Dynasty League Football Forum

AussieMate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:41 pm This is very interesting because generally the arguments I remember reading were from film grinders saying "did you watch his games" to people complaining about his production. So it may not have been either side arguing fully against him but the middle ground of people who box score watch, the "film grinders" were saying that his o-line was terrible and thats why his box score looked bad which is a defence not a knock. The raw argument I thought was legitimate but wasn't seen as a knock on him more that he had higher potential then shown if you were willing to wait half a season for him to adjust etc.

I know people on here love the whole analytics vs film grinder debate and enjoy vilifying either side as much as they can but this just seems like people picking one or two statements by individuals and equating them to the whole forum.

I’m sure there were people on both sides that liked and disliked Akers... but his haters were definitely skewed towards film grinders... I mean, what the hell were analytics people complaining about? True freshman breakout, focal point of the offense, #1 highschool recruit, size/speed specimen, 3 down skillsets, 2nd round draft capital, and prototypical size...

I do vaguely remember the ypc argument, but I doubt anyone that tried to argue such a low sample size dataset was an impactful and predictive metric were actually data driven drafters

Sriracha wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:54 pm

AussieMate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:41 pm This is very interesting because generally the arguments I remember reading were from film grinders saying "did you watch his games" to people complaining about his production. So it may not have been either side arguing fully against him but the middle ground of people who box score watch, the "film grinders" were saying that his o-line was terrible and thats why his box score looked bad which is a defence not a knock. The raw argument I thought was legitimate but wasn't seen as a knock on him more that he had higher potential then shown if you were willing to wait half a season for him to adjust etc.

I know people on here love the whole analytics vs film grinder debate and enjoy vilifying either side as much as they can but this just seems like people picking one or two statements by individuals and equating them to the whole forum.

I’m sure there were people on both sides that liked and disliked Akers... but his haters were definitely skewed towards film grinders... I mean, what the hell were analytics people complaining about? True freshman breakout, focal point of the offense, #1 highschool recruit, size/speed specimen, 3 down skillsets, 2nd round draft capital, and prototypical size...

I do vaguely remember the ypc argument, but I doubt anyone that tried to argue such a low sample size dataset was an impactful and predictive metric were actually data driven drafters

My main point is people see and remember what they want to remember, film grinders remember people knocking their darlings because of production or other such data points and analytics people remember tape grinders picking apart a players game tape. I don't think its one way or the other, it seems like its just people wanted to be right against all the nay sayers so they recall all the idiots who thought differently. Just human nature really but it gets taken too far so often.

There were people claiming victory when it was rumoured that Jefferson was like 4th on the depth chart before the season started, victory laps taken by both Akers and Henderson supporters multiple times through the season as they switched around. I just don't feel like Akers was some huge win by either group.

Just to clarify when I say I use both I don't actually do any analytical work myself or tape grinding, I use the work of people far better at that stuff than myself. The only time I use my own opinion on tape grinding is to split 2 players I'm torn on and pick the guy I like watching since I'll be cheering them on throughout the season.
This is meant to be fun after all even if that lands me with guys like Reagor and Mixon...

AussieMate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:42 pm
My main point is people see and remember what they want to remember, film grinders remember people knocking their darlings because of production or other such data points and analytics people remember tape grinders picking apart a players game tape. I don't think its one way or the other, it seems like its just people wanted to be right against all the nay sayers so they recall all the idiots who thought differently. Just human nature really but it gets taken too far so often.

There were people claiming victory when it was rumoured that Jefferson was like 4th on the depth chart before the season started, victory laps taken by both Akers and Henderson supporters multiple times through the season as they switched around. I just don't feel like Akers was some huge win by either group.

The divisive picks (in my experience) were: Reagor, Akers, JT, Bryan Edwards (pushed up by analytics). Akers and JT were almost universally lauded for their combine/production profile. Reagor by and large was pushed up by data guys, but there were a few who were reticent because of his poorer than expected combine numbers. Ruggs, Jeudy, CEH, Aiyuk, Pittman were pushed up by film guys; but I do remember some film guys that were much higher on Jefferson than Jeudy because of a lack of physicality.

