Cornbread Maxwell wrote:I disagree with your points KG.
I disagree that one should look at prior statistics alone to determine projections.
Simply put - no one knows how the change in teams will affect Portis right now. You simply cant discredit that.
I agree that the top 3 are locked up with Holmes, LT, and Green, but after that it gets pretty hazy IMO.
Personally, I really dont care which of the 3 I get between Portis, SA, and Deuce. I think there is an equal amount of risk and reward between them. IF I had the 4th pick and had to choose one - right now I think Id take Deuce. If you ask me tomorow Id probably change my mind - thats how close all 3 are.
Ideally, give me the 6th pick for value reasons.
To expand on what Cornbread shared here, I think it's a matter of making the distinction that KG's strategy of looking at player consistency in the past (and their HR threat) is a nice tool to have -- sort of like comparing Strength of Schedule. However, it shouldn't be the only tool. I have to admit that KG's point helps SHOW why Shaun Alexander, for example, was such a frustrating back to owners last year. He had seven games under 10 points (or nearly half of all regular season games). That means that in many weeks, it's a real crapshoot on whether or not you can rely on Shaun as your first round pick to produce. It would be interesting to look at the consistency/HR stats for Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper and Peyton Manning in comparison to these six backs. In that first round, it's nice to have a consistent scoring threat, and Moss was pretty consistent himself last year.
Getting back to point, though, you can't totally rely on past stats and performances to make your final ranking. Last year, Ricky Williams was the consensus No. 1 fantasy commodity due to his past performances combined with Priest's injury concerns. Williams instead performed like a mid to late first rounder at best. The year before, I think I remember Marshall Faulk being at the top of the list (along with Edge, I believe). Again, this was due to looking mainly at their past performances and trying to project them into the next season.
Considering that each of the last couple years has seen a top-ranked back fall in the standings is an interesting topic itself. Who will be the No. 1 fantasy back in next year's preseason fantasy magazines and websites? I'm starting to believe that either LT2 or Priest (or possibly both) will not live up to the lofty expectations people are bestowing on them much like Ricky Williams didn't last year and Marshall/Edge the year before. Both LT2 (miserable team where he'll be focused on constantly -- it has to take effect on his numbers at some point) and Priest (age, hip injury getting re-aggravated??) have their question marks. In fact all backs seem to this year.
After weighing all the other information concerning the top 10 backs, I'm starting to think that players like Ahman Green (under-rated according to KG's methods, very easy run defenses in NFC North, seemingly over his fumbling problems, etc.) may be catapulting to the top of the fantasy list here sooner rather than later. (I also think that Edge, Deuce and Ricky Williams will greatly improve on their stats and rankings this year).
KingGhidra wrote:Brian Westbrook is a suckers pick for 2004. His chances of repeating all those TDs is unlikely.
How so? Last year the offense had a terrible first half of the year. There was nobody at WR that was a threat. In fact, Duce and Westbrook were the top 2 WR threats. Any time Westbrook was in the backfield a defense had to key on him if anyone.
His situation is vastly improved. He's got no Duce in the backfield anymore, so you can expect 200+, or more like 250+ carries from him. At his ypc avg last year that's easily well over 1000 yards. Then add in TO, who makes defenses have to respect the passing game. Now some would argue that TO will steal a significant number of TDs, and true he will have many, but the offense will be much better, therefore there will be more TDs scored overall. Also, if using that logic, Duce's TDs from last year should be accounted for, meaning there's more up for grabs as well when projecting that kind of analysis.
Overall I think this was a great analysis of RBs using these statistics. However, I think even your own statistics contradict your assessment of Westbrook. The man only had about 120 carries, and had only 2 games below 10 points. That's a) consistent, and b) doing a lot with very little opportunity. Btw: were you counting the game in which he got injured in that analysis? Just curious.
I'm in with maddog about Westbrook. Even by your stats, Westrbook grades out as a back betwen 15-20, and he will end up as someone's #2 RB in most leagues, so where's the overvaluing?
Overall, though, I love the breakdown of data, but you had me from the moment you pronounced the greatness of Ahman Green. Gotta love your #1 keeper getting love as the #2 guy overall.
