Does Fantasy Football dictate how we judge players?

[RP-29]

Eli can throw some really bad picks at times...that would be my reason for taking Ben...not as prone to throw the real bad pick.

My point on the elite QB topic has always been...(if Brees is still considered elite), there are 3 guys right now with Manning no longer playing at his normal high level...it's not really a slight to say a QB is not elite.

I agree. There are a multitude of ways to breakdown elites and QB tiers. My perspective is pretty simple... If you're a lock first ballot Hall of Famer, you're elite. If there's a reasonable chance you could see the Hall of Fame, you're second tier.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I agree. There are a multitude of ways to breakdown elites and QB tiers. My perspective is pretty simple... If you're a lock first ballot Hall of Famer, you're elite. If there's a reasonable chance you could see the Hall of Fame, you're second tier.

See...I think both Ben and Eli are lock HOFers...just not sure if they are 1st ballot guys...if either gets #3 they will be 1st ballot.

When you look at HOF QB numbers...Rodgers imo is the best QB of this era, no question elite, but both of those guys probably line up as good as he does right now.

 

[Thruthefog]

This is false as well. Aaron Rodgers has put up some godly numbers, Barry Sanders put up godly numbers, Wayne Gretzky put up godly numbers, and Michael Jordan put up godly numbers. The numbers are/were an accurate representation of their abilities as players.

Matt Millen wasn't an NFL linebacker? Just joking.

Let's take Barry Sanders. I won't argue that he wasn't an unbelievably talented rusher. He could do things no one has done, before or since. He really had the 'wow' factor. But he wasn't the kind of RB that will win you a championship. Those are the Riggins and the Csonkas. Barry put the Lions at 2nd and 11 too many times in a game. Easier keeping drives alive at 2nd and 5. Now Barry took over games at times, but against good defenses, 2nd and 11. Riggins? Csonka? The Bus? Didn't matter who they played. 2nd and 5. That's football. Not rushing yards.

 

[Dude]

This is false as well. Aaron Rodgers has put up some godly numbers, Barry Sanders put up godly numbers, Wayne Gretzky put up godly numbers, and Michael Jordan put up godly numbers. The numbers are/were an accurate representation of their abilities as players.

Fair enough ... but, the key phrase is "how we judge players." In that context, FF stats is only one component of our judgement, at least to me it is. For example, Rivers has great stats thus is a good player. However, one could judge that he has not been able to get over the hump, so to speak.

 

[Dude]

Fair enough ... but, the key phrase is "how we judge players." In that context, FF stats is only one component of our judgement, at least to me it is. For example, Rivers has great stats thus is a good player. However, one could judge that he has not been able to get over the hump, so to speak.

"judge this" sorry couldn't help but making fun of my post.

 

[PatsFan2003]

A couple of things without having read every comment:

1) Stats are the numerical documentation and recording of a player's on field performance. If you're ignoring the stats because you think they're just numbers, then you're ignoring football. Box scores have been kept for every sport far prior to the advent of fantasy leagues as a means of recapping the game and giving fans a way of keeping track of how well players are performing. They're not just numbers. Whether it's football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, the guys who are consistently among the league leaders in multiple statistical categories are typically its best players.

2) "Eyeball tests" are unreliable, skewed by bias, and highly incomplete. A perfect example of this is when my Steelers got Tebowed by the Broncos in the 2011 playoffs. I watched the game with my father and stepmom, and my stepmom, who knows nothing about football, made the comment afterwards that "This Tim Tebow is a really good quarterback!". The eyes lie. If you only ever see a player have a great game, you think he's great even if he sucks. Likewise, if you only ever see a great player have a bad game, or even multiple bad games, you have a distorted perception of him not being all that great. Don't trust your eyes; trust the stats. They're objective, unbiased, and document all games for a career.

3) Fantasy football/fantasy sports in general don't focus on the complete statistical picture. If you're evaluating players based on their fantasy rankings, then you're not really paying attention to the stats either.

