Axe Elf Hits the Mark Again!

[Axe Elf 0]

Through the first three weeks, the three most disappointing top tier RBs in the league were Arian Foster, Chris Johnson, and Frank Gore. Among the three of them, they had accumulated just 279 yards rushing and 1 TD. That's an average of only 3.77 fantasy points per game, per player.

 

And Axe Elf said, "Let there be points!" And there were points, and they were good.

 

In Week 4, Foster, Johnson and Gore--all proclaimed Sleepers by the sharpest fantasy football mind on the planet--burst out of their collective shells for a cumulative total of 383 rushing yards and 2 TDs! As if at Axe Elf's command, these three underachievers answered his call to post more points in one week than their combined 3-game totals thus far, and averaged 16.77 points each!

 

And that was only the tip of the iceberg. In a week that was engineered to be my worst showing of the season, I axually posted a season-high 67% hit rate! Since my accuracy just keeps getting better and better, I'm introducing a new scoring category this week. My hits and misses are calculated to be within a reasonable tolerance, as usual, but I'm also going to start calling all of my predictions that come within one fantasy point of the player's performance a BULLSEYE! As you will see, my BULLSEYE! rate was also higher this week than it has been in any other week. Let's keep score, shall we?

 

 

QBs

 

Sleepers

 

Jason Campbell

344/1; a little short of my TD expectations, but a good sleeper call nonetheless.

 

Matt Cassel

260/1; see Jason Campbell, but closer on the yardage (15 yards off). Thanx to Axe Elf's vote of confidence, Cassel put up his best game of the year (and Bowe did, in fact, catch the TD).

 

Kyle Orton

273/3 would have exceeded my expectations if not for the 3 INTs. Still, 3 fantasy points away from my call isn't bad, and in some scoring systems (-1 INTs), this would be a BULLSEYE!

 

Donovan McNabb

I was right about his fantasy points going up again this week, but I was wrong about the amount of the increase; I'll call it a push.

 

 

Stinkers

 

Ben Roethlisberger

I was too generous with my 225/0/1--by exactly 19 yards. Ben posts 206/0/1. BULLSEYE!

 

Matt Hasselbeck

220 is darn close to the 225 I called for him. I also called the INT. He got an extra TD on the fluke score to Cook, but we can't let one play ruin an otherwise spot-on analysis--and he would have only had 140 yards if not for that 80-yarder. This one's a push too.

 

Sam Bradford

I feel bad about being off by 36 yards--mainly 'cause I can't call it a BULLSEYE!--but at least I was off on the high side, so it's still a hit. I said 200/1; Bradford got 164/1. I said Bradford would not throw an interception; Bradford did not throw an interception. I said the TD would go to Steven Jackson; the TD went to Steven Jackson. Amen.

 

 

RBs

 

Sleepers

 

LeGarrette Blount

I was looking for 120/2; if he wasn't wearing Freeman's jersey on his first TD, he would have been credited with 127/2, and I would have had another BULLSEYE!

 

Arian Foster

I called 115/2, he posted 166/1. BULLSEYE!

 

Chris Johnson

Did you need him to have his best game of the year this week? Thank Axe Elf for calling it--within 13 yards (125 called, 112 achieved).

 

Frank Gore

Always go with your first instinct. I had him down for 120/1, then second-guessed myself back to 110/1. Gore had 127/1; coulda been another BULLSEYE!

 

 

Stinkers

 

Jahvid Best

"Lowest combined yardage total of his season (75 yards, no TD)." Missed it by five yards (BULLSEYE!).

 

Fred Jackson

You don't get analysis like this anywhere else: "Fred Jackson has been enjoying 6.4 yards per carry on the season, against the Chiefs, Raiders, and New England. He faces a defense that has been allowing 3.3 yards per carry on the season, to backs like Peyton Hillis and Frank Gore. Something's gotta give, and I think it will be Fred's average that suffers the most. If his touches remain approximately constant, even 4 yards per carry will put him around 70 yards rushing, and Spiller vultures the score." Sometimes I even amaze myself. Jackson averaged 3.9 yards per carry for 66 yards rushing. (Woulda been a BULLSEYE! but Spiller did not vulture the score.)

 

Shonn Greene

23/0; I was off by 22 yards. After going over 100 last week, many thought he would be a good start this week--many who didn't listen to Axe Elf, that is.

 

Thomas Jones

As I stated, there was no upside to starting him. He managed about 23 yards less than I expected. Parenthetically, I hope this ends the "McCluster is a good flex play" nonsense, too. If he couldn't manage more than 6.8 points--and we're talking PPR scoring here (3.8 points standard)--against the Vikings, of all people, he's not going to be much better against the teams upcoming on his schedule (like San Diego, Denver, Pittsburgh, Chicago, the Jets, and Green Bay).

