Fantasy Football Discussion Thread

[-Jrabbit]

This stuff is by its nature hit-or-miss. A lot of seeming knowledge is a mirage.

[Al B. Sure!]

If fantasy football was about trying to get the highest-rated "consensus" guys, then we wouldn't even need to hold the draft. You're supposed to use your own judgment. And yes, it can be better than expert consensus. They're subject to systematic biases, and they don't necessarily have as good scouting as you do with your own eyes. Believe me, there's a reason I had Arian Foster in all three of my leagues. I had seen him play at the end of last year.

Slavish devotion to consensus charts is not a good thing, especially when they *aren't even geared to our league settings.*

But I will be completely fair to you and say that I thought Randy Moss would be really good too.

Greene, Crabtree, and Favre, though, were just bad picks. Gore, also, I wouldn't have made, but I recognize that he has done well.

I could explain each one of them, briefly:

Greene had 1 career reception, and this is a points-per-reception league. His running behind the Jets' excellent OL was not especially impressive. (+5.7% DVOA.) Compare that to Jamaal Charles and Pierre Thomas (+20.3%, +26.2%). Snoopy and I took those guys first, despite having access to the exact same fantasy cheatsheets as you. Use your eyes, use your stats, decide whether the player is actually exceptionally good before you make him your 3rd rounder.

Favre: far lower interception rate in 2009 (1.3%) than his career average. (3.3%). Historical precedent shows that a sudden improvement in interception percentage, for a long-established player, basically never "sticks." Remember how David Garrard and Jake Plummer each had great INT-free seasons? What happened to them in the years after? An increase in INT rate hurts yardage and TD totals everywhere, simply because drives get cut short. I'll tell you a secret - I was sure he was going to play the whole time, and I simply didn't want him, even at the spot where you got him.

Crabtree and Gore: The fantasy experts began to fetishize an offense without any reasonable cause for it. The SF offense was 32nd, 27th, and 23rd in DVOA the past three years. Even if that's an "improving trend," it's not a very good one. And worse, if you see a "trend" like that, it's actually something more like random luck, and you should expect the trend to reverse, not continue. Like, if the Colts ranked 1st, 3rd, and 4th in consecutive years on offense, would you expect them to continue down to 6th or 7th? Of course not. You expect them to return to the top of the league. The 49ers are roughly the same thing, except with the bottom of the league. Their rank of 27th this year is right in line with their historical average, and doesn't surprise me in the least.

Jag, you can say all that now retroactively and you can point to stuff about a lot of guys who have blown up. Arian Foster truly had no reason to blow up. You took a gamble (which was cheap because people were relatively low on him) and it paid off but I don't believe you can say "I looked at the data and saw he would be a star" because there was absolutely no reason to think he would turn into anything.

Arian Foster was an undrafted free agent who hadn't even played much in his college career. He did little his sophmore year, had a nice junior year, then was benched his senior year. He was cut by the Texans, signed to the practice squad, then with injuries to top pick Steve Slaton and no real option at RB, they let him play.

He played 5 games... In three games, he combined for 15 carries and 41 yards rushing. In his final two, he played well, including an end-of-season game against the Patriots.

However, it had the makings of an end of season fluke... you know, like how Jerome Harrison was one of the most dominant end of year runners last year and is so terrible now. You see this a lot where guys go off at the end of the year and some (Larry Johnson, Ryan Grant, possibly Jamaal Charles) turn into stars, others are so-so (Cedric Benson), and others vanish (Jerome Harrison). Factor in the prolific Schaub passing attack and you had to believe that Arian Foster running well didn't mean much because defenses were much more worried about Andre Johnson and company than whoever the Texans suited up to play halfback.

The Texans were so low on Foster in the off-season that they went and drafted Ben Tate and just before the start of the season, signed Derrick Ward. The Texans clearly saw the most of Foster and didn't think highly enough of him to put him at the top of the depth chart until AFTER Tate was lost for the season and Slaton was banged up again, and even then, they made sure they had insurance with Derrick Ward. As of the summer, Foster was third on the depth chart behind two top real-life draft picks.

Go back to late August. Does that honestly sound like a situation that would have seen Foster being fantasy's top back?

It actually reminds me a lot of the Jerome Harrison situation where despite playing at a far higher level than Foster last year and with an anemic offense, the Browns still didn't think highly enough of him to stop them from drafting Hardesty and bringing in Peyton Hillis.


My point is that one could make a much more compelling case for why Foster would have gone the Jerome Harrison route than that Favre would have been terrible.


You took a gamble and it panned out very well. But there just wasn't enough info on this guy who barely even played in college to say that you could tell he would be a star... all reasonable indications was that his prospects were iffy.

[SlowwHand]

Crabtree wasn't a bad pick. A WR won't make an impact, generally, in his first year, but he can. His 2nd year, the possibility goes way up.
Best shot for a rookie is at RB, on offense.

