to deal with it.
MARSHAWN LYNCH:
QUOTE
Doug Farrar: Poor Marshawn Lynch — he rushed for 153 yards today, great numbers for a rookie, and nobody’s going to know. Adrian Peterson just eclipsed everybody.
Vince Verhei: Marshawn Lynch’s 56-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter was one for the all-time highlight reel. Three Bengals hit him in the backfield, but he somehow escaped, slipped out to the right, and then showed unreal explosive ability, going from nearly stopped to full speed in about two strides. There is bad defense, and there is great offense, and this was most definitely the latter.
Vince Verhei: Marshawn Lynch’s 56-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter was one for the all-time highlight reel. Three Bengals hit him in the backfield, but he somehow escaped, slipped out to the right, and then showed unreal explosive ability, going from nearly stopped to full speed in about two strides. There is bad defense, and there is great offense, and this was most definitely the latter.
ADRIAN PETERSON:
QUOTE
Doug Farrar: Remember the old highlights of Jim Brown, when he’d be shredding 250-pound defensive tackles and linebackers as big as today’s cornerbacks and just generally embarrassing everybody? That’s what Adrian Peterson looks like in this game. He’s not just elusive; he can bounce off a defender and get outside faster than anyone can catch him, but he can also hit that defender and push the guy back a good couple of yards and be gone in a flash. He has that Walter Payton attitude, and if he can maintain any semblance of durability with that style as Payton did, he’s going to mess up a lot of records.
The only thing I wonder about Peterson’s day is how much the injury to Luis Castillo affected the ability of San Diego’s front seven to stop the run. Castillo was hurt on the second play of the second half, and Peterson ran for only 43 of his 296 yards in the first half.
Aaron Schatz: What’s left to say about Adrian Peterson? The only thing I can add is that for all his greatness, we should recognize that he is also the beneficiary of some very good blocking, particularly good tight end blocking by Jim Kleinsasser and Visanthe Shiancoe.
The only thing I wonder about Peterson’s day is how much the injury to Luis Castillo affected the ability of San Diego’s front seven to stop the run. Castillo was hurt on the second play of the second half, and Peterson ran for only 43 of his 296 yards in the first half.
Aaron Schatz: What’s left to say about Adrian Peterson? The only thing I can add is that for all his greatness, we should recognize that he is also the beneficiary of some very good blocking, particularly good tight end blocking by Jim Kleinsasser and Visanthe Shiancoe.
TITANS DEFENSE:
QUOTE
Vince Verhei: Tennessee’s defense was mediocre last year, and I expected them to fall apart with the loss of Pacman Jones. Instead, they’re tops in the league in DVOA. So I paid real close attention to this game to see how they were doing it.
First of all, their defensive line is awesome. Albert Haynesworth is a beast. He had three sacks today, as a tackle, and also blew up several running plays. Kyle Vanden Bosch and Travis LaBoy are also scary pass rushers. Most teams that can generate pressure with a four-man rush will back it up with a zone. Not the Titans. They blitz a LOT. I was really impressed by outside linebacker David Thornton. He also collected a sack, and showed great speed chasing down runners across the field.
You would think a team that blitzed so often would risk leaving corners in single coverage, but it seemed like every time a pass was coming down, the Titans had a safety there to lend a hand. Hard to tell whether that means the safeties are very good, or if their coverage schemes are that effective, but I suspect the answer is “both.”
Now, all that was against David Carr and the Panthers, so take that for what it’s worth. I should also point out that the Titans backed off and stopped blitzing in the fourth quarter, and that’s when the Panthers drove the field and scored their touchdown.
Jones was also a great punt returner, but the guy the Titans have now, Chris Davis, is also pretty good. He didn’t break any scores, but he had returns of 15 and 39 yards in the first quarter. He had another 30-plus-yarder later called back on a penalty. (Checking the box score, I see he also fumbled two returns. So he’s got that to work on.)
So the Titans have defense, and they have special teams. They do not have any kind of a passing game. Vince Young is way too eager to make a big play, forcing balls to receivers who aren’t open. (I also blame his receivers for this, because they’re NOT OPEN.) Young ended the day with only 14 completions for 110 yards, and mixed in three sacks and two interceptions.
First of all, their defensive line is awesome. Albert Haynesworth is a beast. He had three sacks today, as a tackle, and also blew up several running plays. Kyle Vanden Bosch and Travis LaBoy are also scary pass rushers. Most teams that can generate pressure with a four-man rush will back it up with a zone. Not the Titans. They blitz a LOT. I was really impressed by outside linebacker David Thornton. He also collected a sack, and showed great speed chasing down runners across the field.
You would think a team that blitzed so often would risk leaving corners in single coverage, but it seemed like every time a pass was coming down, the Titans had a safety there to lend a hand. Hard to tell whether that means the safeties are very good, or if their coverage schemes are that effective, but I suspect the answer is “both.”
Now, all that was against David Carr and the Panthers, so take that for what it’s worth. I should also point out that the Titans backed off and stopped blitzing in the fourth quarter, and that’s when the Panthers drove the field and scored their touchdown.
Jones was also a great punt returner, but the guy the Titans have now, Chris Davis, is also pretty good. He didn’t break any scores, but he had returns of 15 and 39 yards in the first quarter. He had another 30-plus-yarder later called back on a penalty. (Checking the box score, I see he also fumbled two returns. So he’s got that to work on.)
So the Titans have defense, and they have special teams. They do not have any kind of a passing game. Vince Young is way too eager to make a big play, forcing balls to receivers who aren’t open. (I also blame his receivers for this, because they’re NOT OPEN.) Young ended the day with only 14 completions for 110 yards, and mixed in three sacks and two interceptions.
FUTURE OF SEAHAWKS' OFFENSE:
QUOTE
Doug Farrar: And how weird is this? Early on, Seattle’s defense bails the team out. That explosive Cleveland offense goes three-and-out right away. I suppose I just have to get used to the fact that Tim Ruskell, having helped build the Super Bowl Buccaneers, is now constructing the West Coast version, and that the great offenses of Seattle’s recent past are a memory.