 

 

WRs

 

Sleepers

 

Michael Jenkins

"Don't be surprised if he hauls in 8 receptions for 110 yards and a score this week." I suppose if you looked at his stat line really quickly (1/1.0/1) you might think I was right on the nose--but I can't take credit for this one.

 

Pierre Garcon

Expect 7 catches for 90 yards and a score? Boy howdy. Try 2/146/2.

 

 

Stinkers

 

Jeremy Maclin

He got two more catches than I expected, but only four more yards--and no score as called--pretty much a BULLSEYE! in non-PPR scoring. It was indeed DeSean Jackson's turn, as Axe Elf predicted.

 

Brandon Marshall

"I'll allow him 6 catches for 65 yards." He slightly underperformed me; 5/52--and as expected, no pay dirt. A BULLSEYE! in non-PPR, non-fractional scoring,

 

Mike Wallace

"Wallace is due for the obligatory substandard stinker--4 catches for 70 yards, no TD." My yardage was off by 7 yards; everything else was perfect. BULLSEYE!

 

Nate Washington

"Look for something like 4/60/0." 2/62/0 is close--another non-PPR BULLSEYE!

 

Torrey Smith

He got the same stat line as Michael Jenkins--without the TD (1 catch, 1 yard)--even worse than the 2/20 I expected. I'll tell you what, though, if he HAD two or three catches, he'd have 80 or 90 yards and a good chance at that TD, 'cause Flacco took his shots for the guy downfield at least four or five times. Torrey won't be a reliable fantasy starter, but if you need a "swing for the fences" bye week filler, you could do worse--because he's going to have a few more monster weeks against weaker secondaries than the Jets If they keep using him to stretch the field like they did last night. Good luck figuring out which weeks those will be.

 

 

TEs

 

Sleepers

 

Benjamin Watson

"Play him this week for 4 catches, 55 yards, and a score." I was 2 short on the catches, 7 long on the yards, and exact on the score--a non-PPR BULLSEYE!

 

Visanthe Shiancoe

I had him down for 12.5 points; he got 11.8. BULLSEYE!

 

Kevin Boss

By the same token, I had him down for 11.2 points; he got 11.8. BULLSEYE!

 

 

Stinkers

 

Jermichael Finley

"Look for 5/50/0 out of Finley this week." Not even; 3/28/0.

 

Dustin Keller

"I would say about 4 catches and 50 scoreless yards for Keller in this one." Not even; 2/12/0.

 

Todd Heap

"Maybe 4 catches for 45 yards." 4/41/0--BULLSEYE!

 

Jared Cook

"Cook remains a 2/20/0 stinker." Well, he had two catches all right, and the first was for 13 yards, but that second one went for a little more yardage than expected.

 

 

I hit on 29 out of 43 predictions, for a 67% hit rate, bringing my season total to 91 out of 142, for an overall 64% average. If that's not impressive enough, note that 12 of the 39 predictions where I gave figures (41% of my hits, and 31% of all my calls) were BULLSEYES!--within a tolerance range of 1 fantasy point!

 

I went back through the rest of the season, and found that my BULLSEYE! rate for the season is 33% of my hits (30 of 91), and 24% of all my measurable predictions overall (30 of 124). So forget the coin-flipping monkeys, over all the predictions I make, two out of three will be reliably correct--but about one in four are going to be within 1 point of perfect!

 

With this kind of ability to dictate what happens on the gridiron, you'd think Axe Elf works at Buffalo Wild Wings.

[Bui 1]

How come this prophetic knowledge was not used to net you a higher finish than 10th place in the "Axe Elf Challenge"?

[Dsausage 36]

How come this prophetic knowledge was not used to net you a higher finish than 10th place in the "Axe Elf Challenge"?

LOL

 

 

Seriously though, nice calls. You have my attention.

[cavern 70]

yeah - great call on hasselbeck as a stinker. glad you get credit for that one. thank goodness i didn't have his measley 3 td's in my lineup.

 

ok, ok, this is all a joke anyways. i get it

[We Tigers 71]

I posted in your other thread that you should establish some objective standards if you don't want to be seen as a troll. Give yourself an objective measure to hit; Cassel put up 17 fantasy points, but you called him for 26. Hass had 22, and you called him for 14. I don't think 40-50% deltas from your expectations can reasonably be considered wins or pushes.

[Sho Nuff 720]

yeah - great call on hasselbeck as a stinker. glad you get credit for that one. thank goodness i didn't have his measley 3 td's in my lineup.

 

ok, ok, this is all a joke anyways. i get it

 

That and he called several first round picks sleepers.

It is all a joke.

Its been completely destroyed for the last 2 weeks.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I posted in your other thread that you should establish some objective standards if you don't want to be seen as a troll. Give yourself an objective measure to hit; Cassel put up 17 fantasy points, but you called him for 26. Hass had 22, and you called him for 14. I don't think 40-50% deltas from your expectations can reasonably be considered wins or pushes.

