FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Thu 04.24.2014, 05:41

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 01:53 
Offline
Leopard Shark

Joined: Fri 09.16.2011, 18:25
Posts: 174
Sand$: 374
Donate
Last year was arguably the year of the QB with numerous records being broken and eye popping totals being put up. A lot of people attribute these stats to the lock out and defenses being ill prepared amongst other variables. My question is, were last year's statistics, specifically the combination of both large passing totals and large touchdown counts an outlier? Can we really expect the top five QBs of 2012 to decimate records again or at least come close? Yes, we are officially in a passing league now, but this didn't just come out of the blue. This transition has been happening for a while, just look at the last four teams to win a SB (ranked near last in rushing). I'm going to argue QBs are being overvalued right now, with many experts predicting last years stats, especially the elite's, to be emulated. I think they might just come back down to earth, if even slightly, and look more like the totals of the several years before 2011. Just to be used as a point of reference, I'll list the top 10 QBs from 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. I'll simply be listing passing yards, touchdowns and interceptions. If you see someone like Cam Newton/Micheal Vick ranked high, it's implied that a lot of their value came from their ground game. So what do you guys think? Are we going to see another slew of 5,000+ yard, 40 TD passers this year or are they going to come back down to earth?

* order is may differ and is dependent on format

2008

1. Drew Brees - 5,069 - 34 - 17
2. Aaron Rodgers - 4,038 - 28 - 13
3. Jay Cutler - 4,525 - 25 - 18
4. Philip Rivers - 4,004 - 34 - 11
5. Kurt Warner - 4,582 - 30 - 14
6. Peyton Manning - 4,002 - 27 - 12
7. Donovan McNabb - 3,916 - 23 - 11
8. Matt Cassel - 3,693 - 21 - 11
9. David Garrard - 3,620 - 15 - 13
10. Chad Pennington - 3,653 - 19 - 7

2009

1. Aaron Rodgers - 4,434 - 30 - 7
2. Drew Brees - 4,388 - 34 -11
3. Matt Schaub - 4,770 - 29 - 15
4. Peyton Manning - 4,500 - 33 - 16
5. Brett Favre - 4,202 - 33 - 7
6. Tom Brady - 4,398 - 28 - 13
7. Tony Romo - 4,483 - 26 - 9
8. Ben Roethlisberger - 4,328 - 26 - 12
9. Philip Rivers - 4,254 - 28 - 9
10. Eli Manning - 4,021 - 27 - 14

2010

1. Michael Vick - 3,018 - 21 - 6
2. Aaron Rodgers - 3,922 - 28 - 11
3. Tom Brady - 3,900 - 36 - 4
4. Peyton Manning - 4,700 - 33 - 17
5. Philip Rivers - 4,710 - 30 - 13
6. Drew Brees - 4,620 - 33 - 22
7 . Josh Freeman - 3,451 - 25 - 6
8. Eli Manning - 4,002 - 31 - 25
9. Matt Ryan - 3,706 - 28 - 9
10. Matt Schaub - 4,369 - 24 - 12

2011

1. Aaron Rodgers - 4,643 - 45 - 6
2. Drew Brees - 5,476 - 46 - 14
3. Cam Newton - 4,051 - 21 - 17
4. Tom Brady - 5,239 - 39 - 12
5. Mathew Stafford - 5,038 - 41 - 16

6. Eli Manning - 4,933 - 29 - 16
7. Tony Romo - 4,184 - 31 - 10
8. Matt Ryan - 4,177 - 29 - 12
9. Philip Rivers - 4,624 - 27 - 20
10. Mark Sanchez - 3,474 - 26 - 18

Lastly, I'll now urge some of you to look at ADPs from years prior here http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/adp_ppr.php?year=2012. QBs were never taken this early in this large a number.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 08:13 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09.24.2009, 11:46
Posts: 6547
Sand$: 13019
Donate
Not only will these crazy passing numbers continue, but the rise in QB values this season is also the result of a soft RB market.

_________________
12-tm PPR-QB/RB/3WR/2FLEX/TE/D-ST-PK FAAB

Cutler, Ben
Forte, AndreB, Vereen, Trent, Starks
Andre, VJax, Torrey, Cooper, Cordy, Terrance
Martellus, Wright
CIN

Lost to INJ/dope/Shanny: Cobb-Wayne-MJames/Blackmon/RGIII

10-4, 1 seed,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 08:23 
Offline
Leopard Shark

Joined: Fri 08.17.2012, 20:04
Posts: 126
Sand$: 492
Donate
ind.gif
TheNataliePortmans wrote:
Not only will these crazy passing numbers continue, but the rise in QB values this season is also the result of a soft RB market.