Cee Dee Lamb, Justin Jefferson, Swift, Dobbins were liked by everyone.

I actually am fairly confident I’m not misremembering things here and there are receipts on the internet if you care to look.

AussieMate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:41 pm This is very interesting because generally the arguments I remember reading were from film grinders saying "did you watch his games" to people complaining about his production. So it may not have been either side arguing fully against him but the middle ground of people who box score watch, the "film grinders" were saying that his o-line was terrible and thats why his box score looked bad which is a defence not a knock. The raw argument I thought was legitimate but wasn't seen as a knock on him more that he had higher potential then shown if you were willing to wait half a season for him to adjust etc.

I know people on here love the whole analytics vs film grinder debate and enjoy vilifying either side as much as they can but this just seems like people picking one or two statements by individuals and equating them to the whole forum.

I find it pretty silly so many are using "Film Grinder" and/or "Analytics" as somehow a negative based on some silly definition. These individuals really sound stupid when both are tools to determine future skill/production as these players develop.

While not directed as you, I agree with your take on whole notion of this concept. In the scouting world both film study and stats are tools to be used to help decide on players. Any serious dynasty player is scouting players or at the very least studying the scouting reports they can access.

I wasn't high on Akers like many but it is obvious he played solid a few weeks down the stretch and look excellent in the playoffs. He still looks in large part a product of the system but these days most RB's are just that. 14 receptions last year including the playoffs scream beware.

Anyone really think he will be better in the reception department than a Chubb or Henry type?

Ice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:44 pm Anyone really think he will be better in the reception department than a Chubb or Henry type?

I believe it's comical his receiving talent is even being compared to them

He was a productive receiver in college, has some of the best feet in this class when you adjust for his size, and soft hands in the receiving game.

Darrell Henderson had 6 targets as a rookie RB; there is a clear precedence for veterans on passing downs in McVay's backfield. Akers averaged a 16% snap share in the first half of the season and only got minimal work on passing downs his rookie year. His low reception total his rookie year is indicative of nothing, and there is no elite receiving back in this backfield that looks to bar him from targets.

I guess any time you're not prolific right out of the gates as a receiver there is the possibility you're never used as one.. but considering Derrick Henry has a career high of 31 targets, 19 receptions we can safely cross him off the list of comparables. Nick Chubb would be an interesting comp, but I don't think Chubb is that bad of a receiver -- he's just not the best receiving back on the team (Kareem Hunt)

Sriracha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:52 pm

Ice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:44 pm Anyone really think he will be better in the reception department than a Chubb or Henry type?

I believe it's comical his receiving talent is even being compared to them

He was a productive receiver in college, has some of the best feet in this class when you adjust for his size, and soft hands in the receiving game.

Darrell Henderson had 6 targets as a rookie RB; there is a clear precedence for veterans on passing downs in McVay's backfield. Akers averaged a 16% snap share in the first half of the season and only got minimal work on passing downs his rookie year. His low reception total his rookie year is indicative of nothing, and there is no elite receiving back in this backfield that looks to bar him from targets.

I guess any time you're not prolific right out of the gates as a receiver there is the possibility you're never used as one.. but considering Derrick Henry has a career high of 31 targets, 19 receptions we can safely cross him off the list of comparables. Nick Chubb would be an interesting comp, but I don't think Chubb is that bad of a receiver -- he's just not the best receiving back on the team (Kareem Hunt)

Never said he couldn't catch, was a bad receiver, or compared their receiving talent at all. What is comical is that is how you took it. Re Read what you quoted please.

My question was all about volume.

Look at the Scheme;
Scheme wise
Brown 23 receptions
Henderson 16 reception
Akers 11 receptions

Ice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:13 pm

Sriracha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:52 pm

Ice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:44 pm Anyone really think he will be better in the reception department than a Chubb or Henry type?

