Brian Westbrook - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Brian Westbrook

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Kensat30 » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:52 am

maddog60 wrote:
KingGhidra wrote:You don't draft a RB early to "just crack the top 15". That's why he is going in the 4th or 5th round.


I wouldn't mind my #2 RB finishing in the top 15. Let's see, after:

#9: Edge
#10: Taylor
#11: Faulk
#12: Dillon
#13: Barlow
#14: Henry
#15: Westbrook?!?

But there's still Rudi, Bennet, Fumblina, Stephen Davis, and D. Davis. I don't see these guys going in the 4th or 5th rounds. I dont suppose that Staley lasts that long in most drafts either.

Considering those other guys usually projected in the 10-15 spots are getting 2nd round picks spent on them, how is Westbrook not worth at least a 3rd rounder? If you believe he's a top 15 RB, he's absolutely a steal in the 4th or 5th round, seeing how he's worth at least an early 3rd round if he cracks the top 15.



Westbrook has virtually no chance of cracking the top ten simply based on the maximum amount of touches he should see. His yardage and TD ceiling is a lot lower than other guys drafted before him.

Just because 10 RBs are selected with first 12 or so picks in most drafts doesn't mean those backs are automatically going to be top10 backs. Those backs are just more likely to get the necessary amount of carries (yardage+TDs) to be a top RB.

Westbrook has virtually no chance of reaching top10 status. He is guaranteed to lose a large chunk of TDs from both Buckhalter and McNabb and we don't know how much his carries will actually increase over last year. Remember, we're talking about a guy who had double digit carries in only 4 games last year.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:56 am

Kensat30 wrote:Just because 10 RBs are selected with first 12 or so picks in most drafts doesn't mean those backs are automatically going to be top10 backs. Those backs are just more likely to get the necessary amount of carries (yardage+TDs) to be a top RB.


Obviously they're not automatically the top 10. No one will know for sure until the season is over and done with. Its all projections at this point. However, my point was that if you project Westbrook to finish in the top 15, then it makes perfect sense to draft him around the time guys like Rudi, S. Davis, etc are being drafted. It'd be rather silly to draft someone you don't project getting into the top 15 over someone you do, and equally silly to have more than 15 players projected to be top 15. No way a top 15 RB should be available in the 4th or 5th round, so if one were to rank him as such like KG did, then waiting until the 4th or 5th round to grab him is incredibly risky, whereas he'd be easily worth the 3rd round selection provided the projection is correct.

Kensat30 wrote:Westbrook has virtually no chance of reaching top10 status. He is guaranteed to lose a large chunk of TDs from both Buckhalter and McNabb and we don't know how much his carries will actually increase over last year. Remember, we're talking about a guy who had double digit carries in only 4 games last year.


Yes, and will less than 10 carries in most every game he still managed to consistently put up over 10 points a game. He's also a great receiving RB like Staley, so it's reasonable to expect the bulk or any RB catches to go his way. Considering how consistent he was on so few carries, doublign or nearly doubling his carries while increasing his reception total (screen to Westbrook now, not Duce) would seem all the more likely to make him about as consistent as Vanderjecht.
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 Cornbread Maxwell » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:06 am

maddog60 wrote:
KingGhidra wrote:You don't draft a RB early to "just crack the top 15". That's why he is going in the 4th or 5th round.


I wouldn't mind my #2 RB finishing in the top 15. Let's see, after:

#9: Edge
#10: Taylor
#11: Faulk
#12: Dillon
#13: Barlow
#14: Henry
#15: Westbrook?!?

But there's still Rudi, Bennet, Fumblina, Stephen Davis, and D. Davis. I don't see these guys going in the 4th or 5th rounds. I dont suppose that Staley lasts that long in most drafts either.

Considering those other guys usually projected in the 10-15 spots are getting 2nd round picks spent on them, how is Westbrook not worth at least a 3rd rounder? If you believe he's a top 15 RB, he's absolutely a steal in the 4th or 5th round, seeing how he's worth at least an early 3rd round if he cracks the top 15.


