Jump to content

Visit Rotoworld.comRotoworld Forums  
Rotoworld: MLB | NFL | NBA | NHL | NASCAR | CFB
Sports Talk Blogs: PFT | HBT | PBT | CFT | PHT
  Visit NBCSports.com

* * * - - 3 votes

Aaron Rodgers 2013 Season Outlook11.05.13 -- Aaron Rodgers confirms he has a broken collarbone.


  • Please log in to reply
688 replies to this topic

#1 GottaGetTheWin

GottaGetTheWin

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,315 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:37 AM

New contract in hand and Eddie Lacy in the backfield.

Business as usual for Rodgers and the Packers?

#2 petekrum

petekrum

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

Could be even more effective with a legit running game for the defense to deal with. That offense could be scary.
The boar runs from the tiger.
It is not cowardice. It is love of life.

#3 crusoe

crusoe

    Double-A

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:21 PM

It might mean fewer goal-to-go touchdowns for Rodgers with Lacy there.  Now they actually have a rb who can be trusted to punch it in.

#4 Robrain

Robrain

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,413 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:51 AM

His younger brother got signed by the Jaguars.

View PostHolben, on 20 July 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

Jackie Battle...Better than Chris Johnson...

Rotoworld Mock Draft Real League - 12-Team PPR (Teamname: "Maniac Allstars"):
QB: Andrew Luck
WR1: Calvin Johnson - WR2: Torrey Smith - Bench: Josh Gordon, Chris Givens, Ryan Broyles
RB1: Mikel LeShoure - RB2: Dexter McCluster - Bench: Montario Hardesty, Kevin Smith
TE: Dennis Pitta
FLEX: Tony Gonzalez
K: Greg Zuerlein

#5 dewaser

dewaser

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:41 PM

Same old same old for Rodgers... just a dominant player. If anything the addition of Lacy will help him
10 team H2H 8 cat league

PG: John Wall, Stephen Curry, Tony Parker, DJ Augustin, Mario Chalmers, Darren Collison
SG: Kyle Korver, Jimmy Butler, Jodie Meeks
SF: Chandler Parsons, Gerald Green, Kawhi Leonard
PF: Dirk Nowitzki
C: Demarcus Cousins, Nikola Vucevic, Marcin Gortat, Gorgui Dieng
IR: Eric Bledsoe

#6 RMJ_12

RMJ_12

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IL

Posted 27 May 2013 - 11:51 AM

i realize this is aaron rodgers but with the coach and aaron rodgers himself saying they want to run the ball more often and become more "balanced" is there any concern his numbers decline from previous seasons?  obiously still top 5 but also the fact that his o-line gives up more and more sacks each year im a little concerned.  i can easily see peyton mainning beating him out

#7 Deadpool

Deadpool

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,962 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2013 - 07:02 PM

I doubt it, Rodgers is a cyborg.
12 Team Keeper League
(11-2) Runner up
QB: N. Foles
RB: E. Lacy, R. Bush, G. Bernard, S. Vereen, A. Brown, (L. Murray)
WR: C. Johnson, J. Nelson, M. Wallace, P. Harvin, J. Blackmon
TE: J. Graham, D. Pitta, (R. Gronkowski)

#8 green

green

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,662 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:05 AM

View PostRMJ_12, on 27 May 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

i realize this is aaron rodgers but with the coach and aaron rodgers himself saying they want to run the ball more often and become more "balanced" is there any concern his numbers decline from previous seasons?  obiously still top 5 but also the fact that his o-line gives up more and more sacks each year im a little concerned.  i can easily see peyton mainning beating him out

I wouldn't worry at all.

The thing is that the Packers offense isn't nearly as unbalanced as one might think.  Last year the Packers were very balanced, finishing #16 in both rushing attempts per game and passing attempts per game.  The year before that they didn't rush as often, but still only were #14 in pass attempts per game.