JOE THOMAS:
QUOTE
Vince Verhei: There was a point in this game where they were highlighting the big days by rookies around the league: Adrian Peterson, obviously, but also Marshawn Lynch and Amobi Okoye. And I wanted to scream “WHAT ABOUT JOE THOMAS?! HE’S IN THIS GAME RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU AND DOMINATING!!!” He shut down Darryl Tapp to such a degree that in the fourth quarter, as Cleveland was passing, passing, passing to come back, Tapp gave up on rushing entirely. He’d take one step to engage Thomas, then step back and leap in the air, waving his hands in a feeble attempt to block Derek Anderson’s vision. This was not a zone blitz or other unusual coverage, it was Tapp deciding that he simply had no shot of beating Thomas, and trying to find some other way to make an impact.
Ben Riley: Hey, has anyone noticed that Derek Anderson is having a Pro Bowl season? I wasn’t blown away by his performance, but he knows that he should throw to Edwards, Kellen Winslow, and Joe Jurevicius, in exactly that order. Of course, it helps when Joe Thomas is stoning the defensive end on your blind side.
Ben Riley: Hey, has anyone noticed that Derek Anderson is having a Pro Bowl season? I wasn’t blown away by his performance, but he knows that he should throw to Edwards, Kellen Winslow, and Joe Jurevicius, in exactly that order. Of course, it helps when Joe Thomas is stoning the defensive end on your blind side.
LAURENCE MARONEY:
QUOTE
Bill Barnwell: I really wonder whether Laurence Maroney’s ever going to be the featured back for this team. It’s pretty clear that Bill Belichick and company have no faith in him. His nicest run of the game was on a cutback, and it was almost entirely set up by a great block from Welker.
Hey F&L, I've been wondering... I know you attach a "point score" to a player, and that score assesses his value relative to his peers. Are those point scores intended to be compared across positions, as well? Is an RB with an 83 worth as much as a WR with an 83 in your mind? Or is the number only intended for comparisons within the position, with some other sort of external equivalencies (i.e. RB12 ~ WR3) determined by gut feel or some other process?
QUOTE (SSOG @ Nov 7 2007, 04:00 AM)
Hey F&L, I've been wondering... I know you attach a "point score" to a player, and that score assesses his value relative to his peers. Are those point scores intended to be compared across positions, as well? Is an RB with an 83 worth as much as a WR with an 83 in your mind? Or is the number only intended for comparisons within the position, with some other sort of external equivalencies (i.e. RB12 ~ WR3) determined by gut feel or some other process?
SSOG,
I certainly don't expect everybody to read through the backpages of a 21-page thread, but I did address this question a couple of times earlier in the thread way back before the pre-season. Since it's just easier for me to cut and paste, I'm going to do that. It seems like we've had a lot of new traffic here lately too, so I'm sure it won't hurt to revisit this explanation for the other newcomers. If the following doesn't answer your questions, let me know.
Page 5, Post #238
Biabreakable's question: How did you create this point scale 1-100 for each player? And what does it mean?
I have seen magazines that use somting similar for players. The point scale is ushualy based off of ranking the players by different skill sets such as inside running/outside running/blocking/catching/breaking tackles ect. Then they add all these 1-10 with decimal point scales together for a total score or make an average of that.
Curious about what is behind your point scale.
My answer:
QUOTE
Fair question. Let's see here...
I used to toy around with those kinds of point scales based on handing out 1-10 points per category and tallying them all up to see who goes where. There are several problems with these systems. First of all, not all categories are created equal. Secondly, it's an unscientific grade that you're assigning each category, so it's nonsensical to aim for a scientific outcome. Finally, I'm never satisfied with the outcomes. For example, somebody like Culpepper will end up finishing way too high. And then you have to start fudging with the numbers to get him lower. Then if you're fudging his, you end up messing with a few others as well. To sum up, I've found those types of scales to be literally more trouble than the spreadsheet they're printed on are worth.
Frankly, these rankings are not very scientific. There are two reasons for that. First, the goal is not a complex one: per requests in other dynasty threads, I'm simply trying to better represent value by showing where the gaps are and using a system that assigns value much better than a simple 1 thru 75 numbering sequence. Secondly, I think we're overloaded with numbers, studies, etc. anymore. Ten years ago, most of us in this thread dominated all of our leagues strictly as a result of having more information than the other guys in our leagues. The internet changed all of that now. Everybody has access to quality information on a regular basis. Fantasy football studies are ubiquitous...especially on this site (which is a great thing). So what happens when everybody is looking at the same studies? Opinions vary much less because we tend to fall in line behind "proof" and hesitantly push our instincts and gut-feelings to the side. How then do we gain an edge on the guys looking at the same information?
My theory is this: if we all have ready access to the same information, how do you gain an edge on the upper echelon competition? Instincts honed by knowledge, which is honed by news updates, stats, trends and studies. That's what these rankings are in a nutshell. Instincts. There's no statistical or scientific basis to the numbers, but rather an attempt at showing differences in value as I perceive them.
I used to toy around with those kinds of point scales based on handing out 1-10 points per category and tallying them all up to see who goes where. There are several problems with these systems. First of all, not all categories are created equal. Secondly, it's an unscientific grade that you're assigning each category, so it's nonsensical to aim for a scientific outcome. Finally, I'm never satisfied with the outcomes. For example, somebody like Culpepper will end up finishing way too high. And then you have to start fudging with the numbers to get him lower. Then if you're fudging his, you end up messing with a few others as well. To sum up, I've found those types of scales to be literally more trouble than the spreadsheet they're printed on are worth.
Frankly, these rankings are not very scientific. There are two reasons for that. First, the goal is not a complex one: per requests in other dynasty threads, I'm simply trying to better represent value by showing where the gaps are and using a system that assigns value much better than a simple 1 thru 75 numbering sequence. Secondly, I think we're overloaded with numbers, studies, etc. anymore. Ten years ago, most of us in this thread dominated all of our leagues strictly as a result of having more information than the other guys in our leagues. The internet changed all of that now. Everybody has access to quality information on a regular basis. Fantasy football studies are ubiquitous...especially on this site (which is a great thing). So what happens when everybody is looking at the same studies? Opinions vary much less because we tend to fall in line behind "proof" and hesitantly push our instincts and gut-feelings to the side. How then do we gain an edge on the guys looking at the same information?
My theory is this: if we all have ready access to the same information, how do you gain an edge on the upper echelon competition? Instincts honed by knowledge, which is honed by news updates, stats, trends and studies. That's what these rankings are in a nutshell. Instincts. There's no statistical or scientific basis to the numbers, but rather an attempt at showing differences in value as I perceive them.