4) Wins and losses/Playoff & Super Bowl wins and losses. Both are a team effort, not a quarterback stat. A quarterback with a bunch of wins but average stats is still an average quarterback and not better than a quarterback with terrific numbers but a bunch of losses. Joe Flacco isn't a better quarterback than Drew Brees. Likewise, Super Bowl wins don't make one quarterback better than another. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson aren't better quarterbacks than Dan Marino.

5) Eli Manning is an average quarterback. Don't be fooled by the two Super Bowl wins to his name - his career numbers (the full ones, not just yards and touchdowns, which are an incomplete look at what he's done for his career) are below the average of all active quarterbacks, he's lead the league in interceptions 3 times, has an atrocious career completion percentage, and has been a laughingstock at times. A Ben/Eli comparison is a terrible one. They're not even close to the same caliber of player. As for his career passing yards: Vinny Testaverde has more career passing yards than Joe Montana. Passing yards are a product of total attempts and total games played. They have very little to do with how good a quarterback actually is when not viewed in the context of the rest of his numbers.

This is gospel. Trust the stats. They're complete (if you know how to look at all of the data and not just cherry pick it), they're 100% accurate, they're objective, and they don't lie contrary to that misnomer. Players with good stats are good players, players with bad stats are bad players, and the players who consistently lead the league statistically are its best players whether the sport is basketball, football, baseball, or hockey. This is a universal maxim that applies to all sports.

I disagree. The stats are too easy to misinterpret, many don't measure what they claim to measure and there are so many that it's easy to misuse them. They are really just numbers that are trying to quantify something that's happening on the field. Sure they can be informative and can say a lot about the game of football but it's not the same as the game on the field and will never be.

It's like saying the 50 touchdown pass to a wide open receiver is the same as one where Odel Beckham plucks one out of the air for the same 50 yards.

 

[SteelerKing]

Matt Millen wasn't an NFL linebacker? Just joking.

Let's take Barry Sanders. I won't argue that he wasn't an unbelievably talented rusher. He could do things no one has done, before or since. He really had the 'wow' factor. But he wasn't the kind of RB that will win you a championship. Those are the Riggins and the Csonkas. Barry put the Lions at 2nd and 11 too many times in a game. Easier keeping drives alive at 2nd and 5. Now Barry took over games at times, but against good defenses, 2nd and 11. Riggins? Csonka? The Bus? Didn't matter who they played. 2nd and 5. That's football. Not rushing yards.

I disagree again. Barry Sanders wasn't a "championship RB" because he wasn't on a championship caliber team. You're committing another one of the logical fallacies I addressed in my novel from several pages back. Wins/playoff wins/championships are not a stat and are certainly not an individual accomplishment. Your statement is basically implying that if Barry was on the Cowboys back then, he would've single handedly screwed them out of some of their Super Bowl wins, and that's not a logical statement or conclusion.

I watched Barry every single week back then as I'm sure you did too, and for the reasons you gave. He was electrifying. In my opinion, he was the best pure runner I've ever seen (Walter Payton was the most complete and all around best I've ever seen). So while we both know that Barry had more runs resulting in a loss of yardage than any other RB in NFL history, the stats and the reality of his play (which are the same identical thing) show that he also averaged 5 yards per carry for his career. Guys like Bettis, Riggins, and Csonka didn't always run for positive yardage either and going for 3 yards and a cloud of dust on three consecutive runs < a run for -1 followed by a run for 11. Barry beat plenty of good defenses, and you know that. He didn't just go "2nd and 11" all the time against them or he never would've averaged 5 yards per carry for his career. He's one of only a handful of players in the history of the league to do that, so once again, the stats do capture ability. He's not the reason the Lions never won the Super Bowl though and it could be argued that he was the only reason they even made the playoffs.

 

[RP-29]

See...I think both Ben and Eli are lock HOFers...just not sure if they are 1st ballot guys...if either gets #3 they will be 1st ballot.

When you look at HOF QB numbers...Rodgers imo is the best QB of this era, no question elite, but both of those guys probably line up as good as he does right now.

I think both Ben and Eli are deeply entrenched in the HOF fringe. I agree, another ring would probably push them in, but not necessarily first ballot.

