BattleshipLorenzen

I"d take Robinson over Yeldon. The only concern I'd have if I were a Robinson owner is the terrible Colts offense with their new unwatchable playcalling. Chud + Pagano = terrible. I'm more tired of the stupid, STUPID Indy media (and stupid national media/announcers) spewing nonsense about Pep, Chud, etc. Anyway, some press ACTUALLY called Chud out *somewhat* this week for, e.g., not involving the team's biggest playmakers, keeping Allen in to block (that guy can catch passes just fine, in fact), etc. Anyway, Jax doesn't seem afraid to throw the ball, even from 1 yard out. If Jax is smart (they're probably not), then Julius would have a big game against those LBs. Bortles would have to play poorly to not torch the Colts. Regarding Vontae, he has reverted back to his normal level of play this year - he's not anything like the stud we saw last year. Also, he doesn't shadow WRs. I think, because of the enormous drop-off after VD, and the even larger one after Toler (according to the depth chart), that Manusky moves VD around so that the opposing QB can't just play catch with his number 2 WR. Pitt, as usual, showed everyone what happens with the Colts D faces a QB who can read the field AND has weapons. If Bortles has improved significantly in that regard since their last matchup (Bortles is the caliber of QB that this defense can stymie enough, at least when they last met), then I'm sorry for the OP's team. But is there a chance? Yes. This team has a great DC, and they play hard for their misguided HC and terrible new OC.

I'd prefer the "all played"/ every team every week record, but it probably tracks very closely with total points scored. Regarding OP, commish should be able to fiat this on the spot. Players should only be able to take actions that help their own lineup or hurt an opposing player's lineup (within reason on the latter). Obvious tanking (leaving Gronk in lineup when the team has another TE rostered and we already know Gronk's out this week, or just benching all players) should lead to a commish-set lineup based on the platform's projected points. The expectation that owners will field the best teams that their time/ability permits is so obvious that no justification is needed in order to respond to such an obvious violation of expectations. Note that the tanking does have to be obvious - starting Bridgewater against SEA instead of Big Ben against Indy is, IMO, not obvious enough. Starting McKinnon over Forte probably is, despite concerns about Forte's playing time and matchup. Also, points scored on the season does not tell one how a team will do in any specific week. This may be worth pointing out to the owner. I was the dominant points leader last year, but had pretty poor playoff games (scored ~40 points below season average). Single games are too random to predict from season-long totals. I would try to get the owner to play it off as a joke first, though. Weeks 13 and 14 can get pretty boring for teams with 1st-round BYEs, and it's tempting to try to do SOMETHING that feels useful.

Well, last week's game was revealing. It wasn't Jones's performance this week - I was looking for him in case he was on waivers before the games, as I was in need of a good WR4 with Sanders questionable -- it was getting to see and read about how Adams fails to succeed at any aspect of playing WR with consistency. However, experts I read generally did keep talking about his target numbers even after the game, and they generally seemed to conclude that his poor efficiency was more likely an anomaly. So, I tend to agree with you, at least from FF columnists.

Yeah, I have dropped my #4 WR in one league. It hurts, but at some point I did have to have room for Langford. I actually do speculative handcuffing - adding guys occasionally when there's a small rumor or chance that the starter is hurt (before week 10 Rawls was a key add - he had been dropped for BYE I think). So, there is some luck involved, and the waiver system matters. I didn't think to 'cuff West, though - my only starter who arguably should be in my leagues, aside from Forte. In my small-bench (5) league, I've almost never had a second QB. I had to drop Hauschka over his BYE; about the only kicker I would not have dropped is Gostkowski. I stink at DST (I seem to curse them - sorry to everyone who has had a few underwhelming weeks from STL), and rarely hold onto more than one. Picking a QB to stream can be rough, or between two similar QBs past the trade deadline (which argues against owning 2 for me). I was looking for someone to start over Wilson this week because he has always put up stinkers at home against SF when his team destroys them. I didn't find someone and just let it go (projected W anyway), and hey! Wilson has a good game! I think I'll still hold onto my second QB (Roethlisberger), but now I will want to 'cuff West, so my WR4 will be gone as soon as 'Manny Sanders is healthy. I heartily disagree with the last sentence. A good tackle is a form tackle. Penalizing launching was a great rule addition - it actually made defenses better. If you had been a Colts fan watching Tim Jennings and worse diving and missing by a yard (laterally, somehow, after being lined up right across from the WR at the snap), you'd have the same "bad form PTSD" that I do as a fan. Many of those kids grew up watching highlights on SportsCenter, etc., and the highlights weren't form tackles -- they were launches. Oh, and I don't care what anyone else thinks - the evidence is quite clear that football head hits tend to lead to cumulative damage that can result in personality, intelligence, etc. changes developmentally and in adults. Even if someone is okay with brain damaging their children, that doesn't mean that other people's children should have to learn how to drive with them, etc... I love the sport; there is absolutely nothing like it. However, it either needs to be fixed (even thinks like helmets that help absorb the shock, even if it makes players look more "like astronauts," or it needs to go. I don't see either occurring within the next 10 years, though.