Page 7, Post #321
In response to KellysHeroes questioning a specific ranking:
QUOTE
I'm not here to change your mind. I can see why you would have all the confidence in the world in FWP. I just look at it from a different perspective: passing up a hall of fame/once in a decade level talent like Peterson for FWP is nutz.
And I think this is the key: Of necessity, these rankings have to be how I value players. A lot of guys have made great points throughout this thread, and I've definitely changed my view on some players based on input here. I do try to reel in my instincts at times, especially if they're leading me to outrageous conclustions. I try to find a healthy balance between personal instinct, objective analysis and valued opinion. That said, how bad would these rankings suck if I was acting like a politician and checking the sharkpool barometer for approval before deciding on value for each player? If I start checking to see which way the wind blows, then I'm useless...
And I think this is the key: Of necessity, these rankings have to be how I value players. A lot of guys have made great points throughout this thread, and I've definitely changed my view on some players based on input here. I do try to reel in my instincts at times, especially if they're leading me to outrageous conclustions. I try to find a healthy balance between personal instinct, objective analysis and valued opinion. That said, how bad would these rankings suck if I was acting like a politician and checking the sharkpool barometer for approval before deciding on value for each player? If I start checking to see which way the wind blows, then I'm useless...
Page 8, Post #376
Limp Dogg Bizkits & Biabreakable requested more background on the numbering system. My answer:
QUOTE
As requested by several posters here and elsewhere, the scale is solely intended to be a way to better reflect value than a simple 1 thru 75 numbering sequence. By way of example, if I had McNabb, Brady, Bulger, Vick & V.Young a hair's width apart in value, I needed a better system than a simple 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. V. Young at #8 may well be much closer in value to McNabb at #4 than whomever I have ranked at #9. I needed a system to reflect that, and a "100 scale" was the number I picked. There really is no significance to the number 100 beyond that.
Furthermore, as I tried to explain earlier these numbers aren't intended as a trade guide across positions. If they do happen to serve that purpose for some owners who find a beneficial way to tinker with the numbers, that's a bonus. I probably wasn't all that clear in my intentions, but I think this quote sums up the problems with an overall ranking vs. a positional ranking:
"Until we all start playing by the same rules and scoring systems, I think an overall ranking with a built-in trade value scale for dynasty leagues would be next to impossible. I imagine I could take a stab at it if I had to, but there's really no incentive to put even more time and effort into something that probably wouldn't be all that useful."
Let me know if it's still not clear. I know there's probably a better way of explaining this system, but I get the feeling it's a lot less complex than we're making it out to be here.
Furthermore, as I tried to explain earlier these numbers aren't intended as a trade guide across positions. If they do happen to serve that purpose for some owners who find a beneficial way to tinker with the numbers, that's a bonus. I probably wasn't all that clear in my intentions, but I think this quote sums up the problems with an overall ranking vs. a positional ranking:
"Until we all start playing by the same rules and scoring systems, I think an overall ranking with a built-in trade value scale for dynasty leagues would be next to impossible. I imagine I could take a stab at it if I had to, but there's really no incentive to put even more time and effort into something that probably wouldn't be all that useful."
Let me know if it's still not clear. I know there's probably a better way of explaining this system, but I get the feeling it's a lot less complex than we're making it out to be here.
Page 8, Post #383:
Summing up:
QUOTE
Good point. I could have made this more clear for everybody, but I never got too in depth on the explanation. In my mind it was an easy system, so I never really reached a point where I figured I'd draw more attention to the system itself as opposed to the actual rankings of players. Looking back, though, it was something I probably neglected.
Hope this helps, SSOG. I think your last sentence sums it up very well -- "the number is only intended for comparisons within the position, with some other sort of external equivalencies (i.e. RB12 ~ WR3) determined by gut feel or some other process."
Thanks,
F&L
Thanks for the explanation, F&L, I figured it was something like that. Also, thanks for understanding my hesitance to dig through over 1,000 posts looking for a virtual needle. 
QUOTE (shenski31 @ Nov 4 2007, 06:45 PM)
Hey F&L,
Who do you see as the best dynasty buy-lows? Specifically for teams out of the running this year, who would you target? I'm talking about guys like Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams.
Thanks for your help.
Who do you see as the best dynasty buy-lows? Specifically for teams out of the running this year, who would you target? I'm talking about guys like Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams.
Thanks for your help.
I really think the time to strike on Calvin Johnson and Vince Young is right now -- week 10 of 2007.
Johnson has been severely hampered by injuries for weeks, and he's just now getting back to full health. The Lions' defense and running game have improved, but they're going to need to rely on their passing game to stay in the playoff hunt with the tough schedule they have the rest of the way. I think Johnson makes a splash soon....very soon.
It's fair to question Vince Young's passing ability, but we saw in the 2nd half of last season that he's a true talent. Much like the lessons we learned with Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger, it makes sense to bet on QBs with special talent even when their offense and surrounding talent is holding down their production. A good deal of the blame for the Titans' embarrassingly poor passing game can surely be laid at Young's feet, but he's neck-and-neck with the Vikings for the worst gaggle of receiving options in the league. It won't stay that way forever, and he just may take off in the 2nd half of the season once again if he can start to roll off a couple of good games. He's simply not this bad, so he's due for a hot streak.
I'd also put Maroney in a buy now category even though the Patriots' appear to have some doubts about his role going forward. This one is more of a strict roll of the dice, but I think it's a worthwhile gamble if you can get him from a disillusioned Maroney owner looking to turn the page.
Todd Heap could be another one with the Ravens passing game looking even more futile than normal lately. As long as he's healthy, he's a true TE1 and easily a top 3 or 4 talent at the position.
Can DeAngelo Williams' value get lower? Something's goofy there. A first round pick averaging 5.0 ypc, and he can't even nudge DeShaun Foster much less push him aside. There almost has to be more to the story here....but if you really believe in Williams' talent, now is the time to strike.
Also, Steven Jackson. There's another thread floating around here where people (well, mainly Kelly'sHeroes) were insisting that Reggie Bush was a better investment going forward than Jackson. If you find somebody who believes that, I'd pounce on Steven Jackson right now.
Edit to add: Jeremy Shockey is a good bet to pick up his production the rest of the season, starting this week against the Cowboys. And it can't get any worse for Steve Smith, so he's an interesting roll of the dice if you're out of the playoff picture and looking towards next year.
