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

[Al B. Sure!]

I think the spread for QB's in our league is too wide as is. Look how freaking well the draft a QB in the first round strategy worked for Jaguar, Ozzy, and whoever else did it.

I'd like a little tightening up between the #1 and the #15 QB.

[Al B. Sure!]

Anyway, on something else...

I notice Pat Kirwan over at NFL.com is in agreement with me with respect to certain QB's:

Eli Manning:

He has a Super Bowl MVP, a 4-3 postseason record, a lifetime 64-46 record, has never missed a start and didn't make the Top 100 Players of 2011. If that's not enough to make you question a top 100 list that doesn't include Eli Manning, there are other reasons.

Who threw more touchdowns in 2010 than Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Tony Romo and Donovan McNabb? Manning did, but he's not on the list and those quarterbacks all made the top 100!

Who threw for more yards than Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Ryan, McNabb, Freeman and Romo? Manning did, but he get voted in by the players and those guys did!

Who had a better yards per attempt average than Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Freeman or McNabb? Eli Manning, but he didn't make the cut and, of course, those signal-callers did!

Joe Flacco:

While Flacco came in at No. 90 on the top 100, there's a case he could have come in higher. He's led his team to the playoffs in each of his three seasons. In that time, Flacco has thrown 60 touchdowns, 34 interceptions and has an 87.9 passer rating.

Tell me how much different people perceive Matt Ryan, who, in the same amount of time, has thrown 66 touchdowns, 34 interceptions and has an 86.9 passer rating? Ryan is 0-2 in playoffs as compared to Flacco's 4-3 postseason record. This past season, Flacco threw 25 touchdowns to just 10 interceptions. Even though those numbers compare favorably to Ryan's 28 TDs and nine picks, try and find a fan who thinks the two quarterbacks are in the same class.

Exactly. Flacco and Matt Ryan are pretty much identical statistically, are both on run-first offenses, except the guy who's 4-3 in the playoffs is somehow perceived as not in the same class as the guy who is 0-2 in the playoffs?

[MRT144]

As for a comparison, the top running back Arian Foster eclipsed the median RB out of the top 58 attempts by wait for it... 304 points. And only 24/58 running backs are above the league average in points. The average for the top 10 RBs 345, so if you had 2 top 10 running backs you could easily out produce 2 median running backs by 314 points while only giving up 174 for a median QB? The amount of separation on RBs is huge and when playing in a huge league you need to compensate thusly.

[MRT144]

I think the spread for QB's in our league is too wide as is. Look how freaking well the draft a QB in the first round strategy worked for Jaguar, Ozzy, and whoever else did it.

I'd like a little tightening up between the #1 and the #15 QB.

How easily did you forget the charts I posted that showed a teams points by position?

[Al B. Sure!]

As for a comparison, the top running back Arian Foster eclipsed the median RB out of the top 58 attempts by wait for it... 304 points. And only 24/58 running backs are above the league average in points. The average for the top 10 RBs 345, so if you had 2 top 10 running backs you could easily out produce 2 median running backs by 314 points while only giving up 174 for a median QB? The amount of separation on RBs is huge and when playing in a huge league you need to compensate thusly.

There are only 32 starting RB's in the NFL. By median did you mean #16 or #29 as it seems like you did?

[SlowwHand]

This is going to go straight downhill again.

[Al B. Sure!]

How easily did you forget the charts I posted that showed a teams points by position?

All I know is I was dead-last in points from the QB position

[MRT144]

There are only 32 starting RB's in the NFL. By median did you mean #16 or #29 as it seems like you did?

I didn't feel like doing the whole chart from football reference, there are 28+14 roster slots in FF, and with injuries etc, it makes sense to cut off at 60.

[MRT144]

All I know is I was dead-last in points from the QB position

Previous posts in this thread are inaccurate numberwise cause I was doing raw 16 weeks.

[flash9286]

Kickers almost as valuable as TEs, I wouldn't have guessed.

[Al B. Sure!]

I didn't feel like doing the whole chart from football reference, there are 28+14 roster slots in FF, and with injuries etc, it makes sense to cut off at 60.

What sense is your sample when half the RB's in it barely see the field?

I mean if you take the top 60 rushers last year by yardage, #'s 41-60 didn't even get 500 yards.

What sense is comparing the resultant spread with the spread of STARTING QB's?

[Al B. Sure!]

Previous posts in this thread are inaccurate numberwise cause I was doing raw 16 weeks.

Yup. There's my QB platoon... Getting less fantasy points than Antonio Gates

[flash9286]

nt

[Al B. Sure!]

Is the X-axis of that graph weeks or teams, MRT?

The ranking of the teams but by positions. So 1 is for the best QB team on the QB line, 14 is the worst. 1 on the RB line is for the best RB, etc. It's by positions so the #1 QB team is not necessarily the same fantasy team as the fantasy team with the #1 RB.

[Al B. Sure!]

Anyway, look at that QB line! There's like 250 points between the best fantasy QB platoon and the worst! Like 2.5x more fantasy points!

Should the best QB in a 14-team league really have 2.5x more fantasy points than the team with the worst QB situation?

Now, RB's and WR's are a bit more complicated because there's multiple players and MRT for some reason separated out the flex. It's conceivable that those lines might not be as steep if the worse RB teams, for example, flexed RB's and were among the best at points from the Flex.