That means that he had 2 weeks under 10, 3 weeks over 20 and 11 weeks between 10-20.
It's for two seasons. I got the stats directly off the game log on ESPN and corrected for fumbles since they don't keep track of that in basic scoring. He lost a fumble in week 14 against Minnesota pushing him under the 10 point mark.
KingGhidra wrote:Brian Westbrook is a suckers pick for 2004. His chances of repeating all those TDs is unlikely.
How so? Last year the offense had a terrible first half of the year. There was nobody at WR that was a threat. In fact, Duce and Westbrook were the top 2 WR threats. Any time Westbrook was in the backfield a defense had to key on him if anyone.
His situation is vastly improved. He's got no Duce in the backfield anymore, so you can expect 200+, or more like 250+ carries from him. At his ypc avg last year that's easily well over 1000 yards. Then add in TO, who makes defenses have to respect the passing game. Now some would argue that TO will steal a significant number of TDs, and true he will have many, but the offense will be much better, therefore there will be more TDs scored overall. Also, if using that logic, Duce's TDs from last year should be accounted for, meaning there's more up for grabs as well when projecting that kind of analysis.
Overall I think this was a great analysis of RBs using these statistics. However, I think even your own statistics contradict your assessment of Westbrook. The man only had about 120 carries, and had only 2 games below 10 points. That's a) consistent, and b) doing a lot with very little opportunity. Btw: were you counting the game in which he got injured in that analysis? Just curious.
How often does a guy come along that gets that many TDs on few carries that isn't a Zack Crockett or Moe Williams? It's foolish to think he'd even come close to that TD rate ever again. Two of the TDs came on kick returns which he won't be handling in 2004. Four of them came off receptions. Go over the stats of RBs and you'll see there's no rhyme or reason to their reception TDs. I throw receiving TDs out of the picture completely as being statistically insignificant. That leaves 7 TDs on 117 carries, or about 16.75 carries per TD. That makes him significantly better than any other top RB with the exception of Priest Holmes.
Everything he did is something that is very rare and unlikely. Considering he hasn't gotten a full seasons worth of work, makes him a prime target for one-hit wonder in my book. The only thing impressive about him is his 5.2 rushing average and above average receptions rate. That makes him more Charlie Garner or Tiki Barber than Priest Holmes. If he gets 250-280 carries and 50-60 receptions, he'll be the man as your #2 RB. Third or fourth round is still too early. If it's the fifth round, we can talk business.
I know this is about the best Running Backs. However, it would be interesting if you could add in Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper and Peyton Manning -- looking at their scoring per week in comparison to the RBs. It wouldn't surprise me to see them pretty high on the overall list, and would start to show that players at other positions have potential first-round value. (how many weeks below 10 points, how many above 20, etc.)
I'll try to look it up, but thought that if you have a lot of the stats already compiled it may be easier to throw it in??
I know this is about the best Running Backs. However, it would be interesting if you could add in Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper and Peyton Manning -- looking at their scoring per week in comparison to the RBs. It wouldn't surprise me to see them pretty high on the overall list, and would start to show that players at other positions have potential first-round value. (how many weeks below 10 points, how many above 20, etc.)
I'll try to look it up, but thought that if you have a lot of the stats already compiled it may be easier to throw it in??
Last year (Wesley Walker I think), did a spreadsheet for everyone. He showed that hands down, Randy Moss was the most consistent player for 2003 at any position.
Showing that QBs are very consistent won't prove they are worth a 1st round pick, it would prove the opposite. The more good players you have at any position lowers the need to draft the #1 right away. The reason RBs go so quickly is because the difference between 1st and 10th is huge; 158 points/10 points per game. The difference between 1st and 10th QB is only 47 points/3 points per game.
I planned on getting to QBs and WRs eventually, but today is not that day.
Also the arbitrary line I draw would have to be different than 10 and 20 since QBs and WRs average points are different. The spread for WRs would be something like 17 and 7. If you wanna go ahead and do that for the top 30 WRs over the last two years, be my guest.
No problem, but I suspected that Moss was near the top of the most consistent performers. Interesting considering some people are proposing an "opposite draft". I'll start a different thread on the Moss aspect. Thanks
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Warpigs » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:33 am 