QUOTE (EBF @ Oct 18 2007, 09:20 PM)
QUOTE (valhallan @ Oct 18 2007, 09:19 PM)
But overall, we agree that banking on a few more years of production out of a veteran like him is a very poor dynasty decision. I've definitely learned my lesson hard with Alexander (and possibly Rudi).
Football Outsiders covered Shaun Alexander's predictable dropoff in this week's ESPN.com column:
Seattle running back unlikely to bounce back
By Aaron Schatz
FootballOutsiders.com
After Shaun Alexander won the 2005 MVP award, Seattle signed him to a new eight-year, $62 million contract. Like most NFL contracts, those numbers are inflated by contract years that will never be realized, but so far the Seahawks have paid Alexander more than $18 million in salary and bonuses. Suffice it to say, they are not getting value for their money.
Alexander is averaging 3.3 yards per carry this year, the third-worst figure among running backs with at least 100 carries. He's been even worse over the past month, with 2.4 yards per carry in the past four games. Seahawks fans are booing their one-time hero, while head coach Mike Holmgren is stuck defending Alexander to local writers and deflecting blame onto the offensive line.
The line is certainly not as good as it was during the Seahawks' run to the Super Bowl two seasons ago, but it is unfair to blame too much of Alexander's decline on blocking issues. Backup Maurice Morris and fullback Leonard Weaver have combined for 4.8 yards per carry behind the exact same line. Last week, Alexander gained just 32 yards on 14 carries against Cleveland. Morris had 55 yards on only nine carries.
This wasn't supposed to be Alexander's fate. Sure, he had dropped from 5.1 yards per carry in his MVP year to 3.6 yards per carry and just seven touchdowns in 2006. Conventional wisdom, however, blamed Alexander's poor 2006 season on the foot injury that bothered him all year. Most fans expected him to return to his MVP form, or at least something close to it. Alexander was taken sixth overall in the average ESPN.com fantasy draft before the season began.
Most observers ignored the fact that Alexander turned 30 the week before the season began, and 30-year-old running backs simply don't come back from the kind of decline we saw from Alexander in 2006. The foot injury was not an excuse for the past; it was an indicator for the future.
From 1978 through 2005, only eight running backs age 28 or older saw their rushing average decline by more than a yard per carry, with a minimum 150 carries each season. Barry Sanders, Curtis Martin and Randy McMillan never played again. James Brooks, Marion Butts and Corey Dillon each retired after one more year. Mike Anderson and Jerome Bettis went through a period of ineffectiveness, although each eventually rebounded for at least one good season.
Pass reception stats were another sign the old Alexander wasn't coming back. A drop in pass receptions is often a good indicator that a running back has only one or two good years left, even if the running back is still productive carrying the ball. Alexander had 59 receptions in 2002 and 42 in 2003, before dropping to 23, 15 and 12 over the past three seasons.
Alexander is one of 13 running backs, age 27 or older, who had a season with at least 140 carries, but fewer than 25 receptions two years after a season with at least 150 carries and more than 40 receptions. In fact, Alexander is the only player since 1978 to have two such seasons, 2004 and 2005.
Who are the other 12 players on this list? Dillon, Martin and Sanders all appear again. So do 49ers great Roger Craig, who ended his career as a part-time player in Oakland and Minnesota, and the enigmatic Ricky Williams, who ended his career (probably) in the CFL.
Five of the other seven players retired after one more season -- Pete Johnson, Kevin Mack, Duce Staley, Anthony Toney and Lorenzo White. A sixth, Curt Warner, managed to stick around for a season and a half. In their remaining time in the NFL, these six backs averaged just 95 carries and 295 yards, barely three yards per carry.
The final player on the list is Alexander's contemporary, Fred Taylor of Jacksonville. Taylor had only 36 receptions total over the past two seasons, after catching at least 36 passes four times between 2000 and 2004. Taylor is still a productive runner, unlike Alexander, but his rushing average has dropped from 5.0 yards per carry to 4.4 yards per carry -- and he has yet to score a touchdown this season.
Alexander was one of the league's top backs from 2003 through 2005, but no amount of public exhortations asking Alexander to "run hard" can bring back his open-field speed or burst through the hole. If the Seahawks want to make any noise come playoff time, it's time to pull Alexander from the starting lineup.
Aaron Schatz is president of Football Outsiders Inc. and the lead author of Pro Football Prospectus 2007 and 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit to add: I've been trumpeting the point in bold about declining RBs and their role in the passing game for awhile, and it's one of the reason why I think you'd be smart to sell on Edgerrin James right now.
More Football Outsiders stuff. They do a weekly matchups column for Rotoworld on Fridays, and Bill Barnwell led off this week with an interesting take on the predictability of yardage vs. touchdowns when looking at weekly matchups:
QUOTE
It would be unfair to say I told you so about LaDainian Tomlinson's week against Minnesota because, realistically, I didn't tell you so. I pointed out how difficult it is to run against the Vikings, but what prevented me from suggesting that you bench Tomlinson is LT's propensity for getting the ball into the end zone.
Predicting yardage, while still a rough exercise, is much easier than predicting a player's likelihood of scoring a touchdown. It takes only one play to score a touchdown and six fantasy points, but it usually takes many to rack up the sixty yards needed to score the same fantasy points through yardage. As a result, while I'll look at a player's pattern for scoring touchdowns in an attempt to determine the general likelihood of him scoring a touchdown in that game, I almost entirely leave that out when analyzing matchups.
Take Willie Parker last week, another player I predicted would have a poor week and did. What if two of Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown passes had instead been passes to the 1, and Parker had ran them in for scores? Would that have made it a good day for Parker? In reality, the difference in his performances would have been very slim, but in fantasy, it would have been the equivalent of rushing for 120 yards. When looking at matchups, if we try and control for everything, the decision-making process becomes overwhelming and impossible. The easier solution is to focus on what you know and can most easily model or predict.
Predicting yardage, while still a rough exercise, is much easier than predicting a player's likelihood of scoring a touchdown. It takes only one play to score a touchdown and six fantasy points, but it usually takes many to rack up the sixty yards needed to score the same fantasy points through yardage. As a result, while I'll look at a player's pattern for scoring touchdowns in an attempt to determine the general likelihood of him scoring a touchdown in that game, I almost entirely leave that out when analyzing matchups.