Neither Eli nor Ben has a league MVP on their resume. Neither guy has really been given serious consideration for one. That's not a big deal for other positions, but it is defining for elite QBs.

Both are slim on leading the league in any meaningful positive passing categories throughout their careers.

Both guys have been in the league 12 years and each only have 3 Pro Bowls on their resumes.

Awards like MVPs and Pro Bowls reflect excellence. Quantities of awards reflect consistent excellence. Consistent excellence leads to the Hall of Fame.

 

[Money]

I find it funny that given the choice between between Roethlisberger and Rivers, I would take Roethlisberger hands down while the stat pimp would want Rivers.

 

[SteelerKing]

Fair enough ... but, the key phrase is "how we judge players." In that context, FF stats is only one component of our judgement, at least to me it is. For example, Rivers has great stats thus is a good player. However, one could judge that he has not been able to get over the hump, so to speak.

I can agree with this, but that wasn't the argument or the statement that was originally made. We're going to judge players on a number of criteria that aren't solely restricted to the stats.

I disagree. The stats are too easy to misinterpret, many don't measure what they claim to measure and there are so many that it's easy to misuse them. They are really just numbers that are trying to quantify something that's happening on the field. Sure they can be informative and can say a lot about the game of football but it's not the same as the game on the field and will never be.

It's like saying the 50 touchdown pass to a wide open receiver is the same as one where Odel Beckham plucks one out of the air for the same 50 yards.

I think you missed a lot of my points. People's inability to correctly or accurately interpret the numbers as well as misuse them doesn't make them any less valid. That's a failure on the part of the individual, not the numbers. "They are really just numbers that are trying to quantify something that's happening on the field" - that's exactly what they are. And like with anything else that is represented mathematically, it's factual and objective. In a post somewhere below the one you quoted, I acknowledged that the only thing the stats don't do is capture the details of the play (ie, how pretty the pass, the catch, the run, etc was) so while it's a true statement that there's a difference between a routine reception for 50 yards and Odell Beckham's spectacular grab, they both still go down in the record books as 50 yard receptions credited to that player.

So again, and all in all, trust the stats. They won't give you the full descriptive details of each and every play, but they are an accurate summary of a player's game, season, or career and certainly tell you which players are performing well, which ones are playing poorly, and can be used to help you identify which player is better than another. Remember, too, that one spectacular grab by Odell Beckham doesn't make him better than the WRs who have consistently outperformed him. That's where a little bit of understanding of the stats helps to balance out perspectives and opinions that are skewed by perception.

 

[Clayton]

(1) Guys who poo poo fantasy football are usually more knowledgeable than most of their FF playing counterparts. However, they poo poo it because more knowledge doesn't always translate to winning (because of the luck factor), and their egos can't take it.

The major luck variable in fantasy football...and real football is injuries.

 

[Money]

I can agree with this, but that wasn't the argument or the statement that was originally made. We're going to judge players on a number of criteria that aren't solely restricted to the stats.

It's actually the thread topic numbnuts.

The amount of stupid in your posts is astounding.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

LMAO

All the Bullshits are making me laugh

 

[SteelerKing]

It's actually the thread topic numbnuts.

The amount of stupid in your posts is astounding.

You are a fucking faggot, dude, honestly. It is the title of the thread, but it is not a part of the response in the discussion within it. I'm replying within the context of the individual responses. You're not on my level of intellect, as you have consistently proven, and you're not on my level of football knowledge, as you have also consistenty proven. Your only contributions to a debate are insults when you're losing it and have no rebuttal.

 

[SteelerKing]

LMAO

All the Bullshits are making me laugh

Yeah and now this immature little bitch made cocksucker is going back through the thread and dropping shit piles on all of mine. Dude is a fucking faggot.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I think both Ben and Eli are deeply entrenched in the HOF fringe. I agree, another ring would probably push them in, but not necessarily first ballot.

Neither Eli nor Ben has a league MVP on their resume. Neither guy has really been given serious consideration for one. That's not a big deal for other positions, but it is defining for elite QBs.

Both are slim on leading the league in any meaningful positive passing categories throughout their careers.