I agree. I can see Cam pushing 5000 and I would put it past Romo to push high 4000 this year.

The RB market sucks this year

_________________
“Pressure is something you feel when you don't know what the hell you're doing.”- Peyton Manning


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 10:26 
Offline
Whale Shark
User avatar

Joined: Fri 09.19.2008, 12:04
Posts: 1429
Sand$: 456
Donate
Location: NY
nyg.gif
TheNataliePortmans wrote:
Not only will these crazy passing numbers continue, but the rise in QB values this season is also the result of a soft RB market.


Exactly that. The biggest change this year has been the devaluing of RBs. Last year, people waited until Foster, Rice, Charles, CJ, AP, and McCoy were off the board before they looked at Rodgers; this year, that list was cut in half.

I don't think anything should change conceptually. Matthew Berry has been all over TV preaching about taking Rodgers and Brady #1-2 overall because they're "safe." Nothing has changed to suggest that's wise. It's just an over-reaction to last year, when three elite RBs underperformed or were injured while Rodgers, Brady and Brees exceeded expectations.

Round and round we go. This year Brees will get hurt and the pendulum will swing again. Don't out-think yourself -- an elite RB is still best value in fantasy -- if Foster or Rice are on the board, I don't care what format you're in, take them.

_________________
10team.5ppr
QB:Brees
RB:Foster,,Miller,Wilson,Blount,J.Bell,Ellington,Tate
WR:Calvin,Jones,T.Smith,Williams,Randle
TE:Witten

10teamppr
QB:Newton
RB:TRich,Forte,R.Bush,Woodhead,Blount
WR:Welker,Wayne,Gordon,Nicks,Shorts,Tompkins
TE:Fleener


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 10:41 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08.26.2003, 13:03
Posts: 14477
Sand$: 37322
Donate
Location: At the bar, getting a Bell's Amber Ale
chi.gif
Pad264 wrote:

Round and round we go. This year Brees will get hurt and the pendulum will swing again. Don't out-think yourself -- an elite RB is still best value in fantasy -- if Foster or Rice are on the board, I don't care what format you're in, take them.


An elite Player. It doesn't have to be a RB.
If you get a guy who will score significantly more than others at his position, it's an advantage.

_________________
"If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker."
-Mike McD, Rounders


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 10:58 
Offline
Whale Shark
User avatar

Joined: Fri 09.19.2008, 12:04
Posts: 1429
Sand$: 456
Donate
Location: NY
nyg.gif
hard 10 wrote:
Pad264 wrote:

Round and round we go. This year Brees will get hurt and the pendulum will swing again. Don't out-think yourself -- an elite RB is still best value in fantasy -- if Foster or Rice are on the board, I don't care what format you're in, take them.


An elite Player. It doesn't have to be a RB.
If you get a guy who will score significantly more than others at his position, it's an advantage.


Of course it's an advantage, but the advantage of an elite RB over a non-elite RB is greater than the advantage of an elite QB over a non-elite QB. I've gone into detail as to why in other threads. There are many reasons for that to be the case, namely the greater lack of confidence in mid-round RBs vs. mid-round QBs and the fact that you need to start two RBs in your lineup and only one QB (i.e. you can wait longer to get the 10th best QB than you can to get the 10th best RB).

_________________
10team.5ppr
QB:Brees
RB:Foster,,Miller,Wilson,Blount,J.Bell,Ellington,Tate
WR:Calvin,Jones,T.Smith,Williams,Randle
TE:Witten

10teamppr
QB:Newton
RB:TRich,Forte,R.Bush,Woodhead,Blount
WR:Welker,Wayne,Gordon,Nicks,Shorts,Tompkins
TE:Fleener


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 11:31 
Offline
Whale Shark
User avatar

Joined: Tue 09.06.2011, 11:56
Posts: 1432
Sand$: 1828
Donate
phi.gif
Pad264 wrote:
hard 10 wrote:
Pad264 wrote:

Round and round we go. This year Brees will get hurt and the pendulum will swing again. Don't out-think yourself -- an elite RB is still best value in fantasy -- if Foster or Rice are on the board, I don't care what format you're in, take them.


An elite Player. It doesn't have to be a RB.
If you get a guy who will score significantly more than others at his position, it's an advantage.


