OBJfor6

Established Members
  • Content Count

    1,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

373 Excellent

About OBJfor6

  • Rank
    Superstar

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,278 profile views
  1. I like Watson, Deebo #1, Samuel #2. Don't overthink this one.
  2. Title says it all. Trying to decide between a handful of fringe starters for my flex in a half PPR. Mixon (vs. Jets) - Hate the matchup with the Jets and Andy being back will likely mean less running and more passing Shepherd (vs. Packers) - Was excited about him without Tate/Engram until the weather forecast came out. Ugly game might make it tough. McCoy (vs. Raiders) - No floor, but probably biggest upside of the group. RoJo (vs. Jaguars) - Hate how gameflow dependent he is Dede (vs. Bucs) - Safe, but low upside
  3. Andrews, wouldn't overthink it. Poor weather affects the deep game a lot more than the short-intermediate game Andrews plays in.
  4. Freeman vs. Packers, and I don't even think it's particularly close. Scary two weeks for him, I know, but just keep the faith a little longer.
  5. I would have to agree, Diggs against a soft Raiders secondary over Hollywood in heavy rain.
  6. Agree with everyone else, if you think you are a legit contender this year, take this deal. Otherwise, hang on to Ridley's 10th round keeper value.
  7. Tough decisions, guys are all pretty close to each other: RB - Joe Mixon, playing BUF RB - LeSean McCoy, playing BAL RB - David Montgomery, playing WAS TE - Evan Engram, playing TB TE - Mark Andrews, playing KC Thanks!
  8. Surprised by the amount of responses that went the other way. Completely agree with this - The market tends to get more efficient the closer we get to the season. A lot of the value plays you can get now will not exist come late August/early September.
  9. Comparing these two on their careers, when you just admitted that a back with a higher proportion of carries would be less efficient on this metric, is very contradictory. Simple thought experiment: What would D Williams points per touch look like if his proportion of rushes/receptions was roughly the same as Saquon's? Saquon's rushes/reception = 261/91 = 2.87. You would have to add ~126 carries to D Williams' career totals to get to approximately this proportion (183 carries + 126 carries/108 receptions) = 2.86. Using his career averages, and with generous rounding on TDs, add 504 rushing yards and 5 TDs to his career totals. That's about an extra 80 fantasy points. Take his new touch total/new fantasy points = (291+126)/(360+80) = 0.95 points per touch. Significantly different from above, clearly not on Saquon's level, but not too bad, either. Now I don't think this quick and dirty thing above is the right way to think about this, but I just wanted to show that the metric you are using is flawed and will always over-inflate pass-catching backs with limited rushing involvement. Here's another example - your metric would say James White is the best RB in the league. Do you really believe that? Here's a suggestion: Either look at points per rush and points per catch separately (safer) or come up with a more robust way of combining the two together with some sort of weighted average or scaling to limit how much your metric overvalues pass-catching backs (will always be a little flawed, but would at least be a lot better than what you are using now).
  10. Or he is bluffing and wants the Steelers to think exactly this and give him the fat contract he wants now.
  11. After looking at this, I actually got interested at looking into old football positions and what they all meant - their designations and formations were interesting, to say the least. Ty Mont played most of his snaps as a RB and had more carries than catches. Bobby Mitchell had 72 catches and 1 carry. After having more carries than catches his first four years on the Browns, he was traded to the Redskins for his 1962 season. From Wikipedia, "Bill McPeak, in his first year as head coach, immediately announced Mitchell would become a flanker. In his first game in Washington, he ran back a 92-yard kickoff return against the Dallas Cowboys.[2] Mitchell led the league with eleven touchdowns, 72 catches, and 1384 yards, and was selected to the Pro Bowl.[5]" A flanker was a wide receiver similar to WRs who play the Z position in today's game. In general, pro-football reference (and all related sites for other sports) lists players differently, for whatever reason. For example, basketball-reference has listed LeBron as a SG, SF, and PF in the past - even though we all know he is a SF, he calls himself a SF and only a SF, and most other sites call him a SF. Seems pretty clear the "RH" designation pro-football reference gives Bobby Mitchell is incorrect. I applaud the effort, though. It's not just Pats slot WRs that get respect though. No one questions Golden Tate (9.0 yards per catch in 2015) or old Larry (9.6 yards per catch in 2016) either. In the past 3 seasons, here is how their yards per catch stack up against each other: Landry: 10.37 Fitz: 10.44 Tate: 10.60, and he didn't even play primarily in the slot in 2016. It really is bizarre how the Landry narrative caught fire. Heck, I admitted earlier to believing it - I didn't even realize how stupid it was until probably a month or two ago. I think it's because I played only in standard leagues back in 2014 (Landry's rookie year), and after looking at his numbers that year, I didn't see how he would ever be a standard fantasy asset given his need for volume, so I wrote him off and never challenged myself to reconsider my bias against him, until recently. My best guess is that this happened to many people, but most people won't ever challenge their initial beliefs in the absence of undeniable evidence.
  12. But the point you ignored, about Bill Walsh's offense, is completely accurate. Before Montana, Walsh's system turned some of the worst QBs in the game to stars (look up these QBs' stat differentials with and without Walsh). Montana was just the first to be good enough for Walsh's offense to take him from good to legend, instead of from trash to temporary star.