PantherDave Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 It's time to Head for the Mountains.....of Busch(Bush)....... Classic Bush league set-up.....Classic Bush league player reaction. However, to each his own-enjoy. The reason you will not go 24 deep with the QB's and RB's is you will be proven wrong.....then again, Bush league tactic of showing what Bush league player wants us to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 (edited) I did throw out Manning & Culpepper Okay, this is player value 101, very basic and restricted to your scoring system. Perhaps you might give understanding it a try. Throw out the outliers - Manning/Culpepper in 2004 & LT in 2006. Their FF performances far exceed an reasonable expectation. What you have is the top QB averaging 233 FF pts, vs the #12 QB averaging 123 FF pts (and the #12 QBs are remakably similar every year, as they should be). That's a difference of 110 FF pts between #1 QBs in your league (since you wouldn't list the top 24 for a fairly obvious reason). Now do the same with the top RBs, who average 231 FF pts (remarkably close to the top QB average, don't you think?) vs the #12 RBs, who average 75 FF pts. That's a difference of 156 FF pts. Only a fool couldn't see that there is a much bigger difference in point differential between the RBs than there is between the QBs, as well as inherently understanding that while top QBs & RBs can be expected to score relatively closely in normal years, the points scored by RBs drops off much faster than those scored for QBs - making top RBs more valuable. Now, if you can't understand this very basic concept, then there's no point in arguing further, since you obviously will have things like tiers & standard deviations go way over your head. But I'll gladly play in your league anytime you have an opening... Edited August 13, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Based on our scoring system and lineups QB are generally far more valauble than RB. I expect LT to go within top 5 and S Jackson to be only other first round RB LT and SJax the only 2 RBs to be drafted in the first round and they are mid to late rounders That still makes me laugh. So I take LT in the 1st, Gore in the 2nd ... you can have Manning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 [i]So when I get the top QB it is presumed that the best QB I can get is 12th? But when you get the top QB the best RB you can get is 7th? That is polluted logic.[/i] [size="7]That is a very accurate assessment based on histoircal drafts[/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 BUSH LEAGUE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 BUSH LEAGUE I should have signed my 12 year old son up for this league ... he'd clean up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Now do the same with the top RBs, who average 231 FF pts (remarkably close to the top QB average, don't you think?) vs the #12 RBs, who average 75 FF pts. You need a math lesson. The top 3 QB's from 2004 to 2006 average 217 points. You need to thrwo out LT's 2006 numbers just like Manning's 2004 numbers. That would give the top RB an average of 191 points Why would you not throw out LT's big year if you throw out Manning's????????????????????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 jj - Please just simply paste the top 24 at QB and RB. We won't bother with including the other positions for discussion. BB has already clearly demonstrated that if you simply started 1 at each that the top RB hold more value than the top QB, and the disparity only grows as you increase the number of starters... of course, if you can state with 100% certainty that there will be about 20 QBs taken in the first two rounds, you may be able to play with the numbers in a way to make it so that passing on LT is worth it (everyone, don't forget the second step of value drafting which is evaluating the difference of what is currently available to you vs. what is likely to be available to you in the next rounds) THe point is, the stats posted thus far for the top 12 players indisputably show that the top RBs ARE more valuable than the top QBs, however, based on the flawed strategies of so many of the owners, it may be strategically correct to take a lesser value if it saves a more severe drop in value in the next set of picks. But, without having the numbers for the top 24 players to more clearly demonstrate the player value and without having the actual draft histories to show that these owners are making some fundamental value draft errors to be the basis of our decision, no way for us to 100% state that taking Manning is the wrong choice. Only thing that can be 100% stated is that RBs in this system still have a greater value than QBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Now do the same with the top RBs, who average 231 FF pts (remarkably close to the top QB average, don't you think?) vs the #12 RBs, who average 75 FF pts.You need a math lesson. The top 3 QB's from 2004 to 2006 average 217 points. You need to thrwo out LT's 2006 numbers just like Manning's 2004 numbers. That would give the top RB an average of 191 points Why would you not throw out LT's big year if you throw out