Take Willie Parker last week, another player I predicted would have a poor week and did. What if two of Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown passes had instead been passes to the 1, and Parker had ran them in for scores? Would that have made it a good day for Parker? In reality, the difference in his performances would have been very slim, but in fantasy, it would have been the equivalent of rushing for 120 yards. When looking at matchups, if we try and control for everything, the decision-making process becomes overwhelming and impossible. The easier solution is to focus on what you know and can most easily model or predict.
Final Football Outsiders related item for the night. Aaron Schatz did a chat with sister-site baseballprospectus.com today, and I found a few interesting snippets:
FRANK GORE:
I thought this was an odd question/answer on Vernon Davis considering the impressive numbers he's put up the past two weeks after coming back from injury. Schatz comes off like he's just looking for an excuse to slam a guy he sees as a workout wonder without thinking it all the way through. Lucky for Schatz, he's a smart guy. Because cynicism makes a lot of people feel smart even when they aren't.
VERNON DAVIS:
ORLANDO PACE DONE?:
THE END OF THE EAGLES' NFC EAST RUN:
I've been saying this about the Bears for two years now. Championship windows are extremely rare in the NFL. It's a shame when stubbornness and myopia lead to a wasted opportunity. Schatz claims the Titans are the next Bears, but I'd argue more for the Vikings as likely heirs to a wasted window.
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS -- NOT SO GOOD AT THE PREDICTION BUSINESS?:
OPPORTUNITY VS. TALENT:
COWBOYS 2008 RB SITUATION (not much info here):
FRANK GORE:
QUOTE
wennodc (Arlington, VA): What happened to Frank Gore this season?
Aaron Schatz: I think Frank Gore's problems are very similar to Ronnie Brown's problems a year ago in Miami. There doesn't seem to be very much different about Gore. He's nicked up -- but then, he was constantly nicked up last year as well. The San Francisco offensive line has completely imploded, the communication between linemen has disappeared. On top of that, because Alex Smith has regressed, there is no passing threat, so every defense can bring up eight or nine guys into the box to defend against Gore.
It's a good example of one of the ways in which statistical analysis of football and basketball differs from analysis of baseball. Bad numbers are not necessarily an indicator of bad play. It is always important to look at the context, at what is going on around the player. Separating the performance of one part of the offense from another can be difficult, and until we have far more intricate numbers, it will require a mixture of common sense and statistics, not just the latter.
As far as fantasy value... obviously, we went a little bit out on a limb here, having Gore as our top fantasy back in the book (second in the update on our website in the preseason). However, I don't think anyone did a good job of projecting running backs this year. Something like ESPN's Average Draft Position for running backs just looks absurd in hindsight. The top five guys were LT, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, Frank Gore, and Shaun Alexander. LT is the only one of those guys having a good season. We at least we called the declines of LJ and Alexander.
Aaron Schatz: I think Frank Gore's problems are very similar to Ronnie Brown's problems a year ago in Miami. There doesn't seem to be very much different about Gore. He's nicked up -- but then, he was constantly nicked up last year as well. The San Francisco offensive line has completely imploded, the communication between linemen has disappeared. On top of that, because Alex Smith has regressed, there is no passing threat, so every defense can bring up eight or nine guys into the box to defend against Gore.
It's a good example of one of the ways in which statistical analysis of football and basketball differs from analysis of baseball. Bad numbers are not necessarily an indicator of bad play. It is always important to look at the context, at what is going on around the player. Separating the performance of one part of the offense from another can be difficult, and until we have far more intricate numbers, it will require a mixture of common sense and statistics, not just the latter.
As far as fantasy value... obviously, we went a little bit out on a limb here, having Gore as our top fantasy back in the book (second in the update on our website in the preseason). However, I don't think anyone did a good job of projecting running backs this year. Something like ESPN's Average Draft Position for running backs just looks absurd in hindsight. The top five guys were LT, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, Frank Gore, and Shaun Alexander. LT is the only one of those guys having a good season. We at least we called the declines of LJ and Alexander.
I thought this was an odd question/answer on Vernon Davis considering the impressive numbers he's put up the past two weeks after coming back from injury. Schatz comes off like he's just looking for an excuse to slam a guy he sees as a workout wonder without thinking it all the way through. Lucky for Schatz, he's a smart guy. Because cynicism makes a lot of people feel smart even when they aren't.
VERNON DAVIS:
QUOTE
sambochoke (San Francisco): Vernon Davis -- too soon to call a bust?
Aaron Schatz: Too soon to call him a bust, but not too soon to bring up the concept. Davis seems to be invisible in the 49ers offense. It is hard to tell if that's the design, or he's unable to pick up the offense, or the quarterbacks can't find him. Right now, he looks like one of those guys who was just a phenomenal athlete and can't necessarily translate that to the field. I know we like to ooh and aaah at these guys with awesome height and strength and speed, but the game they are playing is not called "athlete." It is called "football." Otherwise, Carl Lewis would have three Super Bowl rings.
Aaron Schatz: Too soon to call him a bust, but not too soon to bring up the concept. Davis seems to be invisible in the 49ers offense. It is hard to tell if that's the design, or he's unable to pick up the offense, or the quarterbacks can't find him. Right now, he looks like one of those guys who was just a phenomenal athlete and can't necessarily translate that to the field. I know we like to ooh and aaah at these guys with awesome height and strength and speed, but the game they are playing is not called "athlete." It is called "football." Otherwise, Carl Lewis would have three Super Bowl rings.
ORLANDO PACE DONE?:
QUOTE
metal1341 (St. Louis): The Rams have probably are one of the Top-3 worst drafting team of the past 10 years...assuming they have a top-5 pick next year, where do you feel their biggest need is? Jake Long?
Aaron Schatz: Definitely. Orlando Pace is done. Jon Ogden is probably done too. There's a real changing of the guards going on at left tackle right now.
Aaron Schatz: Definitely. Orlando Pace is done. Jon Ogden is probably done too. There's a real changing of the guards going on at left tackle right now.
THE END OF THE EAGLES' NFC EAST RUN:
QUOTE
Matt (Montreal): The Eagles have under-performed this year, both relative to the FO projections, and past seasons. Do you think that this year is sort the end of their cycle as a top-tier team?
