Explain this one to me

[Big Ernie McCracken]

EDIT: and if you had been around a while here you would realize that if there were 3 yrs to use I surely would have....however, sometimes if you wait for 3 years of data you will end up talking about what happened and how you got caught holding the bag vs taking some key stats....sometimes it is better to be ahead of the data.....oh and if you want 3 yrs of previous data just look at MJDs YPC the previous 3 years and thru the 1st 10 games vs the last 6 games...like I said in an earlier post...I am looking at writing an article on this so I still have some other stats and such that I am going to hold back for a bit until I decide on what I am going to do.

 

 

I have been around here for a while and what speaks to me is 54 total tds. through MJD's first four seasons. MJD has been solid and consistent regardless of his role, and as always began preparing for this season pretty much when last season ended. Apparently his diminutive stature makes keg nervous, but his production stands on its own. It's interesting to note that 3 of the top 4 RB's this year hover around the 200 lb. mark. As I said this time last year in reference to Ray Rice, I'm done betting against small running backs just because they're small.

[Duchess Jack]

I bought the Fantasy Index yesterday and here is something I found odd while looking at it last night.

 

BFD site Louis Tranquilli is one of the "experts" ranking players

 

If you have the book open up your fantasy index to page 41

 

Take a look at Tranquilli's rankings

 

For his overall rankings he goes 1-Rodgers, 2-Brees, 3-CJ, 4-Peterson, 5-Ray Rice, 6-Andre Johnson (13-MDJ by the way)

 

In any event now turn to pages 58/59 their mock draft

 

Tranquilli has the 7th pick........he took Andre Johnson while Drew Brees will still on the board.

 

So how does he have Brees ranked #2 overall and bypasses him with the #7 pick for the #6 ranked guy on his board ?

 

How does he have Rodgers/Brees ranked 1-2 is beyond me. I am going to guess if he draws a top 2 pick in one of those high stakes leagues he plays in he is not passing up CJ, Peterson or Ray Rice for Rodgers or Brees.

 

Ok now say he really does believe that Rodgers/Brees are the top 2 players in fantasy...well if that is the case how can you pass 1 of them up at the 7th pick ?

 

perhaps this guy has both a head and heart.

 

I mean - maybe he knows who he's supposed to pick - but like many of us, decided to go with his heart/gut.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[MikesVikes]

Flawed analogy IMO, because there is a lot more risk involved with who you pick in the first round of the draft vs. taking a flyer on a waiver wire hero like Charles

 

Point #2 is if you average out three years of data, then players on the decline such as Tomlinson would still look better than they actually are. I want to know what the trend of a player is.

[Delicious_bass]

perhaps this guy has both a head and heart.

 

I mean - maybe he knows who he's supposed to pick - but like many of us, decided to go with his heart/gut.

Going with "heart/gut" is fine for the average Joe. Happens all the time I suspect. This guy is labeled an "expert", though, and it would appear HE doesnt even follow HIS own advice/rankings. I think that is what Henry was questioning...

[Duchess Jack]

Going with "heart/gut" is fine for the average Joe. Happens all the time I suspect. This guy is labeled an "expert", though, and it would appear HE doesnt even follow HIS own advice/rankings. I think that is what Henry was questioning...

 

that would paint him as that much more professional to me - if that is in fact the reasoning behind it.

[Delicious_bass]

that would paint him as that much more professional to me - if that is in fact the reasoning behind it.

Not following you

 

Its one thing if an "expert" doesnt follow his own published ratings all the way through a draft. I mean, the further down in rankings you get the more of a toss up it is anyway. In the first round with his first pick, though, he should be picking the player he has ranked the highest on his "Overall Ranking" list. If he has Brees #2 overall, he should not be taking another player if Brees is still available. If he does, he's basically saying his rankings mean nothing.

[keggerz]

Not following you

 

Its one thing if an "expert" doesnt follow his own published ratings all the way through a draft. I mean, the further down in rankings you get the more of a toss up it is anyway. In the first round with his first pick, though, he should be picking the player he has ranked the highest on his "Overall Ranking" list. If he has Brees #2 overall, he should not be taking another player if Brees is still available. If he does, he's basically saying his rankings mean nothing.

fail

[Delicious_bass]

fail

How so?

[keggerz]

How so?

already been said....why take Brees at say 6 when you know you can very likely get him with your 2nd pick but a guy like AJ won't be available....drafts have to be fluid and because they don't occur in a vacuum based on one persons rankings then you cant really fault a guy if he deviates from his rankings

[Delicious_bass]

already been said....why take Brees at say 6 when you know you can very likely get him with your 2nd pick but a guy like AJ won't be available....drafts have to be fluid and because they don't occur in a vacuum based on one persons rankings then you cant really fault a guy if he deviates from his rankings

If you're that confident you can get him in the second round, he has no business being listed #2 overall in your rankings. Your argument is saying exactly what I suggested in my post...the guy's ranking means nothing.

[Big Country]

If you're that confident you can get him in the second round, he has no business being listed #2 overall in your rankings. Your argument is saying exactly what I suggested in my post...the guy's ranking means nothing.

 

 

The guy may rank him as the #2 player, but feel that he can be had later on if the other owners do not rank him that high.

 

Additionally, the point is to build the team that is likely to outscore your opponents, and he may feel, and usually rightfully so, that it will be easier to make up points from the QB position later on as oppossed to playing catch up at the RB or WR position, where the dropoffs in production are steeper.

[Delicious_bass]

The guy may rank him as the #2 player, but feel that he can be had later on if the other owners do not rank him that high.

 

Additionally, the point is to build the team that is likely to outscore your opponents, and he may feel, and usually rightfully so, that it will be easier to make up points from the QB position later on as oppossed to playing catch up at the RB or WR position, where the dropoffs in production are steeper.

When you're talking about your #2 OVERALL player, though, are you willing to take that chance? I mean, if you suspect all the guys in your league are down on Player X (whom you think will have a great year and have ranked 7-8 or so) I can maybe see passing on him if you have a reasonable expectation that he'll be there again when it comes back to you. Its my opinion, though, that if you feel strongly enough about a player that you only have one player ranked ahead of him out of all the players in the entire league, you dont get cute with it. You take him if he's there at 7 or wherever this so called expert passed on Brees to take AJ. If you realize the value of AJ is higher due to the lack of other WRs who produce at his level and you like the competitive advantage he gives you at WR, he should be rated higher on an Overall Ranking list, IMO.

 

And I agree wholehearedly about waiting on a QB. I have had good success building my teams with RB and WR with my ealier picks and then finding good value on a QB further down. I think Keg, yourself, and I are all basically in agreement on strategy. The only difference is I am saying this "expert's" overall list is crap if his #2 overall rated player can likely be picked up in the second round or later.

[MikesVikes]

I don't think that there's too many people here at the Huddle that think Rodgers and Brees should be #1 or #2 on an overall list. Is that safe to say?

[Delicious_bass]

I don't think that there's too many people here at the Huddle that think Rodgers and Brees should be #1 or #2 on an overall list. Is that safe to say?

Exactly right.

 

Looking at the Huddle's Top 200 Overall, it goes 1) AP 2) CJ 3) MJD. AJ is #6 and Moss is 7. Rodgers shows up at #8. Looking at the point projections, though, Rodgers is predicted to be the highest scoring player in all of fantasy by almost 100 points over AP and 176 over AJ. The folks here at the Huddle have obviously taken into consideration more than just points when putting together their list(and rightly so). (I further realize The Huddle info is not just one man's work in many cases, so that can account for some variance. For the most part, its pretty consistent, though). Going back to the original topic of this thread, though, it appears that "expert" sees the players approximately the same way only has has put Rodgers and Brees at #1 and 2 on his list but took AJ at number 7 in his draft with Brees still on the board. To me, this says his rankings mean nothing as he obviously identified AJ as a better pick there than Brees.

 

It should be noted (as I said in a previous post) that it does depend on exactly what the object of that "expert's" rankings is and it would obviously also help to know how many teams are in that mock. If its an 8 team league, then maybe you do skip Brees knowing you pick again after the #8 guy goes twice. If its a 10 team (or more) league, though, that's at least 6 picks before you select again which means there is obviously that much more chance someone snags Brees before he gets back to you...

 

I guess the main point I am trying to make (perhaps not very well) is if I have a player ranked #2 overall, that means there is only one other player I value more than him and I will choose the guy I have #2 if he is there above all other players but one.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Delicious_bass

[keggerz]

Exactly right.

 

Looking at the Huddle's Top 200 Overall, it goes 1) AP 2) CJ 3) MJD. AJ is #6 and Moss is 7. Rodgers shows up at #8. Looking at the point projections, though, Rodgers is predicted to be the highest scoring player in all of fantasy by almost 100 points over AP and 176 over AJ. The folks here at the Huddle have obviously taken into consideration more than just points when putting together their list(and rightly so). (I further realize The Huddle info is not just one man's work in many cases, so that can account for some variance. For the most part, its pretty consistent, though). Going back to the original topic of this thread, though, it appears that "expert" sees the players approximately the same way only has has put Rodgers and Brees at #1 and 2 on his list but took AJ at number 7 in his draft with Brees still on the board. To me, this says his rankings mean nothing as he obviously identified AJ as a better pick there than Brees.

 

It should be noted (as I said in a previous post) that it does depend on exactly what the object of that "expert's" rankings is and it would obviously also help to know how many teams are in that mock. If its an 8 team league, then maybe you do skip Brees knowing you pick again after the #8 guy goes twice. If its a 10 team (or more) league, though, that's at least 6 picks before you select again which means there is obviously that much more chance someone snags Brees before he gets back to you...

but you still have to look at the value within the position...he may have the top 2-3 QBs ranked very closely and sees taking another player and a different QB as getting him better value at 2 positions rather than taking the highest ranked QB and then having to take a 2nd rate tiered player at another position....i don't really care who (positions included) he has ranked where...I am just trying to point out that it isn't much of a stretch at all to draft a lower ranked guy versus a higher ranked one because drafts don't happen in vacuums nor do they take place just utilizing one persons set of rankings.

[Big Country]

I think we are all essentially saying the same thing and agree that none of us would have Rodgers or Brees ranked at #1 or #2 overall on any list, and also agree that strategically speaking, there are many situations where we would take a player that we rank lower overall ahead of a higher ranked player (from a different position, within position is a different beast and takes into account many additional factors) in order to maximize our value potential of the team we are assembling.

[Henry Muto]

Not following you

 

Its one thing if an "expert" doesnt follow his own published ratings all the way through a draft. I mean, the further down in rankings you get the more of a toss up it is anyway. In the first round with his first pick, though, he should be picking the player he has ranked the highest on his "Overall Ranking" list. If he has Brees #2 overall, he should not be taking another player if Brees is still available. If he does, he's basically saying his rankings mean nothing.

 

DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You sir win a prize as your the only person to actually get what I was talking about.

 

Thank the lord!

[Little Big Head]

DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You sir win a prize as your the only person to actually get what I was talking about.

 

Thank the lord!

I dont think so. I understand what youre saying but at the same time if he thought he could get his 2nd highest rated player in the 2nd rd by using ADP as his guide, why wouldnt he?

[MTSuper7]

Not having three years of information as sufficient evidence to make a decision is flawed, imo. That goes for drafting or roster decisions.

 

You are correct. Though the OP was referring specifically to making a decision about MJD who is a sure fire first round pick in redraft leagues, so I'm not sure the criteria for all roster decisions is the same. I was merely pointing out the fact that waiver wire darlings typically have no history of success (they're on the waiver wire for a reason), so comparing a decision of who to draft in the first round to a decision of whether or not to pick someone on the waiver wire doesn't make sense in that context.