They make wads of cash either way. It's really not analogous. Before the last CBA, the Bills had apparently figured out that it was more lucrative to lose cheaply than it was to spend to the cap and win. Now, teams have to spend within x% of the cap, but the point is, owning the Titans is still lucrative, despite their record. Now, if you compare FF owners to GMs, I think you have a better analogy.

Agreed; I expect Jones' resurgence to continue.

This. If you have a starting RB with a clear handcuff, you HAVE to own the handcuff. If you don't have one, then watching other handcuffs is important. We learned early on about Rawls, Karlos, etc, but I've seen both dropped multiple times because of other roster management issues (injuries + BYEs). It does require reading a bit to understand, for example. that Charcnado is the guy behind Charles, not Knile. On top of that, you need elite WRs. Yeah, I apologize for that being a stupid suggestion, but it stood out to me this year (I think after the AOB article) -- putting more weight on elite WRs helps, giving an edge to those with less of an injury history. I've seen Watkins dropped, but he's a great flex play to have lying around. For leagues in general, the rules make a difference IMO. Some leagues have special injury rules - things that can help for surprise inactives when people have other things to do Sunday/Monday/Thursday. Good WW rules are critical: Players should not lock until their games' start, and FAAB is ideal; I imagine being a Forte owner and watching the owner with one better spot in waiver priority snag Langford is a major buzzkill. A bad waiver system + small benches = recipe for disaster IMO. Like they're making wads of money? Huge steaming piles of it? After, in many cases, stealing the stadiums from taxpayers (Looking at you Irsay, and most other owners...though not ALL!)? They win in all situations.

With regard to the running game (important for play-action and roll-out success, assuming Brock can do that and hit a guy with the ball), it looks like another case of "very stoppable force meets easily movable object." Denver is 29th in adjusted line yards, and CHI is 32nd in Adjusted line yards allowed. CHI is at home and 18th in pass defense DVOA - not terrible, and I think their defense has has been improving over the season as they and their personnel usage adjust to their new scheme. The salient point is this: The DEN OL is absolutely terrible in pass protection. Every man is an island there. They started the season poorly, their chemistry was "atrocious" a quarter through the season, and they still showed very poor chemistry last week. I"d also want to know about the wind conditions expected on Sunday. But anyway, I'd quickly start Fitzpatrick instead, or Sanchez.

Agreed about their offense. I do think Jones would have more value as an FF starter than Adams if his usage remained the same (I'm assuming it hasn't). Adams was miserable last week; any GB homers who can speak to whether or not Adams can do anything well? Throws to him are wasted if that was what he normally looks like. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jones start to get more playing time again, as he can at least catch the damn football. I've posted this article several times, but I have trouble getting over it; the author indicates that this is not an anomaly. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2015/film-room-davante-adams

Jettison Smith. Right now it is unambiguously Turbin; check out @bryanbroaddus for good DAL beat-writer coverage. Broaddus even alludes to Linehan's own words in an interview when (and now presumably quoted above), and watched Turbin practice as the RB 2 this week. I mean, it could BECOME Smith, but you'd have to have a reason to believe Broaddus isn't the most likely to be correct (or really know something about Smith). It sounds like you're asking for a good source, and Broaddus is your man. I wish there were an equivalent for other muddled backfields... Regarding Turbin being dropped 2x - solid heuristic, but the specifics undercut it in this instance IMO. I think R8RMick has become the authoritative source for descriptions of how the Browns manage their runningbacks. Regarding SEA, well, they knew what they had in Rawls, and they have F.Jax - no role for Turbin.

Agreed; he was so useless at every aspect of his game that Football Outsiders dedicated this week's film room to showing how bad he was. If this is at all representative, then I'd much rather have Griff Whalen (and his physical limitations) getting 21 targets. Griff runs routes and busts his ass; or, to quote Luck, "He f*ing makes plays."

If I had seen film like this on Adams, I would not have been high on him, at all. He seems like a JAG who isn't good for, well, anything (unfair contrast with Sammy Watkins aside). Has anyone seen Montgomery? I barely want Adams on my roster now; I liked him previously because of his target totals when healthy.

On the face of it, I don't question this. I'd be shocked if a politician called it gambling for a reasonable reason.