I believe it's comical his receiving talent is even being compared to them

He was a productive receiver in college, has some of the best feet in this class when you adjust for his size, and soft hands in the receiving game.

Darrell Henderson had 6 targets as a rookie RB; there is a clear precedence for veterans on passing downs in McVay's backfield. Akers averaged a 16% snap share in the first half of the season and only got minimal work on passing downs his rookie year. His low reception total his rookie year is indicative of nothing, and there is no elite receiving back in this backfield that looks to bar him from targets.

I guess any time you're not prolific right out of the gates as a receiver there is the possibility you're never used as one.. but considering Derrick Henry has a career high of 31 targets, 19 receptions we can safely cross him off the list of comparables. Nick Chubb would be an interesting comp, but I don't think Chubb is that bad of a receiver -- he's just not the best receiving back on the team (Kareem Hunt)

Never said he couldn't catch, was a bad receiver, or compared their receiving talent at all. What is comical is that is how you took it. Re Read what you quoted please.

My question was all about volume.

Look at the Scheme;
Scheme wise
Brown 23 receptions
Henderson 16 reception
Akers 11 receptions

Yes Henry had more receptions last year than Henderson and Akers combined which I already knew which is exactly why used his name as a high carry low reception scheme back.

Henry had 19 receptions last year... 19 < 27, no?

Todd Gurley had 87, 81, 49 targets with McVay.

I do not believe that McVay is opposed to throwing to the RBs, at all. The low receptions total is representative of a lack of receiving talent in the backfield (which is something neither Brown nor Henderson have shown a penchant for in college, or the pros) and an unwillingness to put a 21 year old rookie RB out there in pass protection.

Matthew Stafford has historically targeted his RBs out of the backfield a lot, as well.

An interesting stat for Akers (if you don't believe in his route running potential): He had the highest ADoT of any RB in the NFL last year with over 10 receptions (4.93)

Sriracha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:18 pm

Ice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:13 pm

Sriracha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:52 pm

I believe it's comical his receiving talent is even being compared to them

He was a productive receiver in college, has some of the best feet in this class when you adjust for his size, and soft hands in the receiving game.

Darrell Henderson had 6 targets as a rookie RB; there is a clear precedence for veterans on passing downs in McVay's backfield. Akers averaged a 16% snap share in the first half of the season and only got minimal work on passing downs his rookie year. His low reception total his rookie year is indicative of nothing, and there is no elite receiving back in this backfield that looks to bar him from targets.

I guess any time you're not prolific right out of the gates as a receiver there is the possibility you're never used as one.. but considering Derrick Henry has a career high of 31 targets, 19 receptions we can safely cross him off the list of comparables. Nick Chubb would be an interesting comp, but I don't think Chubb is that bad of a receiver -- he's just not the best receiving back on the team (Kareem Hunt)

Never said he couldn't catch, was a bad receiver, or compared their receiving talent at all. What is comical is that is how you took it. Re Read what you quoted please.

My question was all about volume.

Look at the Scheme;
Scheme wise
Brown 23 receptions
Henderson 16 reception
Akers 11 receptions

Yes Henry had more receptions last year than Henderson and Akers combined which I already knew which is exactly why used his name as a high carry low reception scheme back.

Henry had 19 receptions last year... 19 < 27, no?

Todd Gurley had 87, 81, 49 targets with McVay.

I do not believe that McVay is opposed to throwing to the RBs, at all. The low receptions total is representative of a lack of receiving talent in the backfield (which is something neither Brown nor Henderson have shown a penchant for in college, or the pros).

Matthew Stafford has historically targeted his RBs out of the backfield a lot, as well.

Yes I meant targets vs receptions but that's minutia in the actual question which is why I deleted it prior to your post.

I take it you think Akers will catch like Gurly and even though they just signed a QB that pushes the ball down the field, Akers will turn into a dominate pass catcher. That at least answers my question. Thanks.