Of course it's an advantage, but the advantage of an elite RB over a non-elite RB is greater than the advantage of an elite QB over a non-elite QB. I've gone into detail as to why in other threads. There are many reasons for that to be the case, namely the greater lack of confidence in mid-round RBs vs. mid-round QBs and the fact that you need to start two RBs in your lineup and only one QB (i.e. you can wait longer to get the 10th best QB than you can to get the 10th best RB).

This is a hard topic to argue when league settings can cause much to vary. From 2 QB leagues to flex options to PPR to league size...etc....causes a LOT of variance. When you can wait on the soft RB selections due to the inherent risk they represent, why not take a Brady/Brees when you can get an AP/TRich/Murray/Forte/MJD/etc etc....in 2nd/3rd.

And Hard 10 has it exactly right. It's not about an elite RB vs an elite QB. It's about separation in value from one player to his class; apples to apples. Just think...if you wait on the elite QB and go for a Ryan/Rivers in early/mid rounds. That would be your alternative comp. Whereas, where can you get someone like FJax, R Bush, etc....and what is the respective difference in points between the two sets. Or what if you take it a step further and go D Martin, D Brown, etc? After a certain point, you want no parts of the QBs in a competitive league...whereas RBs can be creative deeper and can be had through injury replacement easier as well. Not to mention guys like K Smith, Jennings, Hardesty, Gerhart all really late.

_________________
If I don't respond in forums, feel free to PM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 11:38 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.31.2006, 19:28
Posts: 30873
Sand$: 45799
Donate
Location: Home of UNI Panthers
min.gif
The problem with any of these reviews is that you are taking top statistics after the fact. It's reactive instead of proactive. FF is a gamble, so you want as many sure things as you can get. There are very few sure thing RBs and you usually start multiple RBs, so for my money, that is the direction I will go every time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 11:44 
Offline
Whale Shark
User avatar

Joined: Fri 09.19.2008, 12:04
Posts: 1429
Sand$: 456
Donate
Location: NY
nyg.gif
FantasyTom wrote:
Pad264 wrote:
hard 10 wrote:
Pad264 wrote:

Round and round we go. This year Brees will get hurt and the pendulum will swing again. Don't out-think yourself -- an elite RB is still best value in fantasy -- if Foster or Rice are on the board, I don't care what format you're in, take them.


An elite Player. It doesn't have to be a RB.
If you get a guy who will score significantly more than others at his position, it's an advantage.


Of course it's an advantage, but the advantage of an elite RB over a non-elite RB is greater than the advantage of an elite QB over a non-elite QB. I've gone into detail as to why in other threads. There are many reasons for that to be the case, namely the greater lack of confidence in mid-round RBs vs. mid-round QBs and the fact that you need to start two RBs in your lineup and only one QB (i.e. you can wait longer to get the 10th best QB than you can to get the 10th best RB).

This is a hard topic to argue when league settings can cause much to vary. From 2 QB leagues to flex options to PPR to league size...etc....causes a LOT of variance. When you can wait on the soft RB selections due to the inherent risk they represent, why not take a Brady/Brees when you can get an AP/TRich/Murray/Forte/MJD/etc etc....in 2nd/3rd.


Note: A 2 QB league is an exception.

Now, to answer your question, taking a RB at #1 doesn't mean that you can't take a RB in R2/3 either. Trying to be as consistant and fair as possible, these are realistic drafting options (10-team league):

Team A:
1. Foster
2. Murray
3. WR
4. WR
5. Gore
6. Rivers

Team B:
1. Rodgers
2. Murray
3. WR
4. WR
5. Gore
6. McGahee

Now, you can quibble about WR at R3-4, but you can do that for both teams, so I'm just trying to be consistant. Now, one team will start Rivers, Foster and Murray and the other team will start Rodgers, Murray and Gore. In that vacuum, you and Hard 10 are absolutely right. In fact, the Rodgers team probably has the advantage because it's likely that he'll outscore Rivers by more than Murray will outscore Gore (just the nature of an elite QB). Hell, even if Gore underperforms or gets hurt, Team B will probably be fine plugging in McGahee.

The real risk comes should something happen to Murray. If Murray tanks this year, Team B is in trouble because all the upside they gained with Rodgers in R1 is lost. Now, Team B has to role out with Gore and McGahee, which leaves very low upside at RB for them. Team A is less hurt because they have a stud in Foster already locked in, so it's just about playing matchups with McGahee and Gore each week, or maybe one of your late round guys popped.