Well put MD.

If you think the RBs going in the 2nd rd are good #2 RBs, you also have to put Westbrook up there too. 4th/5th is a steal.
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 fantasyswami » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:45 am

All of these are valid points. But you can't overstate BW's performance last year as the 3rd string guy (to start the season anyway). He had 13 total touchdowns last year.

How many more TDs would he have had last year if Duce was gone and it was only he and Correll splitting time?
Doghouse Fantasy Football Magazine - [i]"Man's Best Friend"[/i]
fantasyswami
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 131
Joined: 6 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Free Bagel » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:45 am

maddog60 wrote:would seem all the more likely to make him about as consistent as Vanderjecht.


Muahahaha, you should know by now that if anyone tries to use the word "consistent" and "(insert kicker's name here)" in the same sentence, I'm going to chime in.

Don't label Vandy consistent just because he was the top kicker last year. He finished 17th in 2002.

Now, you may carry on.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby KingGhidra » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:16 am

Free Bagel wrote:
maddog60 wrote:would seem all the more likely to make him about as consistent as Vanderjecht.


Muahahaha, you should know by now that if anyone tries to use the word "consistent" and "(insert kicker's name here)" in the same sentence, I'm going to chime in.

Don't label Vandy consistent just because he was the top kicker last year. He finished 17th in 2002.

Now, you may carry on.


Mike Vanderjagt
1998: 124
1999: 157
2000: 126
2001: 143
2002: 112
2003: 171

Don't label Vandy inconsistent because he had a low point total in 2002. He finished around top 5 most years.

Now, you may carry on.
KingGhidra
General Manager
General Manager

Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4303
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Free Bagel » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:35 am

KingGhidra wrote:Mike Vanderjagt
1998: 124
1999: 157
2000: 126
2001: 143
2002: 112
2003: 171

Don't label Vandy inconsistent because he had a low point total in 2002. He finished around top 5 most years.


1998: 124
1999: +32 (roughly 11 fg's difference)
2000: -30 (roughly 10 fg's difference)
2001: +17 (roughly 6 fg's difference)
2002: -21 (roughly 7 fg's difference)
2003: +59 (rougly 20 fg's difference)

Up, down, up, down, up, fill in the blank

That doesn't look all that consistent to me.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby KingGhidra » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:48 am

Free Bagel wrote:
KingGhidra wrote:Mike Vanderjagt
1998: 124
1999: 157
2000: 126
2001: 143
2002: 112
2003: 171

Don't label Vandy inconsistent because he had a low point total in 2002. He finished around top 5 most years.


1998: 124
1999: +32 (roughly 11 fg's difference)
2000: -30 (roughly 10 fg's difference)
2001: +17 (roughly 6 fg's difference)
2002: -21 (roughly 7 fg's difference)
2003: +59 (rougly 20 fg's difference)

Up, down, up, down, up, fill in the blank

That doesn't look all that consistent to me.


Oh c'mon I know you're not that anal. No one is going to have the exact same fantasy point total every year. For a position that only gets about 30-40 chances a year, that's damn consistent considering the very small sample size you get. It's not like running backs who get 300-400 chances to average out and be consistent. Yes we all know you don't like kickers FB, but don't it to asinine levels to prove what we already know: backs are more consistent than kickers.

Vanderjagt is consistent.
KingGhidra
General Manager
General Manager

Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4303
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Free Bagel » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:51 am

So you're telling me that the difference between 23 fg's and 33 fg's is negligible? Or the difference between 24 fg's and 44 fg's?
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby maddog60 » Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:37 am

Guys, sorry, my bad, it wasn't the right analogy. I was simply referring to last year when it didnt matter where the ball was, what the wind conditions were, etc. You knew every time Vandy came out to kick that it was going through the uprights.
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

PreviousNext

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 5:21 hours
(and 43 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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