I don't agree as I see more of a pounder type style but you could be right; I know I won't buy him as a ppr threat as the game is changing and the Rams system and weapons don't seem to include the RB's as primary passing targets very often. Last season they had 550 plus passing attempts.

My hope is around the 35-55 catches, I don't think that is insane based on how well he caught the ball in college and at the combine but yes I would have liked to have seen it more in his rookie year.

AussieMate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:32 pm My hope is around the 35-55 catches, I don't think that is insane based on how well he caught the ball in college and at the combine but yes I would have liked to have seen it more in his rookie year.

The problem is those receptions will come at the expense of carries most likely. When one looks at his last 6 games it is pretty obvious his utilization was as I intimated earlier closer to Chubb or Henry.

My point was spending money to acquire based on Hope may be a risky proposition. Seems to me a Brown type or better may be the real Ppr back going forward.

Doesn't mean Akers is bad just that getting into legit RB1 status does pose a legit risk given only 12 RB's in the NFL averaged over 90 total yards per game average and 8 of those had 30 plus receptions per year or averaged higher than that number.

Ice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:02 pm

AussieMate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:32 pm My hope is around the 35-55 catches, I don't think that is insane based on how well he caught the ball in college and at the combine but yes I would have liked to have seen it more in his rookie year.

The problem is those receptions will come at the expense of carries most likely. When one looks at his last 6 games it is pretty obvious his utilization was as I intimated earlier closer to Chubb or Henry.

My point was spending money to acquire based on Hope may be a risky proposition. Seems to me a Brown type or better may be the real Ppr back going forward.

Doesn't mean Akers is bad just that getting into legit RB1 status does pose a legit risk given only 12 RB's in the NFL averaged over 90 total yards per game average and 8 of those had 30 plus receptions per year or averaged higher than that number.

I'm not looking to obtain I already do, I'm ok with him getting more catches in lieu of carries. I'm not expecting him to become a ppr monster, just to get enough catches to boost him out of Henry Chubb territory. I trust McVay will utilise Akers at his strengths and that it was just the rookie factor combined with the shorter offseason as to why he wasn't used more there, I'm happy to run on hope in this.

AussieMate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:41 pm This is very interesting because generally the arguments I remember reading were from film grinders saying "did you watch his games" to people complaining about his production. So it may not have been either side arguing fully against him but the middle ground of people who box score watch, the "film grinders" were saying that his o-line was terrible and thats why his box score looked bad which is a defence not a knock. The raw argument I thought was legitimate but wasn't seen as a knock on him more that he had higher potential then shown if you were willing to wait half a season for him to adjust etc.

I know people on here love the whole analytics vs film grinder debate and enjoy vilifying either side as much as they can but this just seems like people picking one or two statements by individuals and equating them to the whole forum.

Maybe it was both. I just distinctly remember two lines of criticism:

*Rawness/Upright running and associated film grinder b.s. using tagged w/a reference to him being a QB in high school.

*Raw # production criticism, which either side might take, though I generally think analytics people look a bit more under the hood (how did they do at age 18/19, the old GBYPC from a decade ago w/new angles thrown on etc so we're not just looking at the production but also the why details of the blocking.

Could be wrong, that's just what I remember. I watched him, thought he was very athletic, explosive, a 3 down potential option, inexperienced in terms of years doing the gig, but also had top 10 potential. Problem was, he always went 1.05 in nearly all my drafts and I never had the 1.05 (I did see him go 1.02 twice), so I only ended up with 3 shares, before acquiring him w/2 via trades (actually one of the two trades was in a draft at I think 1.07 or 1.08, superflex).

Anyway, not surprised in the least that he's a stud. Will be hilarious if Tamorian (spelling?) Terry pulls the exact same Dalvin Cook/Cam Akers/FSU WR undervalued, vaults way up in value maneuvers. Terry should be going way higher than he seems likely too.

McVay fluffin the pillow

Clicked thinking it was a new thread discussing Akers’ startup ADP.