In a single game, thankfully, it doesn't (at least, not enough to be worthwhile - hurray!). It's all about entering dozens or hundreds of games, not just a few. Things you would note: -factors that seem to influence player value (based on the data) -How other players respond to player pricings, site rankings, etc. This would also help you differentiate data scientists (non-teams, i.e., lineups picked by someone's code, if it lets you do that) from targets . -every data point you can think of for predicting performance (avoiding "overfitting," i.e. interpreting "noise" as "signal" is not too difficult - just takes a little time, and modern stats software does much of the work off the shelf). -Create projection ranges for each player (algorithmically) -Model the "risk" of those ranges (Sort of like, "What is Delanie Walker's floor in this game, 95% of the time? What's his ceiling?") -Create models that maximize reward while minimizing the risk that you've now defined. -At each step, model your entire analysis on part of the data ("training"), tweak it on another part ("validation"), and then test it against a data set not used for training or tweaking ("testing"). This last step is critical - your models need the opportunity to fail. -Model the crowd and compare their performance to yours, as well as your ability to predict the crowd's choices with your crowd models. Etc.

Oh, and I'd roll with Cousins over Manning as long as there is an ankle injury concern (unless ankle injuries aren't big for a QB's follow-through and passing mechanics, on which Manning relies for accuracy). Someone chime in if you happen to know if KC's problems against WR are from mid-deep passes or from YAC plays.

I want to start him, but it's hard to bench Carr. Cousins likes him some Reed, right? My impression is that the young NO LBs are unreliable in coverage at best. NO is number 32 in DVOA against TEs. Trent Williams healthy (I think), which helps.

As a side note, I like the fact that I can play FF without feeling like I am working. I will OCCASIONALLY check something as specific as how much a team runs the ball up the middle when making IDP decisions, but I don't do any analytics for FF. I can't imagine doing DFS without performing analytics. Okay, I can, but I can't imagine expecting anything other than, over the long run, losing money.

Is that the distinction - skill vs. chance? It is absolutely a game of probability. It is absolutely gambling, at least if you play with strangers. Data scientists (I am one)* are the house. Everyone else is a gambler. Speaking from a background in clinical psychology...it is also gambling. FF can lead to almost compulsive behavior (it's VERY reinforcing when you refresh rotoworld or a beat writer's twitter account to find out that RB X is hurt/the new starter/etc), along with game-day reinforcement from following stats. However, the risk-reward rush from new line-ups, any week, as much as you want, very much fits the same profile as gambling behavior. This has probably nothing to do with its legal standing, but from a broader perspective, it is gambling. *No, I don't play. Yes, the money would be nice; losing 10-20 hours/week for it would not, especially up front. I don't want to contribute to the problem, etc., etc. It's been a little tempting, but ultimately not a difficult call.

Football Perspective has a piece where they examine traditional stats and the family of "advanced metrics." It was, in title, an article about QBR I think. Short version, QBR is actually the best for predicting future wins, despite it being really odd sometimes for single games. It is somewhat stable year-to-year. Annual stability is the only place passer rating caught up, and that's largely because annual yardage is somewhat correlated year over year, yardage being also a function of offensive style. DVOA does get weird for RBs sometimes, from a fantasy perspective. QBR skepticism is reasonable, but it has gotten a lot better than it was pre-2014, when it had some widely-panned "clutch factor" or something. If Carr keeps in the top 10 of DVOA, though, that will say a fair bit IMO. Very much agreed. Marshall got help too, and he's not exactly dragging his team down. Doug Baldwin, OTOH, reportedly doesn't believe therapy will help him with anger management issues.

Agree with BrotherBock and Murf; replace "church" with any other social structure that you like. Dez had issues, and asked for a curfew, help from his pastor (social accountability), etc. Is he problem free? No, but he's been a success - compare that to Gordon. I'd just put it in the "can help him stay on the field and focused" category. Similarly, I was happy to grab "injury-history" DeMarco Murray in the 1st least year after reading about his hew offseason workout routine with Witten. Witten gave experience, garnered social respect, and provided accountability. If Lacy has an offseason "work out with Witten" story, that'll up his draft stock for me next year, despite this year.