The other thing to consider is that while Rodgers is certainly safer than Foster, Foster is WAY safer than Murray (tanking or getting hurt). The argument that RBs are less safe only proves the point that taking an elite one early is more important, not less important.

With the exception of 2 QB leagues, there's no format where I'd pass on Foster or Rice.

_________________
10team.5ppr
QB:Brees
RB:Foster,,Miller,Wilson,Blount,J.Bell,Ellington,Tate
WR:Calvin,Jones,T.Smith,Williams,Randle
TE:Witten

10teamppr
QB:Newton
RB:TRich,Forte,R.Bush,Woodhead,Blount
WR:Welker,Wayne,Gordon,Nicks,Shorts,Tompkins
TE:Fleener


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 11:48 
Offline
Whale Shark

Joined: Thu 08.27.2009, 13:18
Posts: 1176
Sand$: 2681
Donate
sf.gif
What people are missing about the soft RB market is it's now more important then ever to get a RB early. If you miss out on the top 3 there is a huge drop. And then about 6 players after that it is just a black hole. I don't think you can win a good league without at least one of the top 9 RBs. You can still make due with a second tier QB.

_________________
QB: Brees
WR:Cruz, Decker, Shorts, Hartline, Allen
RB: Charles, MJD, McFadden, Hillis, Jennings
TE: Jordan

1 20 passing
1 10 rushing/receiving
1 PPR, 12 man league.
All TDs 6 Points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 11:59 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.31.2006, 19:28
Posts: 30873
Sand$: 45799
Donate
Location: Home of UNI Panthers
min.gif
Pad264 wrote:

Note: A 2 QB league is an exception.

Now, to answer your question, taking a RB at #1 doesn't mean that you can't take a RB in R2/3 either. Trying to be as consistant and fair as possible, these are realistic drafting options (10-team league):

Team A:
1. Foster
2. Murray
3. WR
4. WR
5. Gore
6. Rivers

Team B:
1. Rodgers
2. Murray
3. WR
4. WR
5. Gore
6. McGahee

Now, you can quibble about WR at R3-4, but you can do that for both teams, so I'm just trying to be consistant. Now, one team will start Rivers, Foster and Murray and the other team will start Rodgers, Murray and Gore. In that vacuum, you and Hard 10 are absolutely right. In fact, the Rodgers team probably has the advantage because it's likely that he'll outscore Rivers by more than Murray will outscore Gore (just the nature of an elite QB). Hell, even if Gore underperforms or gets hurt, Team B will probably be fine plugging in McGahee.


While I agree with your overall point, you kind of lost me in this paragraph. The Rodgers team does not have an advantage because you aren't looking at only whether Murray outscores Gore by more or less than Rodgers outscores Rivers. You are looking at whether Foster outscores Gore by more than Rodgers outscores Rivers. That, I think would be close, but could easily sway in the Foster direction depending on your scoring. That isn't even including the injury risk mitigation factor.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 12:24 
Offline
Leopard Shark

Joined: Fri 09.16.2011, 18:25
Posts: 174
Sand$: 374
Donate
This is what I originally loved about fantasysharks.com, thanks for the responses guys. I guess my problem this year is two-fold, and it has been talked about so far in the thread. I do think there's a premium on RBs this year. Through-out all of my mocks, and there have been many, I found it much easier to build my team around and elite RB rather than if I took a QB/WR in the first round. Going with, CJ at 5 for instance and parring him with Ryan in the 5th or Rivers in the 7th seemed to produce better results than if I went with Rodgers at 5 and a RB in the 5th (Hillis, Brown, Green, Smith) or in the 7th (Stewart, Benson, Spiller, Ingram), assuming I followed the same formula for the other rounds in each draft. Secondly, I think the gap between QB1 and QB10 will be closer this year than year of the past. I just feel as if the talent is as deep as I've ever seen it, seeing as how players like Schaub, Freeman, Cutler, Big Ben aren't in many people's top 12 when I think they have a realistic shot at putting up very good numbers this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 12:26 
Offline
Mako Shark

Joined: Wed 07.25.2012, 21:18
Posts: 544
Sand$: 1172
Donate
50TDs has been done by a QB before back in 2007....see Brady's stats. Maybe it was a fluke season but its been done before.

A lot has changed between now and 2007. The Packers now have Jordy Nelson along side Greg Jenning and a slew of other WRs but more importantly Rodgers has developed a name for himself. Some suggest the Packers have a top 5 TE as well.

The Saints now have Jimmy Graham who serves as an extra solid WR on a team that has plenty of targets and Drew Drees is coming off a career year. I can see him putting up huge numbers again especially if the Saints don't have much of a defense.

