Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

People are stupid!


ncguy2184

Recommended Posts

there is a pole on nfl.com asking

Which running back would you most want on your fantasy football team in 2009?

Michael Turner 40%

Matt Forte 24%

Maurice Jones-Drew18%

DeAngelo Williams 18%

are people really that stupid or is it me? deangelo got 18% come on now!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had MJD and DeAngelo....and it was due to DeAngelo that I am the Huddle champ.

Most of these folks are either listening to the pundits who are not convinced that Williams can repeat last year's performance. He was basically unknown last year since the Panthers are basically ignored in the media since we're a small market team. I remember getting some grief even from other Panther fans about taking the chance on Williams and you see how it paid out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything wrong with it. Turner is the flavor of the week and has been for a couple of years. You guys have been around long enough to know the press dynamic. They don't change until they're slapped repeatedly around the face and head - and somebody else tells them what to say...

It's not reality and yet, it's not fantasy either, it's pure fiction...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the hell is MJD that high? Seriously?

Because there's no more Fred Taylor to split carries. Plus, I think there were only 4 choices in that poll. With that being said, I wish I was in a money league with the 40% who chose Turner, he's due for injury this year with all those carries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think FF is stupid to begin with. But I do read the write ups ranking players and I do not understand what the hype for Forte is all about.

Because Forte does not split near as much time as the other backs do. All do to the amount of touches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...