Manning's????????????????????????????? Exactly there Einstien....understand the Math, top RB's are more valuable.....now back to regulary scheduled BUSH WHACKING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Now do the same with the top RBs, who average 231 FF pts (remarkably close to the top QB average, don't you think?) vs the #12 RBs, who average 75 FF pts.You need a math lesson. The top 3 QB's from 2004 to 2006 average 217 points. You need to thrwo out LT's 2006 numbers just like Manning's 2004 numbers. That would give the top RB an average of 191 points Why would you not throw out LT's big year if you throw out Manning's????????????????????????????? What part of this statement did you not understand that you felt the need to post in the font you did like a horse's ass? Throw out the outliers - Manning/Culpepper in 2004 & LT in 2006. Their FF performances far exceed an reasonable expectation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Call our league what ever you want. The point is that taking Manning can make sense based on roster requirements and scoring. I can not change the structure of the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 (edited) Call our league what ever you want. The point is that taking Manning can make sense based on roster requirements and scoring. I can not change the structure of the league It makes sense because your league is "Lemmy" like....if one Lemmy runs off the cliff.....the rest will follow. The truly sad part of all this, is you have no clue as to how bad you have been taken to FF school on this, now go draft Peyton and act all smug and self-satisfied about it...go on now..schools out. Edited August 13, 2007 by PantherDave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Call our league what ever you want. The point is that taking Manning can make sense based on roster requirements and scoring. I can not change the structure of the league Please see my post. It has very little to do with the scoring. Roster requirements certainly put the top QB (and note that under most scoring systems Manning was not the top scoring QB in 4 of the last 5 years, though he is consistently a top 5 performer) into the first round, but definitely not the top pick. What may well vault Manning to the #1 spot in this particular league is the draft tendencies of your other owners. If they, for flawed reasons if looking simply at value, take an average of 18-20 QBs in the first 2 rounds, then yes, it may make sense to take Manning in the first and then the best 2 RBs in the 2nd/3rd from a value standpoint because of the forced drop of value based on owner's making poor value decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 (edited) Now do the same with the top RBs, who average 231 FF pts (remarkably close to the top QB average, don't you think?) vs the #12 RBs, who average 75 FF pts.You need a math lesson. The top 3 QB's from 2004 to 2006 average 217 points. You need to thrwo out LT's 2006 numbers just like Manning's 2004 numbers. That would give the top RB an average of 191 points Why would you not throw out LT's big year if you throw out Manning's????????????????????????????? Okay, I'm going to type a lot slower & louder now in hopes that you'll understand, and I'll use your basis of argument to prove you wrong. Take the top 3 QBs from 2004-2006, and delete Manning & Culpepper in 2004 as outliers. Those remaining 7 performances (remember, 3 X 3 = 9, and 9 - 2 = 7) have a QB FF average of 205 FF pts. Now let's take the average of the bottom 3 QBs from the top 12 each year. That averages out to 128 FF pts. Now let's take the top 3 RBs from 2004-2006, and delete LT's 2006 performance. Those remaining 8 performances have an average of 175 FF pts. Now do the same with the bottom 3 RBs from the top 12 each year. That averages to 78 FF pts. Now, the difference in top 3 QBs each year minus bottom 3 QBs in the top 12 each year is 205 - 128 = 77 FF pts. Now, the difference in top 3 RBs each year minus bottom 3 RBs in the top 12 each year is 175 - 78 = 97 FF pts. So the top 3 RBs are more valuable than the top 3 QBs, since the point differential drop is greater for RBs than it is for QBs. Did you understand this time? Edited August 13, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 This is results of 2006 draft. These guys have all been in the league and fully understand our scoring system. Round 1 QB 9 RB 3 WR 0 Round 2 QB 6 RB 5 WR 1 Round 1 1 Dudes Peyton Manning (QB IND) 2 Sharks Carson Palmer (QB CIN) 3 TWO LaDainian Tomlinson (RB SD) 4 Dos Angry Hombres Matt Hasselbeck (QB SEA) 5 Roadbuilder Eli Manning (QB NYG) 6 Cheeseheads Marc Bulger (QB STL) 7 Spooey Ben Roethlisberger (QB PIT) 8 Odessa Larry Johnson (RB KC) 9 Phlem Drs Tom Brady (QB NE) 10 Angry Too Shaun Alexander (RB SEA) 11 Dollar and No Cents Jake Delhomme (QB CAR) 12 3 Dogs and a Farmer Jake Plummer (QB DEN) Round 2 13 3 Dogs and a Farmer Drew Bledsoe (QB DAL) 14 Dollar and No Cents Kurt Warner (QB ARI) 15 Angry Too Brett Favre (QB GB) 16 Phlem Drs Edgerrin James (RB ARI) 17 Odessa Donovan McNabb (QB PHI) 18 Spooey Daunte Culpepper (QB MIA) 19 Cheeseheads Tiki Barber (RB NYG) 20 Roadbuilder Steven Jackson (RB STL) 21 Dos Angry