 

Thats the point though...he won't do that, because he is a troll.

[We Tigers 71]

Well, yeah, but I'm in a good mood this morning and giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'll come back after my morning meetings and probably call him a focktard.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Well, yeah, but I'm in a good mood this morning and giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'll come back after my morning meetings and probably call him a focktard.

Gave him...sort of...the benefit of the doubt the first week.

The attitude was there, but the picks were ok.

After that, it has just gone downhill.

Getting beat by a monkey...last week fudging as much as he could to give himself hits (eventhough he was under 50% last week).

This week taking Blount, Gore, Foster, and CJ as sleepers.

Bradford and Greene as stinkers.

Come on.

[nikki2200 4]

I was having fun ripping this tool at first, but now it's getting a little annoying. There are like 14 threads on the mange bored that have Axe Elf in the title started by himself. I'm kinda sick of seeing it.

[WhiteWonder 2,723]

I hope he takes an axe to his wrists

[SameSongNDance 0]

This ###### is getting kind of pathetic now isn't it? I skimmed your "Week 4 Sleepers & Stinkers" list real quick and it looked like complete rubbish to me. It's been made painfully clear that you don't really know any more than the average FF enthusiast. You've milked the joke for far too long, now you're just that annoying dude that has over stayed his welcome. Sad sad ######.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

I was having fun ripping this tool at first, but now it's getting a little annoying. There are like 14 threads on the mange bored that have Axe Elf in the title started by himself. I'm kinda sick of seeing it.

Yeah....if this stuff starts totally taking over the main board here, I think I'll bail. May need to permanently switch to FBG even though I wouldn't like it. Love the more free style here but sifting through the junk is getting to be too much.

[420allstars 13]

AGREED!! now how do we get rid of the A$$-monkey??

 

maybe petition to get him banned for all of our sake!!

[nikki2200 4]

AGREED!! now how do we get rid of the A$$-monkey??

 

maybe petition to get him banned for all of our sake!!

 

Maybe we can sic GFIAFP on him.

[Axe Elf 0]

I posted in your other thread that you should establish some objective standards if you don't want to be seen as a troll. Give yourself an objective measure to hit; Cassel put up 17 fantasy points, but you called him for 26. Hass had 22, and you called him for 14. I don't think 40-50% deltas from your expectations can reasonably be considered wins or pushes.

 

And from the "Sleepers & Stinkers" thread:

If you're going to maintain this for the whole year and not make it seem like a weekly fishing expedition, I'd suggest giving yourself some objective marks to hit, like Yahoo's flames/lames feature. Mike Thomas had a decent game (5/73) but didn't hit the 100+ and a score you suggested--is he a win or not? Or Cassel, who had a nice game at 260/1, but didn't get the second or third touchdown you expected?

 

Also, you probably shouldn't include fluff picks like Foster, Blount, Bradford, etc. You have some decent analysis/speculation in there, but Blount was universally ranked as a top RB this week. That's not a "sleeper."

 

 

Unlike most of the other "I can't be as good as Axe Elf, so I'll attack him" pouters, you axually raise some valid questions. In general, the short answer to suggestions about how I should write my column is that if you don't like how I'm doing it, do one yourself, the way you think it should be done. If you think you can do better, or just think there is a market for something different, then no one is stopping you from building a better mousetrap. However, since I like to reward curiosity and attention among my students, I will answer your questions and suggestions in a little greater detail, hoping that the rest of the class can benefit from your participation.

 

You suggest that I should establish objective standards. Isn't that what I have done this week with the BULLSEYE! scoring feature? If my projection is within one fantasy point of the player's axual performance--within ONE POINT--I get a BULLSEYE! So far on the season, one out of every four predictions I have made has been a BULLSEYE! That would be a pretty amazing figure even if someone were only predicting good players to do well and bad players to do poorly, but when you consider that most of my picks require a poor or marginal player to have a breakout week, or for a player who is doing well to have a substandard performance, scoring 24% BULLSEYE!s is just an incredible accomplishment.

 

That brings us to the second question--what constitutes a "sleeper" or a "stinker." In choosing my players, I'm looking at guys I expect to have a significant deviation--in one direction or another--from either their typical output, or from the general expectations of the fantasy football world. Of course, everyone has their own ideas of player values, so there will always be a certain amount of subjectivity involved. Some people object to listing a first round pick as a sleeper. But when someone like Chris Johnson or Frank Gore has had three straight weeks of disappointment, and then I call them to suddenly have a breakout game--especially in Gore's case, amid rumors of Kendall Hunter's ascension--and they do? Again, that's impressive, despite any quibbling over who I have chosen to include.