Additionally, Rodgers wasn't top 5 in red zone pass attempts last year despite having the 2nd most TDs.  And in 2011 he wasn't top 5 either, despite again being 2nd in TDs and only 1 TD behind Brees (and only because he sat out week 17).

Rodgers isn't a top 3 QB because of his team's offense or how things are structured around him the way Brees might be (although Brees is ridiculously good too of course).  Rodgers is a top 3 QB because of how efficient he is.  He also rushes a fair amount, which gives him a nice floor relative to some of the other immobile QBs.

There's no way I let this guy slip out of the 2nd round.  Brees shouldn't be slipping out of the 2nd either.  It's ridiculous to think there could be close to 15 RBs better than these guys.  Even if you like RB early, just grab Brees or Rodgers, wait a couple weeks to get an idea of how good each RB is, and then trade Rodgers/Brees for the 5th best RB or something like that.  Better than risking drafting a RB who isn't even top 10.

#9 RMJ_12

RMJ_12

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IL

Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:50 AM

View Postgreen, on 28 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

View PostRMJ_12, on 27 May 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

i realize this is aaron rodgers but with the coach and aaron rodgers himself saying they want to run the ball more often and become more "balanced" is there any concern his numbers decline from previous seasons?  obiously still top 5 but also the fact that his o-line gives up more and more sacks each year im a little concerned.  i can easily see peyton mainning beating him out

I wouldn't worry at all.

The thing is that the Packers offense isn't nearly as unbalanced as one might think.  Last year the Packers were very balanced, finishing #16 in both rushing attempts per game and passing attempts per game.  The year before that they didn't rush as often, but still only were #14 in pass attempts per game.

Additionally, Rodgers wasn't top 5 in red zone pass attempts last year despite having the 2nd most TDs.  And in 2011 he wasn't top 5 either, despite again being 2nd in TDs and only 1 TD behind Brees (and only because he sat out week 17).

Rodgers isn't a top 3 QB because of his team's offense or how things are structured around him the way Brees might be (although Brees is ridiculously good too of course).  Rodgers is a top 3 QB because of how efficient he is.  He also rushes a fair amount, which gives him a nice floor relative to some of the other immobile QBs.

There's no way I let this guy slip out of the 2nd round.  Brees shouldn't be slipping out of the 2nd either.  It's ridiculous to think there could be close to 15 RBs better than these guys.  Even if you like RB early, just grab Brees or Rodgers, wait a couple weeks to get an idea of how good each RB is, and then trade Rodgers/Brees for the 5th best RB or something like that.  Better than risking drafting a RB who isn't even top 10.
what about more rushing td's and less passing td's with the legit runners they have now?

#10 green

green

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,662 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:58 AM

Like I said though, the Packers aren't a team that is particularly pass heavy even in the redzone.  They were average in 2011 in rushing TDs and only a little below average last year.

I don't see any reason Rodgers should have less pass attempts or red zone pass attempts next year.  A better RB probably just means their whole offense improves and more redzone trips and TDs for Rodgers as well.

Just like Ridley didn't affect Brady's value, I really really don't think Rodger's value will be affected either.

#11 Hokie79

Hokie79

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,813 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:05 AM

An improved running game could hurt him a little, like instead of throwing 40 TDs he throws 30-35. The guy could also catch fire and throw 45 again. He's about as rock solid as they come in fantasy though. No worries here

Edited by Hokie79, 28 May 2013 - 10:07 AM.


#12 green

green

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,662 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:13 AM

Also, how amazing is it that Rodgers still finished in the top 3 despite losing his two top WRs for significant chunks of the season?

What would anybody think about Romo if Dez and Austin go down?  Or E.Manning if Nicks and Cruz get hurt (we saw what happened without Nicks this past year).  Or Ryan without Julio Jones and Roddy White, or heaven forbid Stafford without Megatron. lol.  It's scary to think how bad Stafford would be without Megatron.