Aaron Schatz: Yes. Mike Tanier and I talked about this a lot after watching that debacle at the Linc Sunday night. I hate playing amateur psychologist, but Andy Reid just walked into that post-game press conference and slumped into his seat and looked completely depressed. You compare that with how, say, Mike Tomlin spoke after the Steelers were upset by Denver a couple weeks ago... no comparison. The family thing is a problem now, no question.
Part of the problem for the Eagles is that the veterans are getting older and the younger players they have drafted to replace the veterans just don't look ready to step in. Jon Runyan and William Thomas are really in decline, and the goal was to replace them eventually with Winston Justice and I think Shawn Andrews, with Max Jean-Gilles replacing Andrews at guard. Yeah, that's not happening. Is there a replacement for Dawkins, who is clearly on the way down? Kearse looks cooked. Spikes is just another linebacker now, not the stud he was in Cincinnati a couple years ago.
They could go out, get some veteran free agents, and sort of run in place like the Bucs, except without the advantage of being able to play an easy schedule. Or they could tear it down and start over. Don't go with another West Coast guy when Reid (probably) resigns. Bring in someone like Norm Chow or Josh McDaniel, or go defensive with Jim Schwartz or one of the Ryan brothers. Release some of the older veterans, trade McNabb, and build around Cole, Patterson, Sheppard, Kolb, and Westbrook. Or do the REALLY daring thing and try to flip Westbrook, the one player who would get you a first-rounder and probably more than that, and might be past his prime when your rebuilding job is finished.
Aaron Schatz: Yes. Mike Tanier and I talked about this a lot after watching that debacle at the Linc Sunday night. I hate playing amateur psychologist, but Andy Reid just walked into that post-game press conference and slumped into his seat and looked completely depressed. You compare that with how, say, Mike Tomlin spoke after the Steelers were upset by Denver a couple weeks ago... no comparison. The family thing is a problem now, no question.
Part of the problem for the Eagles is that the veterans are getting older and the younger players they have drafted to replace the veterans just don't look ready to step in. Jon Runyan and William Thomas are really in decline, and the goal was to replace them eventually with Winston Justice and I think Shawn Andrews, with Max Jean-Gilles replacing Andrews at guard. Yeah, that's not happening. Is there a replacement for Dawkins, who is clearly on the way down? Kearse looks cooked. Spikes is just another linebacker now, not the stud he was in Cincinnati a couple years ago.
They could go out, get some veteran free agents, and sort of run in place like the Bucs, except without the advantage of being able to play an easy schedule. Or they could tear it down and start over. Don't go with another West Coast guy when Reid (probably) resigns. Bring in someone like Norm Chow or Josh McDaniel, or go defensive with Jim Schwartz or one of the Ryan brothers. Release some of the older veterans, trade McNabb, and build around Cole, Patterson, Sheppard, Kolb, and Westbrook. Or do the REALLY daring thing and try to flip Westbrook, the one player who would get you a first-rounder and probably more than that, and might be past his prime when your rebuilding job is finished.
I've been saying this about the Bears for two years now. Championship windows are extremely rare in the NFL. It's a shame when stubbornness and myopia lead to a wasted opportunity. Schatz claims the Titans are the next Bears, but I'd argue more for the Vikings as likely heirs to a wasted window.
QUOTE
Ben (Champaign): So can you give me any reasons not to conclude that the Bears wasted their historically great defense of the past couple of years with terrible quarterbacking and mediocre offensive weapons and now that window is closed. Talk me down off the ledge.
Aaron Schatz: Nope. They wasted it. The only hope I can give you is an invitation to jump to another, similar ledge marked "Tennessee Titans."
Aaron Schatz: Nope. They wasted it. The only hope I can give you is an invitation to jump to another, similar ledge marked "Tennessee Titans."
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS -- NOT SO GOOD AT THE PREDICTION BUSINESS?:
QUOTE
Rick (TX): In the chat you did before the season, I asked you to name the top undervalued fantasy guys. You gave me four names: Ladell Betts, Donovan McNabb, Donte Stallworth, Vince Young. Any comments?
Aaron Schatz: Yes. Nobody admits mistakes like Football Outsiders! I'm not going to lie and say this has been our best year on the fantasy projections beat, but like I said, everyone else has done a pretty bad job as well. (Plus, the fact that Clinton Portis never suffered the injuries that would have required giving more carries to Ladell Betts does not mean that risk did not exist prior to the season.)
Aaron Schatz: Yes. Nobody admits mistakes like Football Outsiders! I'm not going to lie and say this has been our best year on the fantasy projections beat, but like I said, everyone else has done a pretty bad job as well. (Plus, the fact that Clinton Portis never suffered the injuries that would have required giving more carries to Ladell Betts does not mean that risk did not exist prior to the season.)
OPPORTUNITY VS. TALENT:
QUOTE
buddons42 (Detroit): Aaron, I've been reading Outsiders for years and I've noticed something about the fantasy predictions. Not sure if this is just perception or if its accurate, but it just seems that KUBIAK is much better at telling you what guys to avoid then what guys to grab. I can't remember an instance where a guy it said to avoid ended up seriously overperforming his expectations. Is this selective memory on my part or is it something that you guys have noticed too?
Aaron Schatz: No, this is something that I straight out say before the season. I probably said it in a BP chat and I know I say it at every single book event. The reason why is that sleepers in football are primarily based not on talent but on opportunity. To find out who is getting playing time, you are stuck trying to forecast injuries with a crystal ball and trying to get inside the heads of the head coaches. Why isn't Maurice Jones-Drew getting more touches when he's better than Fred Taylor, for example? Why did it take so long to make Adrian Peterson the starter in Minnesota? Raise your hand if you had Earnest Graham on your preseason sleeper list... or Andre' Davis. On the other hand, you can easily see that someone like Shaun Alexander is guaranteed to get carried and almost guaranteed to be a colossal disappointment compared to the expectations of the general public, because the general public really does not understand aging curves in the NFL.
Aaron Schatz: No, this is something that I straight out say before the season. I probably said it in a BP chat and I know I say it at every single book event. The reason why is that sleepers in football are primarily based not on talent but on opportunity. To find out who is getting playing time, you are stuck trying to forecast injuries with a crystal ball and trying to get inside the heads of the head coaches. Why isn't Maurice Jones-Drew getting more touches when he's better than Fred Taylor, for example? Why did it take so long to make Adrian Peterson the starter in Minnesota? Raise your hand if you had Earnest Graham on your preseason sleeper list... or Andre' Davis. On the other hand, you can easily see that someone like Shaun Alexander is guaranteed to get carried and almost guaranteed to be a colossal disappointment compared to the expectations of the general public, because the general public really does not understand aging curves in the NFL.