 

Foster's disappointment has largely been due to his injury, but he tried to come back in Week 2 after like four weeks of rest going back to preseason, played in like one series, and screwed over anyone who started him that week. I took a pretty big risk by calling him to have a huge game--not just a good game, but a HUGE game--after 2 weeks of rest. You can be certain that the more unruly students in my class would have heckled me for that pick if Foster had grabbed the back of his leg on the first series again--but somehow, I don't get to take credit for being right.

 

You mention Sam Bradford. Here's a guy who was kind of a draft darling, maybe not as a starter, but as a sneaky late backup pick--and every week, there are still questions about whether or not Bradford can be a fill-in starter. Hopefully calling him a stinker will avert some such disasters, but I think you're right in the sense that it is now getting to the point where Bradford as a stinker isn't news--but then, it's also getting to the point in his schedule where calling Bradford a sleeper would be a valid call.

 

For guys like Shonn Greene or Jared Cook being a stinker, it's not so much that they haven't stunk for much of the year so far, it's that after a big game (in the case of Greene, or Torrey Smith), or speculation of changes in the offense (in the case of Cook), many of their owners are hoping that they might become a good play in the upcoming week. If I think I can save someone from making an incorrect start by calling a "stinker" on their speculative sleeper, then that's a valid call too. And it's not entirely without its own risk; look what Cook did this week (even if it was all on one play, I can't legitimately call that stinker call a hit).

 

And that brings us to the question of how do I score hits and misses in general--when they don't meet the objective BULLSEYE! standard, anyway. Yes, there is some subjectivity to it, but I try to stick with the spirit of the original sleeper and stinker criteria that led me to choose them in the first place. If I call someone like Cassel, McNabb, Campbell or Tarvaris Jackson a sleeper, and they have their best outing of the season--or perhaps more importantly, they put up numbers that would be startable instead of benchable--then I'm not so concerned about calling the exact number of TDs or yards.

 

McNabb did in fact have his best outing of the season, but he was still five or six points below my expectations, so I called him a push. I called the yardage just about exactly for Hasselbeck--and it was a significant departure from his "expected yardage" based on the past three weeks--but he did come through with extra scores (it was only one play to Cook that kept him from having EXACTLY what I called for him), so I called him a push too. I try to avoid calling pushes as much as possible, but for both of those, there were enough aspects I got right--and enough aspects I got wrong--to argue against calling them either hits or misses.

 

Cassel was pretty questionable too, that's true, but his game was enough of a significant departure from his norm for me to call him a hit. If you disagree, ok, take him away and I'm at 63% on the season instead of 64%. Again, quibbling over a player or two here and there is to ignore the elephant in the room that is my overwhelming success--and accuracy--on an incredible percentage of my picks.

 

In general, I'm less concerned with hitting a TD call than I am the yardage--since the total yardage is usually more indicative of a player's performance that week. A goalline QB sneak (Freeman) or a power vulture back (MBush) is a fairly random factor that can't always be reliably predicted, but getting pretty close on the yardage is the earmark of a good call. So if I call 95/1 and the guy goes 110/0, I'm going to count that as a hit, especially if this guy hasn't gone over 60/0 on the season. In Mike Thomas' case, he did have a pretty good game, but I called quite a bit more yardage for him as well as the score, so I couldn't reasonably take credit for a hit there.

 

Well, I hope this lecture has helped you to understand a little more of the process that goes into making and scoring my picks. Those of you who were truly seeking understanding will say, "Thank you Axe, for that detailed explanation; I get it now"; while those of you who just want to whine will do so. You know who you are, and we do too. And if those of you who think you can do better will try, some of the complaining is sure to fade away.

 

One out of four predictions within one point is your standard; reach for it!

 

 

Axe Elf: Motivating generations of fantasy football students like a good teacher should.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I don't think the internet is big enough for your ego.

Just completely laughable...even worse that you keep defending your own ridiculousness.

Time to let it go man.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

I don't think the internet is big enough for your ego.

Just completely laughable...even worse that you keep defending your own ridiculousness.

Time to let it go man.

Honestly, why would he? He's peaking right now. This is the most attention he's ever gotten and once the act gets old and the attention goes away, he has nothing in life to look forward to again.

 

It's fine, if this is the route this board takes, I have no problem leaving. There are others. The problem with this for FFToday though is this could push away a lot of loyal followers....with money to spend. They leave and once they find another place they're comfortable with, they don't come back.

[jackjohn 31]

I really don't know why you guys let him bother you so much. I enjoy the read because he does give reasons why a player will under/over perform.

As far as the ego and sillyness, it doesn't bother me because I just skim over it. It's not like he is right in front of you talking trash. If he was coming on your threads and hijacking them, I could see a problem. But it is his own thread and you are the one that clicks on it. If you really want to have an impact, stop reading, or more importantly stop commenting. Every time you comment you bump his thread up.