There aren't many QBs that can put up huge numbers regardless of who they are throwing to.  Rodgers is one, Brees is another, and I think Brady might be too (we'll see how Welker's departure affects him).  I'm not sure there's any others right now, although I don't like to bet against P. Manning either.

#13 Shake

Shake

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:01 AM

View Postgreen, on 28 May 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Also, how amazing is it that Rodgers still finished in the top 3 despite losing his two top WRs for significant chunks of the season?

What would anybody think about Romo if Dez and Austin go down?  Or E.Manning if Nicks and Cruz get hurt (we saw what happened without Nicks this past year).  Or Ryan without Julio Jones and Roddy White, or heaven forbid Stafford without Megatron. lol.  It's scary to think how bad Stafford would be without Megatron.

There aren't many QBs that can put up huge numbers regardless of who they are throwing to.  Rodgers is one, Brees is another, and I think Brady might be too (we'll see how Welker's departure affects him).  I'm not sure there's any others right now, although I don't like to bet against P. Manning either.

This is why I'm planning of taking this guy in the first round of my draft. I know, I can't wait to hear the "dude you gotta take a RB no matter what, QB is so deep, that's roster suicide". Though deep with starters QB is light of elite talent that can single-handedly win you games almost by themselves. I know this doesn't happen every week, but it does happen often with these elite QBs but in last years fantasy playoffs, going by my leagues settings (6 point TD league) this guy averaged 37 points a game in weeks 15 and 16. I'm sorry but 37 points from one player basically ensures a high probability of victory, and you barely ever see those numbers ever coming from an elite RB, perhaps even and elite RB and WR combined.

Just a note here, I'd love to take this guy in the 2nd or 3rd as everyone else thinks will happen, however knowing the league I play in and the fact that QBs go fast, well elite ones...there's no way I'm getting Rodgers, Brees, or Brady late 2nd round, just thought I'd clear that up.

Not to mention the turnover at RB on a year to year basis, 3-5 top 10 preseason ranked rbs every season do not finish top 10 by the end of the year (due to injury or bust). There's absolutely no way to know who the RB is either, considering it's happened to "safe" RBs (J.Charles, 2011 AP, 2011 and McCoy 2012) and questionable RBs in some way or another (Mathews, MJD, CJ2K, DMC, etc)

Rodgers just keeps being a top 2 or 3 QB every season no matter what and that level of consistency should matter in my opinion more than whether or not you're filling your RB slot in round 1, obviously depending on your scoring settings. I keep seeing rankings with tons of RBs, some of which have question marks in some fashion ranked above this guy, and I don't see it. Why anyone thinks that upwards to possibly 15 rbs are worth being taken over this guy is beyond me, qb "depth" or not, it's not necessarily the better pick.

Edited by Shake, 13 June 2013 - 10:03 AM.


#14 jtaylor39

jtaylor39

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:25 AM

Every league is different, I won't take a qb early.  Has worked for me.
NABL 12 team ppr $$ League
2011 Champion
2012 3rd Place
2013 2nd Place


FFAH League
2009, 2010, 2011 Champion

I cash checks.

#15 DocJ

DocJ

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,999 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:30 AM

If I'm in a 6 pt/pass td league with 14+ teams and picking in the 13-14 slot with 11-12 of the top RBs gone already I'm going to strongly consider Rodgers or Brees. I used to be a RB or die guy in the 1st...no longer.

Edited by DocJ, 13 June 2013 - 10:31 AM.

Check out the 2014 Rotoworld Mock Real League in "Your League" Threads.

