Who not to pick - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Who not to pick

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby toofunny » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:28 pm

moochman wrote:Clearly an inflammatory article written to invoke reader response. This irresponsible juournalism, if you can call it that, may be fun to read but provides absolutely no help when formulating draft plans.

Geez, that this Bozo would even factor in draft results from drafts where Clarett and Price were chosen shows this clown didn't put much into the production of this rubbish.

That he says the Padre bailed on his team and doesn't bother to say how he came to that absurd notion is further proof of how little effort was done to compile this article.

FOX's credibility just took a huge hit.


*lol* I'm almost sure you're joking, but if not you should loosen that o-ring a few 100 degrees.

The article is acutally pretty good.

McNabb was never a top 10 QB before TO. He averaged 15 TD a year before TO. The article says based on ADP, he's very poor value. Which is 100% true.

Next, the article says Priest being a TOP 4 PICK, is a no thanks. Which is pretty good advice. Once you hit 5-6-7, that's probably the sweet spot to grab him. Again, good advice.

DD, great advice on him too. He's is being overvalued for where he's going. Fact is Texas had a few good games WITHOUT him, and there was concern he was going to split time when returning. Anyone taking DD in the first round is crazy. He has little to no chance of being a top 5 RB, and he might not even be a top 10 RB.

Next, anyone drafting Peerless is a moron. Period. Having watched every falcon game for the last 4 years, there is little to no value for ANY Falcon WR, period.

Next, Clarett has 0 value in a re-draft league this year. You can't even argue that.

I love the Boo Williams comment. I actually saw him drafted a few days ago. *lol*

I'll go as far to say that this is one of the better FF articles I've read this year. Of course having the ADP helps, but they are showing where people are going, and who is going to high. We all knew McNabb would go far too high, and he is.

And the Priest comment was mostly correct, but should be explained. Due to FA for the backup RB, they wanted to give LJ a real test in the last part of the season. They were out of it, Priest was banged up, so they were HAPPY to have him rest and sit it out. I'm sure both sides were happy, but to put it all on Priest isn't fair. BUT, if they are out of it, and he's hurt, he might sit out again. Older RB, who's always banged up, team out of playoffs, Priest might do JACK for the last 5 games. So it is a worry. And I agree with the author, too much of a worry for a top 4 pick. 5-6-7, okay I can probably do it. Again, the author was dead on.

The one mistake is, the article should be titled

"DO NOT DRAFT LIST AT THIS ADP"

Obviously you'd take Priest in the 2nd round for example. But if you actually read arcticle vs "Priest - Do not draft" and then start freaking out, you can't argue with most of it.
toofunny
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 261
Joined: 4 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby toofunny » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:34 pm

VaderFin wrote:I started reading and got to Domanick Davis and Donovan McNabb on a Do Not Draft List and just stopped right there. :-t


You might have been reading, but hardly comprehending. The author clearly states at the ADPs these guys are going at. If you don't think McNabb is being draft too high, then you're right you should stop reading, and stop playing FF.
toofunny
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 261
Joined: 4 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby toofunny » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:36 pm

Free Bagel wrote:
Mookie4ever_ffc wrote:I agree with almost everything in the article ;-D


Haha, I swear Mookie is my polar opposite.

Fittingly, I could not disagree more with just about every word in this article.


So McNabb isn't being taken too high? You like those 16 TDs a year before TO? McNabb is a super stud now? Ehhh I'll pass.
toofunny
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 261
Joined: 4 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:30 pm

toofunny wrote:
Free Bagel wrote:
Mookie4ever_ffc wrote:I agree with almost everything in the article ;-D


Haha, I swear Mookie is my polar opposite.

Fittingly, I could not disagree more with just about every word in this article.


So McNabb isn't being taken too high? You like those 16 TDs a year before TO? McNabb is a super stud now? Ehhh I'll pass.


I'd really like to know where you're getting these stats. First off, if you only include his passing TDs in those years he averages 17.4 TDs. So in the worst case, you're dead wrong.

Secondly, McNabb is a scrambling QB. Do you not factor in running TDs, perhaps you rank RBs ignoring any TDs they catch instead of run? If you add in McNabb's rushing TDs you get an average of 20.8 TDs per year.

I'm guessing you didn't play in '02? McNabb might not have finished highly as you'd like, but he's proven he can get it done without any semblance of a WR to throw to. The 02 season. He only played 10 games and still finished ~255 points if you add up his stats. Culpepper had ~321 points, Vick ~290, but no one was putting up more points per game than McNabb was until he got injured. So unlike other highly rated QBs typically drafted before him (Culpepper), whom mind you I do think is very good, McNabb proved he could be a fantasy beast with lousy WRs.

Also, your comparison of the TDs doesn't take into consideration the effect of the league's enforcement of illegal contact rule. For example here's the averages of the top 30 QBs passing TD totals:

04 - 20.9
03 - 17.933333

To claim McNabb was nothing without TO is absurd.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby moochman » Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:19 pm

toofunny wrote:*lol* I'm almost sure you're joking, but if not you should loosen that o-ring a few 100 degrees.

The article is acutally pretty good.


To quote yourself "You might have been reading, but hardly comprehending". My response to the lazy, uninspired, uninformative blurb was that it was inflammatory to say the Holmes bailed on his team and irresponsible not to explain where this conclusion came from. The writer didn't bother to justify his statements. IMO this was because he was mailing it in as evidenced by the drivel in the rest of the article. There was nothing of note, nothing that one could read and say "Wow, I hadn't thought of that".

I did mention that it might be fun to read, but it served no purpose. And that is not good journalism. You might have been reading...
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:05 pm

maddog60 wrote:I'm guessing you didn't play in '02? McNabb might not have finished highly as you'd like, but he's proven he can get it done without any semblance of a WR to throw to. The 02 season. He only played 10 games and still finished ~255 points if you add up his stats. Culpepper had ~321 points, Vick ~290, but no one was putting up more points per game than McNabb was until he got injured. So unlike other highly rated QBs typically drafted before him (Culpepper), whom mind you I do think is very good, McNabb proved he could be a fantasy beast with lousy WRs.

To claim McNabb was nothing without TO is absurd.


That'd be my guess too. :-b
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby aussieboy » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:10 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
maddog60 wrote:I'm guessing you didn't play in '02? McNabb might not have finished highly as you'd like, but he's proven he can get it done without any semblance of a WR to throw to. The 02 season. He only played 10 games and still finished ~255 points if you add up his stats. Culpepper had ~321 points, Vick ~290, but no one was putting up more points per game than McNabb was until he got injured. So unlike other highly rated QBs typically drafted before him (Culpepper), whom mind you I do think is very good, McNabb proved he could be a fantasy beast with lousy WRs.

To claim McNabb was nothing without TO is absurd.


That'd be my guess too. :-b


Well said Maddog.

Mcnabb with or without TO will be a stud QB. However in looking at those 2002 stats the one thing that sticks out is Mcnabb averaging nearly 50ypg rushing. As his career progresses Mcnabb is rushing less and less. That has a massive impact on where he could end up. Some might say that without TO Mcnabb would rush more, and this may be true, i don't know. What I am saying though is if TO isnt playing for Philly this yr then Mcnabb's overall value could very well be determined by his rushing stats.
aussieboy
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1398
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Lonely island

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 0:58 hours
(and 44 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact