NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Regular Season

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one is exactly saying that AP is Barry, but his DVOA is so low to a good measure because of Barry-like attributes (loss of yards or short gains on too many early downs and high ability to break a big gain)

[snoopy369]

Also, he's on a team that only runs (had basically no ability to pass). Facing 8 or 9 men in the box regularly means a much lower rushing total, and I don't think DVOA takes that into account.

[-Jrabbit]

DVOA will never be a perfect statistic; for all the value it has, it fails to understand how many defenders are keyed on stopping Peterson on each snap and the amount of work he has to go through to get the yardage he does

I'd take that "overrated" AP guy on my team every time. Wiith Favre and an improved receiving corps, any team that stacks the box consistently wil pay a big price. And against a standard front, Peterson's potential is huge. Pick your poison.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's a good RB, don't get me wrong, but 9 fumbles is a concern. Even with 1700 yards, the fumbles take about 450 yards off the total. That plus the fact that he doesn't get many receptions puts him in the 1250 or so total yardage, which isn't all that much in my book.

[-Jrabbit]

APete is a game-changer. Defenses have to gameplan for him. That's what's important.

Sure, fumbles are a concern (BTW, only 4 were turnovers). But as we saw with Tiki Barber, that is an issue that can be fixed. As opposed to mediocre talent with no fumbles, which has a very limited upside.

BTW, word is that his number of receptions will increase this year.

Question: From which bodily orifice did you pull that ridiculous "9 fumbles = a loss of 450 yards" crapola?

[Ben Kenobi]

Fumbles are a huge negative and they are game changers too. AP is a game changer but not always in a positive way.

Football outsiders penalises AP for -350 effective yards due to the fumbles.

[snoopy369]

A fumble lost is roughly equivalent to 50 yards of field position [not only do you lose some yards that you might have gained in future carries, but you also could have punted for 40 or so yards net]. However, Ben is ignoring that last bit ('lost').

[Ben Kenobi]

Recoveries are entirely random. Fumbles are not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why exactly would you penalize a player on total yardage for fumbles his teams regained... as all it resulted in was the same as a tackle?

[snoopy369]

Ben's right, that fumbles lost vs fumbles recovered is totally random. However, he fails to understand my point. 50 yards is what a fumble lost is worth; you lose about 55% of fumbles; so a fumble (lost-agnostic) is worth about 27 yards. 9 fumbles lost = 250 yards.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben's right, that fumbles lost vs fumbles recovered is totally random. However, he fails to understand my point. 50 yards is what a fumble lost is worth; you lose about 55% of fumbles; so a fumble (lost-agnostic) is worth about 27 yards. 9 fumbles lost = 250 yards.

Point taken.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why exactly would you penalize a player on total yardage for fumbles his teams regained... as all it resulted in was the same as a tackle?

Regained fumbles have absolutely no place when evaluating the merits of a running back.

[snoopy369]

I would note that DVOA penalizes a fumble between -1.7 and -4 based on the likelihood of recovery in that situation; comparably, a 12 yard loss is -1.8. So it sounds like the FO folk don't penalize a fumble quite as much as Ben would, more like 12 to 25 yards rather than 27.8 or 50. I don't know what the situations specifically are nor what the negative score is on average.

[duke o' york]

http://www.vikings.com/cheerleaders/roster.html

Does any team have as many rough cheerleaders?
I'm a fan of redheads, but all the 'kings cheerleaders are.... er, not to my taste.
Yikes! I can only hope the team are better, which is highly unlikely.

[SlowwHand]

Holy crap! There are some real howlers in there.




woof! woof!