#16 FFCollusion

FFCollusion

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,868 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:17 PM

6 Points for a passing touchdown drastically alters the way people would/should draft.  Most, if not all, people letting Brees/Rodgers fall to the 3rd are in 4 point passing TD leagues, myself included.  37 points is a meaningless number, if we can't compare it with the other 9-11 QBs draftable in much later rounds.
The argument against early QBs isn't that they aren't elite, but that the drop from a 1st round Rodgers to an 8th round Romo is... about 2 points a week.  But the drop from a first round RB to... any other round RB, is far more than 2 points.  When comparing draft strategies, you have to look at the opportunity cost.  Having said that, drafting a QB early, is 'safe' because you know exactly what you're getting and the likely hood of a bust is extremely slim.

Last year, I actually drafted Rodgers 4th in my main league. (4pt passing TD, 10 teams)  Initially, looking back on the year, I got a safe solid pick, who finished top 3 in QB and when defending the early QB strategy I actually stated that because I took Rodgers I avoided guys like DMC, CJ?K, Forte or Murray and I was thankful.  But it's not about a 1:1 comparison of Rodgers vs DMC.  The true worth of a player is what combined total would I have gotten from CJ?K and (worst case scenario) the 10th ranked QB, vs what Rodgers and the next reasonable RB?  Maybe last years numbers are biased due to the abundance of QB's who became serviceable, but 2013 is just as deep.

It's hard to compare, but essentially combine any QB ranked 9-11 with a first round RB, and I'm willing to bet on most weeks it out scores a top 3 QB and the RB3 they end up with in the flex.  Would need a full draft for a realistic numbers game, but you get the theory I'm sure.

*If the argument is the turnover in RB and the safety of QB then I have no issues with it.  But the 'X points a week' debate doesn't really calculate out to me.  Having said that, IF Cam falls to the right round, count me among the early QB guys ;)
Looking for 1 last league for the 2014 season:
Auction Keeper or Auction Contract type leagues
10-12 teams, PPR, prefer Yahoo.  PM me with details.

#17 Shake

Shake

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:08 PM

View PostFFCollusion, on 13 June 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

*If the argument is the turnover in RB and the safety of QB then I have no issues with it.  But the 'X points a week' debate doesn't really calculate out to me.  Having said that, IF Cam falls to the right round, count me among the early QB guys ;)

Well "X points a week" can calculate if you don't wait forever to take RB after you take your elite QB in the first. The thing about the RB1 vs RB20 being more of a difference than the QB1 vs QB10 assumes that the owner with the number 1 QB waited forever and took the 20th best RB in my opinion. I don't really see that as a complete argument because lets say someone takes Rodgers in round 1 and ends up with Forte or S.Jackson in round 2? I mean those guys are likely to finish better than 20th best at RB.

Mostly other than the sheer amount of points Rodgers can put up on any given week it has to do with the fact that it's more of a safe pick, and in the beginning of the draft I want as safe as I can possibly get and RB is typically not as safe.

About people letting the elite QBs fall until the late 2nd/early 3rd, I guess that would make sense in a 4 point TD pass league but in a 6 point TD pass league it's crazy. Because then you end up gifting the teams with Foster/AP/Martin/etc an elite QB like Brees/Rodgers/Brady. You basically give that team the advantage at RB and QB, I mean could you imagine going against a team with  Rodgers/AP, or Foster/Brees...etc.

I do see the value in the lower ranked QBs with a higher ranked RB but in my opinion it's just as risky due to the turnover at RB every year.

Edited by Shake, 13 June 2013 - 08:10 PM.


#18 FFCollusion

FFCollusion

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,868 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:20 PM

View PostShake, on 13 June 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Well "X points a week" can calculate if you don't wait forever to take RB after you take your elite QB in the first. The thing about the RB1 vs RB20 being more of a difference than the QB1 vs QB10 assumes that the owner with the number 1 QB waited forever and took the 20th best RB in my opinion. I don't really see that as a complete argument because lets say someone takes Rodgers in round 1 and ends up with Forte or S.Jackson in round 2? I mean those guys are likely to finish better than 20th best at RB.

Because round 2 doesn't change between strategies...?  Forte or S.Jackson is on both teams, therefor not the determining factor in points per week.