Hombres Rudi Johnson (RB CIN) 22 TWO Trent Green (QB KC) 23 Sharks Chad Johnson (WR CIN) 24 Dudes Ronnie Brown (RB MIA) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 This is results of 2006 draft. These guys have all been in the league and fully understand our scoring system. Round 1 QB 9 RB 3 WR 0 Round 2 QB 6 RB 5 WR 1 Round 1 1 Dudes Peyton Manning (QB IND) 2 Sharks Carson Palmer (QB CIN) 3 TWO LaDainian Tomlinson (RB SD) 4 Dos Angry Hombres Matt Hasselbeck (QB SEA) 5 Roadbuilder Eli Manning (QB NYG) 6 Cheeseheads Marc Bulger (QB STL) 7 Spooey Ben Roethlisberger (QB PIT) 8 Odessa Larry Johnson (RB KC) 9 Phlem Drs Tom Brady (QB NE) 10 Angry Too Shaun Alexander (RB SEA) 11 Dollar and No Cents Jake Delhomme (QB CAR) 12 3 Dogs and a Farmer Jake Plummer (QB DEN) Round 2 13 3 Dogs and a Farmer Drew Bledsoe (QB DAL) 14 Dollar and No Cents Kurt Warner (QB ARI) 15 Angry Too Brett Favre (QB GB) 16 Phlem Drs Edgerrin James (RB ARI) 17 Odessa Donovan McNabb (QB PHI) 18 Spooey Daunte Culpepper (QB MIA) 19 Cheeseheads Tiki Barber (RB NYG) 20 Roadbuilder Steven Jackson (RB STL) 21 Dos Angry Hombres Rudi Johnson (RB CIN) 22 TWO Trent Green (QB KC) 23 Sharks Chad Johnson (WR CIN) 24 Dudes Ronnie Brown (RB MIA) I rest my case.....that is pitiful as hell, just look at the names above Tiki(last years ADP of #4). The longer this goes, the thicker the Bush gets..give it a rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 This is results of 2006 draft. These guys have all been in the league and fully understand our scoring system. Round 1 QB 9 RB 3 WR 0 Round 2 QB 6 RB 5 WR 1 They may understand the scoring system, but, as BB is showing using just the top 12 numbers since you aren't posting the top 24 for some reason, they certainly don't understand the simple valuation of players. Would you say that the 2006 draft is indicative of the normal draft trends of the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Please see my post. It has very little to do with the scoring. Roster requirements certainly put the top QB (and note that under most scoring systems Manning was not the top scoring QB in 4 of the last 5 years, though he is consistently a top 5 performer) into the first round, but definitely not the top pick. What may well vault Manning to the #1 spot in this particular league is the draft tendencies of your other owners. If they, for flawed reasons if looking simply at value, take an average of 18-20 QBs in the first 2 rounds, then yes, it may make sense to take Manning in the first and then the best 2 RBs in the 2nd/3rd from a value standpoint because of the forced drop of value based on owner's making poor value decisions. I would disagree, BC. Given the lemming mentality apparently prevalent in this league, I ought to be able to get 2 of the top 3 RBs on my team, and then grab WRs while everyone panics and is grabbing RBs in rounds 3 & 4, and then get 2 QBs who I can reasonably expect to score around 100 FF pts each to go with those guys. So while I might surrender 130 FF pts, give or take, from my 2 starting QBs cumulative, I ought to easily make that up with a +/- 180 pt difference in my 2 starting RBs and probably a +/- 100 pts difference in my starting WRs. That the rest of the league follows with his idiocy only reinforces that I should swim against the current and wait for my QBs. I can get 3 completely mediocre or worse QBs and still whip everyone else's asses in the league. They'd never know what hit them, but I'll bet a few of them don't lose to this guy the following year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 This is results of 2006 draft. These guys have all been in the league and fully understand our scoring system. Round 1 QB 9 RB 3 WR 0 Round 2 QB 6 RB 5 WR 1 Round 1 1 Dudes Peyton Manning (QB IND) 2 Sharks Carson Palmer (QB CIN) 3 TWO LaDainian Tomlinson (RB SD) 4 Dos Angry Hombres Matt Hasselbeck (QB SEA) 5 Roadbuilder Eli Manning (QB NYG) 6 Cheeseheads Marc Bulger (QB STL) 7 Spooey Ben Roethlisberger (QB PIT) 8 Odessa Larry Johnson (RB KC) 9 Phlem Drs Tom Brady (QB NE) 10 Angry Too Shaun Alexander (RB SEA) 11 Dollar and No Cents Jake Delhomme (QB CAR) 12 3 Dogs and a Farmer Jake Plummer (QB DEN) Round 2 13 3 Dogs and a Farmer Drew Bledsoe (QB DAL) 14 Dollar and No Cents Kurt Warner (QB ARI) 15 Angry Too Brett Favre (QB GB) 16 Phlem Drs Edgerrin James (RB ARI) 17 Odessa Donovan McNabb (QB PHI) 18 Spooey Daunte Culpepper (QB MIA) 19 Cheeseheads Tiki Barber (RB NYG) 20 Roadbuilder Steven Jackson (RB STL) 21 Dos Angry Hombres Rudi Johnson (RB CIN) 22 TWO Trent Green (QB KC) 23 Sharks Chad Johnson (WR CIN) 24 Dudes Ronnie Brown (RB MIA) Nobody doubts that "you fully understand your scoring system" ... why you don't seem to understand is that your scoring system has little impact on when QBs should be drafted. Where TWO made his mistake was drafting Trent Green in the 2nd round Chad Johnson would have been MUCH BETTER value there ... or Brian Westbrook or Ronnie Brown ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I would disagree, BC. Given the lemming mentality apparently prevalent in this league, I ought to be able to get 2 of the top 3 RBs on my team, and then grab WRs while everyone panics