[Al B. Sure!]

**** man, Shonn Greene did the same thing as Harrison, Charles, and Foster except he was even more impressive than Foster and did it in the playoffs! And like Harrison, Charles, and Foster, the Jets brought in another back because they weren't sold on him.

Really, the four had roughly the same situation from the end of last season til just before opening kickoff. Who would have thought Foster would've been the star, Charles would've been a frustrating guy to own but productive, and that Greene and Harrison would fall off cliffs?

And that situation is clearly more iffy than something like oh Favre is going to suck the year after having his career best season and with weapons like a more developed Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin and a finally healthy Berrian. Favre was a veritable slam-dunk compared to Foster!

[SlowwHand]

Not really. Favre isn't having that great of a year. You really thought he was going to beat last year? He's 41, dude. Even Favre gets old.

[Al B. Sure!]

Not really. Favre isn't having that great of a year. You really thought he was going to beat last year? He's 41, dude. Even Favre gets old.

He threw 2 TDs and 6 INTs in the first 3 games... That is worlds worse than I imagined he would do. I figured he would decline but not by that much. At least with Moss now, he might turn things around.

My point is that Favre is still Favre and he is on a team with weapons. He was more likely to be successful than a no-name Arian Foster who barely even played college ball, went undrafted, came off the practice squad, and the Texans had other backs that seemed more talented than him.

[Jaguar]

**** man, Shonn Greene did the same thing as Harrison, Charles, and Foster except he was even more impressive than Foster and did it in the playoffs! And like Harrison, Charles, and Foster, the Jets brought in another back because they weren't sold on him.

Really, the four had roughly the same situation from the end of last season til just before opening kickoff. Who would have thought Foster would've been the star, Charles would've been a frustrating guy to own but productive, and that Greene and Harrison would fall off cliffs?

And that situation is clearly more iffy than something like oh Favre is going to suck the year after having his career best season and with weapons like a more developed Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin and a finally healthy Berrian. Favre was a veritable slam-dunk compared to Foster!

Rushing DVOA, last year:

Arian Foster +25%
Jamaal Charles +20%
Shonn Greene +5%
Jerome Harrison +1%

Guess which two are on my fantasy team. Guess which two are good.

[Jaguar]

Obviously the comparison is loaded against Greene, whose best work came in the playoffs. However, any inclusion of receiving stats shows how excellent Charles is, especially, and how horrible Greene is.

[Al B. Sure!]

Rushing DVOA, last year:

Arian Foster +25%
Jamaal Charles +20%
Shonn Greene +5%
Jerome Harrison +1%

Guess which two are on my fantasy team. Guess which two are good.

And yet let's look at some other guys who had high DVOA numbers last year:

Willis McGahee 19.7%
Justin Forsett 18.2%
Felix Jones 17%

Umm yeah... real winners that bunch!

And among the low guys are these studs:
Ahmad Bradshaw 9.7%
Frank Gore 4.7%
Adrian Peterson 3.2%
Rashard Mendenhall -0.8% (!!!!)
LeSean McCoy -4.5%
Darren McFadden -30.7% (!!!!)

I mean that's like the best backs in football not named Arian Foster and they all have pitiful and even NEGATIVE DVOA's from last year.

[Al B. Sure!]

The top 5 RB's so far in yards per game are AP, Foster, Mendenhall, McFadden, and Bradshaw. If you went by DVOA to predict how they would do this year, you would have passed on all of them but Foster. McFadden probably should have been kicked out of the NFL if he had a -30.7% DVOA!

[Al B. Sure!]

This is fun, Jaguar.

Let's go back another year.

Two of the top guys in 2008 were Jacobs and Ward, the two Giants 1000 yard rushers. Jacobs had 22.4% DVOA and Ward had a 25.8% DVOA. Only Deangelo Williams had a higher DVOA than either of them.

Yet somehow Jacobs would rush for only 835 yards and a 3.7 ypc the next year and Ward would do even worse with Tampa mustering 409 yards and 3.6 ypc.


Even more fun, what was Chris Johnson's 2008 DVOA? You know, the year before he was CJ2K? A measely 9.2% less than such luminaries as Mewelde Moore, Sammy Morris, and Deuce McAllister.

MJD that year only had a 4.4% DVOA and he was almost as phenomenal as CJ last year.

[Jaguar]

Felix is a legitimately good player. When 4.5 yards per carry is the worst of your career, that's fine. He's sucking in the absolute numbers because the Cowboys are inexplicably sucking and repeatedly playing from behind, and he's in a time-share. I have him in one league, and got modestly burned, but I'd expect him to improve a little bit once the Cowboys inevitably win a few.

Forsett is a legitimately good player. Seattle's offense isn't really together enough for it to be worthwhile. But I've watched him since he was bouncing around on practice squads. He's the sort who often gets doghoused for bad pass blocking and such. Risky investment, but I would've been willing to take a flier on him at his draft position if there weren't better fliers available.