COWBOYS 2008 RB SITUATION (not much info here):
QUOTE
Tommy (TheStatPack): Julius Jones is a UFA and Marion Barber is a RFA. By the look of things Jones will be able to walk he hasn't done much this year to warrant the money he's going to be asking for. What will the Cowboys Running Back situation look like next year? Will they be looking a RB 1st day or Maybe go out and sign Michael Turner to complement MB3?
Aaron Schatz: Who says that Michael Turner will get a smaller contract than Julius Jones? Yes, I like the idea of getting a cheaper back to team with Barber and saving money. I doubt it will be Turner, who will get starter's money to go somewhere and start.
Aaron Schatz: Who says that Michael Turner will get a smaller contract than Julius Jones? Yes, I like the idea of getting a cheaper back to team with Barber and saving money. I doubt it will be Turner, who will get starter's money to go somewhere and start.
I missed this one earlier in the week. Rotoworld's Gregg Rosenthal sounded the death knell on Denver's legendary rushing attack:
QUOTE
While Adrian Peterson was breaking records and the Game of the Year stole headlines, a fantasy football legend was quietly dying in Detroit. The dominant days of the Denver running game are over.
Someday, we'll tell our fantasy football obsessed grandchildren that a prickly little man named Shanahan could once plug in any running back he chose and magically crank out big numbers. The system has shown wear and tear in the last few years, but Sunday's 47-yard output against the Lions was its death knell.
Don't blame this all on Jay Cutler's injury. Travis Henry had seven yards on five carries before his quarterback was hurt. And there was a time when the system, the offensive line, could carry the Denver runners regardless of the quarterback. That time has passed.
Someday, we'll tell our fantasy football obsessed grandchildren that a prickly little man named Shanahan could once plug in any running back he chose and magically crank out big numbers. The system has shown wear and tear in the last few years, but Sunday's 47-yard output against the Lions was its death knell.
Don't blame this all on Jay Cutler's injury. Travis Henry had seven yards on five carries before his quarterback was hurt. And there was a time when the system, the offensive line, could carry the Denver runners regardless of the quarterback. That time has passed.
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 9 2007, 11:07 PM)
I missed this one earlier in the week. Rotoworld's Gregg Rosenthal sounded the death knell on Denver's legendary rushing attack:
QUOTE
While Adrian Peterson was breaking records and the Game of the Year stole headlines, a fantasy football legend was quietly dying in Detroit. The dominant days of the Denver running game are over.
Someday, we'll tell our fantasy football obsessed grandchildren that a prickly little man named Shanahan could once plug in any running back he chose and magically crank out big numbers. The system has shown wear and tear in the last few years, but Sunday's 47-yard output against the Lions was its death knell.
Don't blame this all on Jay Cutler's injury. Travis Henry had seven yards on five carries before his quarterback was hurt. And there was a time when the system, the offensive line, could carry the Denver runners regardless of the quarterback. That time has passed.
Someday, we'll tell our fantasy football obsessed grandchildren that a prickly little man named Shanahan could once plug in any running back he chose and magically crank out big numbers. The system has shown wear and tear in the last few years, but Sunday's 47-yard output against the Lions was its death knell.
Don't blame this all on Jay Cutler's injury. Travis Henry had seven yards on five carries before his quarterback was hurt. And there was a time when the system, the offensive line, could carry the Denver runners regardless of the quarterback. That time has passed.
The show's not over until the fat lady (SSOG) sings. By the way, F & L, this thread is a thing of beauty. I really appreciate all the work you put into it.
QUOTE (Fear The Turtle @ Nov 9 2007, 11:59 PM)
QUOTE (Fear & Loathing @ Nov 9 2007, 11:07 PM)
I missed this one earlier in the week. Rotoworld's Gregg Rosenthal sounded the death knell on Denver's legendary rushing attack:
QUOTE
While Adrian Peterson was breaking records and the Game of the Year stole headlines, a fantasy football legend was quietly dying in Detroit. The dominant days of the Denver running game are over.
Someday, we'll tell our fantasy football obsessed grandchildren that a prickly little man named Shanahan could once plug in any running back he chose and magically crank out big numbers. The system has shown wear and tear in the last few years, but Sunday's 47-yard output against the Lions was its death knell.
Don't blame this all on Jay Cutler's injury. Travis Henry had seven yards on five carries before his quarterback was hurt. And there was a time when the system, the offensive line, could carry the Denver runners regardless of the quarterback. That time has passed.
Someday, we'll tell our fantasy football obsessed grandchildren that a prickly little man named Shanahan could once plug in any running back he chose and magically crank out big numbers. The system has shown wear and tear in the last few years, but Sunday's 47-yard output against the Lions was its death knell.
Don't blame this all on Jay Cutler's injury. Travis Henry had seven yards on five carries before his quarterback was hurt. And there was a time when the system, the offensive line, could carry the Denver runners regardless of the quarterback. That time has passed.
The show's not over until the fat lady (SSOG) sings. By the way, F & L, this thread is a thing of beauty. I really appreciate all the work you put into it.
I think it's hard to draw any meaningful, long-term conclusions about an offensive line that has currently lost 40% of its starters for the season (especially when both replacements are first-time starters). Outside of Matt Lepsis, the guy with the most experience in Denver's scheme along that line right now is... Eric Pears, who started half the season last year after Lepsis himself was lost to season-ending injury. This is a very, very banged up, very inexperienced offensive line.
Besides, not only is it too early to draw conclusions, but the conclusions being drawn aren't necessarily fully substantiated. Sure, he was putrid against Detriot, but remember how awesome Travis Henry looked to begin the season, back when he was the NFL's leading rusher? Denver still ranks 7th in the league in ypa, they just rank an uncharacteristic 18th in attempts (the only time I can remember where they were actually in the bottom half of the league in terms of attempts). If they were in the top 10 in attempts, like they usually are, nobody would think anything was wrong, even with the banged up offensive line.