The Patriots now have 2 of the best TE's in the entire league along with a stellar group of WRs. Brady has had 2 killer years before in his career and I don't see anything that would make me suggest you shouldn't take him.

The Lions have the best WR in the game along with a couple of other decent WRs and probably a top 10 TE. Stafford is young and I don't see anything slowing him down.

If anybody has any info on offensive lines on the teams with the top 3 running backs and why that offensive line is going to out power every other defensive line, I'm all ears.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 13:04 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.31.2006, 19:28
Posts: 30873
Sand$: 45799
Donate
Location: Home of UNI Panthers
min.gif
Fantasy 247 wrote:
50TDs has been done by a QB before back in 2007....see Brady's stats. Maybe it was a fluke season but its been done before.

A lot has changed between now and 2007. The Packers now have Jordy Nelson along side Greg Jenning and a slew of other WRs but more importantly Rodgers has developed a name for himself. Some suggest the Packers have a top 5 TE as well.

The Saints now have Jimmy Graham who serves as an extra solid WR on a team that has plenty of targets and Drew Drees is coming off a career year. I can see him putting up huge numbers again especially if the Saints don't have much of a defense.

The Patriots now have 2 of the best TE's in the entire league along with a stellar group of WRs. Brady has had 2 killer years before in his career and I don't see anything that would make me suggest you shouldn't take him.

The Lions have the best WR in the game along with a couple of other decent WRs and probably a top 10 TE. Stafford is young and I don't see anything slowing him down.

If anybody has any info on offensive lines on the teams with the top 3 running backs and why that offensive line is going to out power every other defensive line, I'm all ears.

Just to add a few names to your list.
Ryan has two elite WR targets and a great TE.
Romo has two top WR targets and a great TE (if he is healthy).
Eli has two elite WR targets.
Vick has two pretty good WR targets and a decent TE, along with one of the best pass catching RBs out there.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 08.20.2012, 13:23 
Offline
Whale Shark
User avatar

Joined: Fri 09.19.2008, 12:04
Posts: 1429
Sand$: 456
Donate
Location: NY
nyg.gif
unimsw wrote:
Pad264 wrote:

Note: A 2 QB league is an exception.

Now, to answer your question, taking a RB at #1 doesn't mean that you can't take a RB in R2/3 either. Trying to be as consistant and fair as possible, these are realistic drafting options (10-team league):

Team A:
1. Foster
2. Murray
3. WR
4. WR
5. Gore
6. Rivers

Team B:
1. Rodgers
2. Murray
3. WR
4. WR
5. Gore
6. McGahee

Now, you can quibble about WR at R3-4, but you can do that for both teams, so I'm just trying to be consistant. Now, one team will start Rivers, Foster and Murray and the other team will start Rodgers, Murray and Gore. In that vacuum, you and Hard 10 are absolutely right. In fact, the Rodgers team probably has the advantage because it's likely that he'll outscore Rivers by more than Murray will outscore Gore (just the nature of an elite QB). Hell, even if Gore underperforms or gets hurt, Team B will probably be fine plugging in McGahee.


While I agree with your overall point, you kind of lost me in this paragraph. The Rodgers team does not have an advantage because you aren't looking at only whether Murray outscores Gore by more or less than Rodgers outscores Rivers. You are looking at whether Foster outscores Gore by more than Rodgers outscores Rivers. That, I think would be close, but could easily sway in the Foster direction depending on your scoring. That isn't even including the injury risk mitigation factor.


Yeah, that's what I wrote (in bold). I was simply pointing out that if you just use that comparision, the QB draft doesn't look like a bad idea. When you add in other variables, the QB-first team ends up weaker.

Edit: Oh, now I see what you're saying. The reason I used that comparison was because Murray was in both lineups. I was comparring the state of both teams' RB2, but you're also right in that Foster will likely outscore Murray, which needs to be factored in. It should be the difference between Foster+Murray vs. Murray+Gore.

_________________
10team.5ppr
QB:Brees
RB:Foster,,Miller,Wilson,Blount,J.Bell,Ellington,Tate
WR:Calvin,Jones,T.Smith,Williams,Randle
TE:Witten

10teamppr
QB:Newton
RB:TRich,Forte,R.Bush,Woodhead,Blount
WR:Welker,Wayne,Gordon,Nicks,Shorts,Tompkins
TE:Fleener


Last edited by Pad264 on Mon 08.20.2012, 13:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group