and is grabbing RBs in rounds 3 & 4, and then get 2 QBs who I can reasonably expect to score around 100 FF pts each to go with those guys. So while I might surrender 130 FF pts, give or take, from my 2 starting QBs cumulative, I ought to easily make that up with a +/- 180 pt difference in my 2 starting RBs and probably a +/- 100 pts difference in my starting WRs. That the rest of the league follows with his idiocy only reinforces that I should swim against the current and wait for my QBs. I can get 3 completely mediocre or worse QBs and still whip everyone else's asses in the league. They'd never know what hit them, but I'll bet a few of them don't lose to this guy the following year... That's why I said it may well work that way. If we can get those top 24 numbers, and confirm that the numbers for the 2006 draft are indicative of the league tendencies, then one could put together a fairly sound argument utilizing league draft tendencies and actual historic player values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I would disagree, BC. Given the lemming mentality apparently prevalent in this league, I ought to be able to get 2 of the top 3 RBs on my team, and then grab WRs while everyone panics and is grabbing RBs in rounds 3 & 4, and then get 2 QBs who I can reasonably expect to score around 100 FF pts each to go with those guys. So while I might surrender 130 FF pts, give or take, from my 2 starting QBs cumulative, I ought to easily make that up with a +/- 180 pt difference in my 2 starting RBs and probably a +/- 100 pts difference in my starting WRs. That the rest of the league follows with his idiocy only reinforces that I should swim against the current and wait for my QBs. I can get 3 completely mediocre or worse QBs and still whip everyone else's asses in the league. They'd never know what hit them, but I'll bet a few of them don't lose to this guy the following year... My point exactly ... I'll take the top RBs and WRs available in the first 4 rounds and live with mediocre QBs. The drop off from top QB to mediocre QB is MUCH LESS SEVERE than the drop off in other positions. It becomes even more pronounced if you don't actually score the top QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Well, I can't get 2 of the top 3 RBs, based upon the draft listed above, but I can still make up the difference with two top 8 RBs and then pound the WRs. There's not a single team that didn't take at least 1 QB in the first round. That's at least 6 teams eliminating themsleves from contention in the league before the draft is 2 rounds old, and only reinforcing the difference that Manning makes in a league like this. Man, I'd love to play in this league. Hey, jjwbean, let one of the owners know that I'll pay one of their dues X 1 1/2 to take over their team for just one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 They may understand the scoring system, but, as BB is showing using just the top 12 numbers since you aren't posting the top 24 for some reason, they certainly don't understand the simple valuation of players. Would you say that the 2006 draft is indicative of the normal draft trends of the league? This league is always drafted in the manner. The MORON who says this is a bush league can just opt not to read this post, These are not stupid peoiple. This league has been around for 12 years. There is a reason the draft ends up like this every year. our scoring and our rsoter requirments Five years ago, one of our owners started a new league with similiar scoring and rosters, just less cash involved. I know most of the owners in the new league. There draft results are just like ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 This league is always drafted in the manner. The MORON who says this is a bush league can just opt not to read this post, These are not stupid peoiple. This league has been around for 12 years. There is a reason the draft ends up like this every year. our scoring and our rsoter requirments Five years ago, one of our owners started a new league with similiar scoring and rosters, just less cash involved. I know most of the owners in the new league. There draft results are just like ours. You would discover how stupidly your owners were drafting if you'd let BB, BC or myself play. The fact that you all draft poorly doesn't make it any less stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 This league is always drafted in the manner. The MORON who says this is a bush league can just opt not to read this post, These are not stupid peoiple. This league has been around for 12 years. There is a reason the draft ends up like this every year. our scoring and our rsoter requirments Five years ago, one of our owners started a new league with similiar scoring and rosters, just less cash involved. I know most of the owners in the new league. There draft results are just like ours. ....as stated, it's the blatant Lemming mentality that reinforces this "occurence" when these "type" leagues draft-plain and simple.....and this "moron" has been doing this little thing called FF since 1989. I, like BB, would gladly accept an invitation into the BUSH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.