A more clear way to define it is this:

RB1
RB2
RB3
RB4

Regardless of round, let's say instead of an RB1, you get a QB1.

This means that the first draft starts RB1, RB2, RB3 and QB10
Draft 2 starts: RB2, RB3, RB4 and QB1.

The comparison is then mathematically QB1 + RB4 vs RB1 + QB10.

That help?

Edited by FFCollusion, 13 June 2013 - 08:23 PM.

Looking for 1 last league for the 2014 season:
Auction Keeper or Auction Contract type leagues
10-12 teams, PPR, prefer Yahoo.  PM me with details.

#19 green

green

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,662 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:49 PM

I posted this in the worst experts thread since there was an argument over QB early, but at least in standard ESPN and yahoo scoring the difference between Rodgers and Romo is incredibly massive, even last year it was 4ppg - which is pretty big.  Especially considering it was just a normal year for Rodgers and he lost his 2 top WR for most of the season, where as it was a career year for Romo.

In 2011 the difference between Rodgers and Romo was the difference between Ray Rice (#1 RB) and Fred Jackson (#14 RB) and bigger than the difference between Lynch (#5 RB) and Ryan Grant (#36).  Last year the difference between Brees and Romo was about the difference between Jamaal Charles and Darren Sproles.

And of course that's assuming you end up with a top 10 RB, and a QB as good as Romo.  Things get a lot uglier if you accidentally drafted CJ or DMC in the first round or if instead of Romo you had Eli or Rivers.  The difference between Rodgers and Eli was the difference between Chris Johnson and Jackie Battle.


The best thing about Rodgers is that he's been top 3 forever.  You know what you're getting with him.  RBs are a lot harder to predict.  I do agree that a top 5 RB probably has more value than Rodgers.  But I'm pretty confident Rodgers will be more valuable than the 10th best RB.  Yet there's 14 RBs going ahead of him - I guess people are hoping they get lucky.

#20 Shake

Shake

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:10 PM

View PostFFCollusion, on 13 June 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

View PostShake, on 13 June 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Well "X points a week" can calculate if you don't wait forever to take RB after you take your elite QB in the first. The thing about the RB1 vs RB20 being more of a difference than the QB1 vs QB10 assumes that the owner with the number 1 QB waited forever and took the 20th best RB in my opinion. I don't really see that as a complete argument because lets say someone takes Rodgers in round 1 and ends up with Forte or S.Jackson in round 2? I mean those guys are likely to finish better than 20th best at RB.

Because round 2 doesn't change between strategies...?  Forte or S.Jackson is on both teams, therefor not the determining factor in points per week.

A more clear way to define it is this:

RB1
RB2
RB3
RB4

Regardless of round, let's say instead of an RB1, you get a QB1.

This means that the first draft starts RB1, RB2, RB3 and QB10
Draft 2 starts: RB2, RB3, RB4 and QB1.

The comparison is then mathematically QB1 + RB4 vs RB1 + QB10.

That help?

No that doesn't really help because it's not really dealing with the point I was trying to make. On top of the fact that I don't really evaluate the players I want to draft based on differences between the top scorer and the lowest scoring starter at any particular position. Values change frequently between players, so I'm not really seeing the point in that argument.

The point I was trying to make was that when people make the RB1/QB10 (preseason number 1 ranked RB/preseason number 10 ranked QB) vs QB1/RB20 (preseason number 1 ranked QB/preseason number 20 ranked RB) argument I think they're assuming the player who took the best QB ended up with only the 20th best RB, and that's not always the case. If someone takes a QB in round 1 and then ends up with the best RB available in round 2 it's likely that RB is ranked higher than 20. When people try to make the argument they say "well if I got this RB in round 1 and this QB in round 7 vs your QB in round 1 and your RB in round 7, I'd score more points on a weekly basis". To which I reply, "who says I'm waiting till round 7 to secure a RB". Thus I don't see the point in the argument.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users