Archived

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

GottaGetTheWin

Aaron Rodgers 2013 Season Outlook

737 posts in this topic

New contract in hand and Eddie Lacy in the backfield.

Business as usual for Rodgers and the Packers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be even more effective with a legit running game for the defense to deal with. That offense could be scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old same old for Rodgers... just a dominant player. If anything the addition of Lacy will help him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not sure how else to explain my point, that the RB you draft in round 2, is consistent across BOTH teams/strategies. Therefore it's not a determining factor in the points comparison. The RB you draft in round 2 can finish as the #1 RB in all of fantasy football, and it will have zero outcome on the points differential between the 2 strategies we're debating.

If that doesn't makes sense to you, then I could provide a visual example if you like. Just write up a mock draft of your choice, with the players you drafted with your 1st round QB strategy. I'll swap 2, and only 2 players/rounds. I'm willing to bet, that my 'starters' will out 'project' yours. If you're willing to take that challenge, I'd actually be very interested in doing the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I understand basically your point is that the RB in Round 2 is irrelevant because the two team comparisons have the same rb?

Lets go over this mock team, I'm only gonna go around 7 rounds because I went on auto draft after this but this was actually a mock I did by the way the other day: 10 team 3rd pick. .5 ppr 6 points for all TDs

1. Aaron Rodgers (GB - QB)

2. Demaryius Thomas (Den - WR)

3. Chris Johnson (Ten - RB)

4. Jordy Nelson (GB - WR)

5. Dwayne Bowe (KC - WR)

6. Ryan Mathews (SD - RB)

7. Jason Witten (Dal - TE)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* By the way, that above team is 3 WR starting minimum, 2 RB starting maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I understand basically your point is that the RB in Round 2 is irrelevant because the two team comparisons have the same rb?

Lets go over this mock team, I'm only gonna go around 7 rounds because I went on auto draft after this but this was actually a mock I did by the way the other day: 10 team 3rd pick. .5 ppr 6 points for all TDs

1. Aaron Rodgers (GB - QB)

2. Demaryius Thomas (Den - WR)

3. Chris Johnson (Ten - RB)

4. Jordy Nelson (GB - WR)

5. Dwayne Bowe (KC - WR)

6. Ryan Mathews (SD - RB)

7. Jason Witten (Dal - TE)

*One note before I even begin, I've already stated that 6 point passing TD's drastically alters draft strategy, and that waiting on a QB was better applied to 4 point passing TD's, but I'll continue anyways.

This is perfect. 3rd pick? I think it's safe to assume you have the choice of anyone not named Peterson & Foster.

The comparison then becomes:

Rodgers + Mathews

vs

D.Martin, Charles, Rice, Spiller + your choice of Kaep, Stafford, Wilson, RG3, Luck or Romo. (All 6 round or later QBs)

1. RB of Choice (?? - RB)

2. Demaryius Thomas (Den - WR)

3. Chris Johnson (Ten - RB)

4. Jordy Nelson (GB - WR)

5. Dwayne Bowe (KC - WR)

6. Quarterback of choice (?? - QB)

7. Jason Witten (Dal - TE)

Pick your preferred RB and QB in this situation and link me to some .5PPR projections and I'll do the math when I get home.

The main point is that the drop of in your RB is not Doug Martin to Chris Johnson, it's actually Doug Martin to Ryan Mathews. (only starting 2 RBs also lessens the importance of drafting early RBs, because now you're starting your RB2, instead of a projected RB3 or 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 3rd pick. I had thought about Doug Martin or Calvin Johnson at that pick but couldn't decide so I guess Rodgers is the tie breaker.

RB of choice is Martin, QB of choice is Stafford.

I'm not sure I know of any .5ppr projection sites so what I usually do is just take the projected reception total and divide that in half, then add that total to the standard total which will give you the .5ppr total.

According to FFToday the points totals are as follows (have to change point settings to CBS Sports because thats a 6 point per passing td setting)

Rodgers: 420.7 which is a difference of 84.3 points

Stafford: 336.4

Mathews: 174.6 which is a difference of 97.6 points

Martin: 272.2

So that favors your argument by 11.3 points, and while you are right about the points being more...11 points for an entire season which over a 16 weeks season equals to 0.70 points per week more for the Martin/Stafford side. That really doesn't seem like that much actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.