McGahee: DVOA is similar to Rice, but on fewer carries, and without the receiving goodness. He really did play well last year, though (remember the epic stiffarm?) He's looking shabbier this year, as is the rest of the Baltimore O, but their schedule was brutal early on, and it's getting easier.

All of these guys can play, but they're in time shares on struggling teams. You have to take into account the external circumstances as well.


"Low" guys: Bradshaw's DVOA isn't low. In past years, his DVOA was even higher. Everybody knows the guy is good, and we were just worried about Giants overall quality, and the timeshare with Jacobs. With Gore, Peterson, and Mendenhall, you're not concerned about their starting job status. A guy who produces about average on 300+ carries is a fantasy stud. Peterson is penalized for his 7 fumbles, which DVOA thinks is a huge deal, but that's a penalty of like -10 fantasy points in our league on average. McCoy is a legitimate puzzle to me, because he didn't look great last year or in preseason - I avoided him essentially entirely because of that, even though the rest of the numbers suggested that the Eagles would remain good. I was wrong to do that.

McFadden? He was unhealthy all of last year. He was brilliant when healthy, and has now missed two weeks in a row from yet another ailment. It's interesting that he's shown that he actually can be great, but Darren McFadden is who we thought he was.

[Al B. Sure!]

Jaguar, none of your analysis of the guys with pitiful DVOA's answers the question... Why is it that LITERALLY the best backs in football not named Arian Foster had terrible and even negative DVOA's last year? Shouldn't they stink? I mean Shonn Greene and Jerome Harrison had higher DVOA's than these guys!

And why can I easily take examples of guys with low DVOA's who had phenomenal years and guys with high DVOA's who flat out sucked the next year?

Clearly, DVOA is not the be-all, end-all tool to appraise a player.

If anything, it looks like DVOA is NEGATIVELY CORRELATED to next year's performance

[Jaguar]

This is fun, Jaguar.

Let's go back another year.

Two of the top guys in 2008 were Jacobs and Ward, the two Giants 1000 yard rushers. Jacobs had 22.4% DVOA and Ward had a 25.8% DVOA. Only Deangelo Williams had a higher DVOA than either of them.

Yet somehow Jacobs would rush for only 835 yards and a 3.7 ypc the next year and Ward would do even worse with Tampa mustering 409 yards and 3.6 ypc.


Even more fun, what was Chris Johnson's 2008 DVOA? You know, the year before he was CJ2K? A measely 9.2% less than such luminaries as Mewelde Moore, Sammy Morris, and Deuce McAllister.

MJD that year only had a 4.4% DVOA and he was almost as phenomenal as CJ last year.

Ward was going from 90s-Cowboys-style blocking to terrible blocking. (Special mention to Jeremy Trueblood, the worst tackle in the league.) I didn't touch Ward with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole that year. Jacobs I thought would continue to be excellent, so I was surprised there.

MJD and CJ are massive 250-300 carry monsters, and I would've been happy to take them. A guy who is above average on 300 carries provides amazing value, both in fantasy and in real life. Emmitt Smith made a Hall of Fame career of being above average on 300 carries.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're still not saying anything... again...

Jaguar, none of your analysis of the guys with pitiful DVOA's answers the question... Why is it that LITERALLY the best backs in football not named Arian Foster had terrible and even negative DVOA's last year? Shouldn't they stink? I mean Shonn Greene and Jerome Harrison had higher DVOA's than these guys!

And why can I easily take examples of guys with low DVOA's who had phenomenal years and guys with high DVOA's who flat out sucked the next year?

Clearly, DVOA is not the be-all, end-all tool to appraise a player.

If anything, it looks like DVOA is NEGATIVELY CORRELATED to next year's performance

Jerome Harrison had a DVOA better than McCoy, McFadden, and Mendenhall. Shonn Greene bettered all of them as well as bettered Bradshaw, AP, and Gore.

Yet somehow, you knew from their low DVOA's that Harrison and Greene would suck whereas Charles and Foster would do well.

I'm not buying it. Or you did but used a woefully simplistic analysis that doesn't hold up to scrutiny of other players (ie- why the league's best backs had terribly low DVOA's)

I suppose you could get away with this by saying that McCoy, McFadden, Mendenhall, Bradshaw, and Gore are all early-season flukes because they're outperforming their predicted levels and they'll all come crashing down to earth.

I think it's more like Foster comes crashing down to earth.


Matter fact, I'm going to make a prediction right now and here that Foster is going to look very pedestrian by year's end. He has racked up enough yardage so far that he's bound to finish the season with a good final tally but he's going to have a lot of sub-100 yard rushing games and a lot of sub-4.0 ypc games. I'm predicting 7 of the next 10 games will see him fall below one of those two metrics, either less than 100 yards or less than 4.0 ypc.

Care to take my gentleman's bet?