Mike Shanahan, Bobby Turner, and Rick Dennison are still in Denver. As long as that remains true, Denver's running game will be very much fantasy relevant.
QUOTE (SSOG @ Nov 10 2007, 02:40 AM)
I think it's hard to draw any meaningful, long-term conclusions about an offensive line that has currently lost 40% of its starters for the season (especially when both replacements are first-time starters). Outside of Matt Lepsis, the guy with the most experience in Denver's scheme along that line right now is... Eric Pears, who started half the season last year after Lepsis himself was lost to season-ending injury. This is a very, very banged up, very inexperienced offensive line.
Besides, not only is it too early to draw conclusions, but the conclusions being drawn aren't necessarily fully substantiated. Sure, he was putrid against Detriot, but remember how awesome Travis Henry looked to begin the season, back when he was the NFL's leading rusher? Denver still ranks 7th in the league in ypa, they just rank an uncharacteristic 18th in attempts (the only time I can remember where they were actually in the bottom half of the league in terms of attempts). If they were in the top 10 in attempts, like they usually are, nobody would think anything was wrong, even with the banged up offensive line.
Mike Shanahan, Bobby Turner, and Rick Dennison are still in Denver. As long as that remains true, Denver's running game will be very much fantasy relevant.
Besides, not only is it too early to draw conclusions, but the conclusions being drawn aren't necessarily fully substantiated. Sure, he was putrid against Detriot, but remember how awesome Travis Henry looked to begin the season, back when he was the NFL's leading rusher? Denver still ranks 7th in the league in ypa, they just rank an uncharacteristic 18th in attempts (the only time I can remember where they were actually in the bottom half of the league in terms of attempts). If they were in the top 10 in attempts, like they usually are, nobody would think anything was wrong, even with the banged up offensive line.
Mike Shanahan, Bobby Turner, and Rick Dennison are still in Denver. As long as that remains true, Denver's running game will be very much fantasy relevant.
Nice rejoinder.
Finally some news on Robert Meachem:
QUOTE
With Marques Colston, David Patten and company now performing at optimal efficiency, barring injury, it's going to be difficult for Meachem to break his NFL maiden any time soon, although decision-makers are beginning to take notice.
"I mean, for the majority of the offseason and even early on in the season, you could just tell he wasn't healthy," quarterback Drew Brees said. "He wasn't 100 percent, still limping and that sort of thing. But he's coming around. I think you see those bursts, that acceleration, that ability to go up and get the ball. He's made big improvements just on scout team and that sort of thing. Obviously, if there ever came a time when we would work him in, he would, I think, just exponentially get better and better."
Wide receivers coach Curtis Johnson said that early on, Meachem's struggles, including times when he'd catch more passes with his chest than with his hands, were probably connected to his gimpy and slow-healing right knee. And it's still slowing his growth, Johnson said.
"He's just not strong enough right now with his injury, but he's doing fine," Johnson said. "I think he's doing a lot better. You see he's working every day. He's starting to do some of the things that Lance (Moore) did for our scout team. But I think those other guys are starting to get into a groove, and they're starting to play well.
"So it's hard to put a guy in there now. He has a little bit to go as far as getting the little things in the offense. I think if we need him, I think we could play him. But right now, I don't see him being really, fully, 100 percent."
Coach Sean Payton, though, has taken notice of Meachem's improvement, especially, Payton said, in recent weeks.
"The first thing I see is someone who is running better, who's healthier, and it starts with that," Payton said. "You don't really see the gait in his step, and that has helped him. Secondly, his overall knowledge of what we're doing formationally and as an offense has helped him because he's getting more reps. He's doing a good job running the scout team. I'm pleased with the last three weeks."
For now, Meachem said, he relies on tolerance and faith to help him persevere, counting the days until he can pull on a game jersey instead of a T-shirt.
"I feel better and better each and every day," he said. "With me, it's all my coaches and what they see. They've coached in the NFL a long time, and they know what's best right now. I'm just waiting patiently, letting God handle it and letting the coaches handle it."
"I mean, for the majority of the offseason and even early on in the season, you could just tell he wasn't healthy," quarterback Drew Brees said. "He wasn't 100 percent, still limping and that sort of thing. But he's coming around. I think you see those bursts, that acceleration, that ability to go up and get the ball. He's made big improvements just on scout team and that sort of thing. Obviously, if there ever came a time when we would work him in, he would, I think, just exponentially get better and better."
Wide receivers coach Curtis Johnson said that early on, Meachem's struggles, including times when he'd catch more passes with his chest than with his hands, were probably connected to his gimpy and slow-healing right knee. And it's still slowing his growth, Johnson said.
"He's just not strong enough right now with his injury, but he's doing fine," Johnson said. "I think he's doing a lot better. You see he's working every day. He's starting to do some of the things that Lance (Moore) did for our scout team. But I think those other guys are starting to get into a groove, and they're starting to play well.
"So it's hard to put a guy in there now. He has a little bit to go as far as getting the little things in the offense. I think if we need him, I think we could play him. But right now, I don't see him being really, fully, 100 percent."
Coach Sean Payton, though, has taken notice of Meachem's improvement, especially, Payton said, in recent weeks.
"The first thing I see is someone who is running better, who's healthier, and it starts with that," Payton said. "You don't really see the gait in his step, and that has helped him. Secondly, his overall knowledge of what we're doing formationally and as an offense has helped him because he's getting more reps. He's doing a good job running the scout team. I'm pleased with the last three weeks."
For now, Meachem said, he relies on tolerance and faith to help him persevere, counting the days until he can pull on a game jersey instead of a T-shirt.
"I feel better and better each and every day," he said. "With me, it's all my coaches and what they see. They've coached in the NFL a long time, and they know what's best right now. I'm just waiting patiently, letting God handle it and letting the coaches handle it."
Can we have a thread where F&L and SSOG are the only ones allowed to post? I'd just bookmark that and not have to wade through the SP anymore.
F&L what are you're thoughts on Harrison? ... do you think he's a good buy low candidate, and can still put up solid #'s for the next 2 years?
Posts
.jpg)
1 comment:
Not sure where to post this but I wanted to ask if anyone has heard of National Clicks?
Can someone help me find it?
Overheard some co-workers talking about it all week but didn't have time to ask so I thought I would post it here to see if someone could help me out.
Seems to be getting alot of buzz right now.
Thanks
Post a Comment