Both guys have been in the league 12 years and each only have 3 Pro Bowls on their resumes.

Awards like MVPs and Pro Bowls reflect excellence. Quantities of awards reflect consistent excellence. Consistent excellence leads to the Hall of Fame.

Fair assessment.

I really don't know how the NFL HOF voters rank their criteria...Neither Ben nor Eli have ever been considered the absolute best at their position in any given season...MVP, etc. I think would be a lot more important to them being 1st ballot, or the extra notch they might need if they didn't have 2 rings.

I think both guys have 2 to 3 more seasons left at the current level...taking the low number...they both with be close 50k yd passes with 2 rings...I think they get in on the cumulative.

 

[Dude]

I find it funny that given the choice between between Roethlisberger and Rivers, I would take Roethlisberger hands down while the stat pimp would want Rivers.

I'm sure many teams would immediately take either QB, they are among the really solid players in the league right now. As a team, Steelers are obviously much more inspired, they came back to beat Oakland, which is nothing to scoff about this season, ... without Ben. Rivers is just putting up big numbers and not leading/willing the team to victory.

 

[SteelerKing]

If brains were gasoline, Money, yours wouldn't be enough to fuel a pissant's go cart around the inside of a cheerio. In my time on this site, I have seen nothing from you but a mind boggling level of idiocy, a level of reading comprehension that is surpassed by an aborted first trimester fetus, and a level of football knowledge that couldn't compete with the hosts on The View. You want to stoop to repeated personal attacks? You're not on my level there either, fuckstick. I was willing to let it go, but enough is enough, especially after your vaginal hemorrhage of going back through the thread to successively shit pile every single one of my posts in a matter of seconds. Keep bringing it if this is the route you want an otherwise sensible debate to go. You have no interest in reading comprehension, football knowledge, or logic of any kind, so we'll do the insult routine. Your turn, motherfucker.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I can agree with this, but that wasn't the argument or the statement that was originally made. We're going to judge players on a number of criteria that aren't solely restricted to the stats.



I think you missed a lot of my points. People's inability to correctly or accurately interpret the numbers as well as misuse them doesn't make them any less valid. That's a failure on the part of the individual, not the numbers. "They are really just numbers that are trying to quantify something that's happening on the field" - that's exactly what they are. And like with anything else that is represented mathematically, it's factual and objective. In a post somewhere below the one you quoted, I acknowledged that the only thing the stats don't do is capture the details of the play (ie, how pretty the pass, the catch, the run, etc was) so while it's a true statement that there's a difference between a routine reception for 50 yards and Odell Beckham's spectacular grab, they both still go down in the record books as 50 yard receptions credited to that player.

So again, and all in all, trust the stats. They won't give you the full descriptive details of each and every play, but they are an accurate summary of a player's game, season, or career and certainly tell you which players are performing well, which ones are playing poorly, and can be used to help you identify which player is better than another. Remember, too, that one spectacular grab by Odell Beckham doesn't make him better than the WRs who have consistently outperformed him. That's where a little bit of understanding of the stats helps to balance out perspectives and opinions that are skewed by perception.

Stats do create something to measure, but because football is such a team, system oriented game that you can't always use stats as the be all, cure all. We've seen cases where a player is performing great on one team and goes to another team as a FA and doesn't have the same success...or vice versa...same player...his stats should follow, right? Note Sanders...WR that left PIT for DEN...he's way better than I expected based on what he did in PIT...even his last yr when he got a chance to start.

Stats are the best measurement in sports, but I think it's a little dangerous to put too much weight into them without seeing the games. If you say player A is better than player B because his stats are better and you didn't see the games, or how he fits what you do...you could end up like JAX...signing players based on stats...see Julius Thomas...he looked damn good in DEN...not so good in JAX.

 

[Dude]

Stats are the best measurement in sports, but I think it's a little dangerous to put too much weight into them without seeing the games. If you say player A is better than player B because his stats are better and you didn't see the games, or how he fits what you do...you could end up like JAX...signing players based on stats...see Julius Thomas...he looked damn good in DEN...not so good in JAX.