I'm a Nate Dunlevy parrot, and am happy to summarize his material. Regarding DVOA, the year matters greatly. It IS the best starting point for evaluating a QB (and probably ending point - QBR is also good). However, ESPN was, as you suspected, giving crap analysis IMO simply because of Carr's age and situation. It's like the crap Manning-Luck comparisons. Their first 3 years were almost identical! Luck better overall first 3 years! Well, Manning's 1st year was an amazing outlier (his team wend 3-13). His second year, he was 2nd best in the league (DVOA; 13-3 record), and was best his 3rd year. Last year was Carr's first year, so his really bad DVOA isn't, IMO, a good indicator. Brady has also had a high to very high DVOA ranking from early on, before he had statistical success (a.k.a. volume metrics, as opposed to value [per play] metrics, like DVOA). Rivers has been a top 10 guy most of the time. Brees and Rodgers are generally top 5. Short version: you need the qualitative information (Randy Moss is the only identified Quarterback Maker, hence Culpepper's 39 TD season), and ESPN was pulling nonsense by using DVOA from a first-year player. I'm not sure what metrics are good with true positives, false positives, true negatives, etc., for a first-year player. Re Moncrief: Agreed. He yo-yo's between a very good free keeper (in my league -- better than Dez for a 1st, not as good as Nuk for a 2nd). I think I'd give the edge to Crabtree as a possession receiver (since he seems to have his head on straight right now). Teams seem to know to cover Moncrief in the end zone now, whereas Carr has two weapons with height. For the same price, though...I'd give a slight edge to Luck (unless penalties for turnovers are substantial). He's running again, and 30 yards = 75 yards passing. The Colts aren't getting a pass rush any time soon, so their games should generally require more high scoring. Their remaining schedules should settle it (aside from draft, etc., in offseason). We'll see if Pagano is content to score under 30 in every game.

Oh, I definitely agree for this year. I have both, and I think if you have both, you have to carry both (at least through the Colts BYE...). I was just speaking to next year. Carr should still be improving (although DCs will have far more tape this offseason). Luck has some room left based on QB peaks (generally most of the way there year 4, with some more growth available year 5 and 6).

Depending on price settings (FAs cost essentially nothing in my league), I like WR2s with upside - Kelvin, Watkins, etc. Watkins seems hurt a lot, but he makes plays while hurt, and played through broken ribs last year. His ankle will probably be gimpy all year - no chance to heal, and he's tough. For RB, those named; particularly Langford and Rawls. Jones is a maybe - have him rostered. Time to let go of Latavius (as a keeper)? I can keep again for a 21st, but hard to look away from Kelvin, Watkins, Carr, maybe even Jones (depending on how year plays out, though Jones seems unlikely to be better). Seems like his ceiling isn't too far above his (decent) floor. His vulnerability to head-hunting is also concerning (started him against KC last year, and man...that was a nasty hit - hopefully he learns to protect himself).

Have to watch Luck coming out of the BYE (will be fully healthy, and Hilton should hopefully be pretty much there). That said: 1.Skill players: -Oak has a better pedigree for the WR 1. I love Hilton, and he will fight for the ball (anyone see him intercept DRC's interception in the end zone last year? DRC got the pick clean, hands on it and pulled in, and TY wrestled it from him in the air before they hit the ground), but Coop may have a higher ceiling. -Oak has a better possession WR at the moment. -Oak wins all other pass-catching comparisons. -Colds have a solid OL, but OAK's is better. -Oak has better RBs except in pass pro. 2. Coaching Does anyone think Jack Del Rio is good? More to the point, I don't even know who the OC is for OAK. However, despite Pagano's growth this year re: game strategy, we saw yesterday that he's terrible with a lead - were it not for the pass calls at the end of the game, I'd call it John Fox stupid even (not trying to score before the end of the half? That's John Fox all over - why miss a chance to punt! Up 17, Pagano agrees!). Run game was good in first quarter, then they stuck with it, and it sucked (even excluding last drive), but...they stuck with it. A few Denver players gave the game away at the end, but Pagano tried coaching it away. He still believes in running the football just "because." If the situation in OAK is any better, then that has to factor in Carr's favor. 3. QB Going into the game, Carr was 4th in DVOA (27%? something like that), 4th in DYAR, and 12th in QBR. Last year, Luck was 11th in DVOA (9.2%) - by far his best ranking. 4. Value: If Carr costs less in the draft, that may ice it by itself.

This thread (since it has gone off-topic) = confirmation bias and general acceptance of media-generated narratives. Many of the concepts themselves have been debunked as unreliable in most circumstances. It sounds like you don't understand how fluky NFL games, and playoffs, are. I agree that this is the best example of "Romo clearly committed a stupid, shouldn't happen mistake that would have changed the game had he not made it," and yet it's still not nearly enough to begin to support a "Romo doesn't win big games" narrative, or even "2007 is Romo's fault" narrative. The best argument anyone has made that "Romo won't win a SB" is his age, and this is very likely correct, simply because the base rate of any specific top 10 QB winning a SB within any, say, 3-year period, is very low. You get very few chances, and they are mostly clouded by statistical noise. NFL playoffs are a crapshoot. The best teams do not have a dominant chance of making it, let alone winning it, in any given year. This is the big sales pitch of the NFL.