Jonathan Taylor is your 1.01 now.

[Sriracha]

He still missed a few obvious reads that even I noticed as someone who knows nothing about runningback. They mentioned it on air that he missed a huge hole cutting back to the right...with his speed it he would have taken it to the house.

I think it'll come. He looked pretty solid today despite the bad game script and he continues to catch every ball thrown at him.

It's a lot easier to spot the hole from your living room...

I'd imagine even the best RBs miss more than a few openings a game.

[FantasyFreak]

He still missed a few obvious reads that even I noticed as someone who knows nothing about runningback. They mentioned it on air that he missed a huge hole cutting back to the right...with his speed it he would have taken it to the house.

I think it'll come. He looked pretty solid today despite the bad game script and he continues to catch every ball thrown at him.

I saw that one too, but I disagree after seeing that Ward had the cutback, on the replay. They asked the question if he missed it, as did I when I watched it, they didn't say for sure he did for sure. At first I saw it, I thought he did, but I think Ward had it covered with his 4.3 flat speed, on the back side.

[OhCruelestRanter]

He still missed a few obvious reads that even I noticed as someone who knows nothing about runningback. They mentioned it on air that he missed a huge hole cutting back to the right...with his speed it he would have taken it to the house.

I think it'll come. He looked pretty solid today despite the bad game script and he continues to catch every ball thrown at him.

It's a lot easier to spot the hole from your living room...

I'd imagine even the best RBs miss more than a few openings a game.

A great example of why this type of film analysis is not useful- it’s not quantified. You can breakdown a YouTube clip where Miles Sanders misses a hole, but you have no idea what that means regarding his vision unless you’re looking at every touch for every running back and charting how often they miss those holes.

You can do it with Taylor, and illustrate why he missed a hole, and you could be right! And that’s cool, but you’re not providing any information that’s actionable to FF players unless you’re doing for everybody and giving us information about the player relative to his peers. This is what I’m talking about when I’m ranting about film analysis.

[FantasyFreak]

He still missed a few obvious reads that even I noticed as someone who knows nothing about runningback. They mentioned it on air that he missed a huge hole cutting back to the right...with his speed it he would have taken it to the house.

I think it'll come. He looked pretty solid today despite the bad game script and he continues to catch every ball thrown at him.

It's a lot easier to spot the hole from your living room...

I'd imagine even the best RBs miss more than a few openings a game.

A great example of why this type of film analysis is not useful- it’s not quantified. You can breakdown a YouTube clip where Miles Sanders misses a hole, but you have no idea what that means regarding his vision unless you’re looking at every touch for every running back and charting how often they miss those holes.

You can do it with Taylor, and illustrate why he missed a hole, and you could be right! And that’s cool, but you’re not providing any information that’s actionable to FF players unless you’re doing for everybody and giving us information about the player relative to his peers. This is what I’m talking about when I’m ranting about film analysis.

I was actually going to mention this further, but figured you'd chime in. I don't totally discount film, NFL teams use it, it's necessary, but needs context. Just like when a QB "misses" a read. From the camera on the sidelines 20 rows up. Not from his position, with a 6ft 7 OL being pushed back into his face by a 6ft 3 DL, so he can't actually see that, or step into it to get it there anyways.

[OhCruelestRanter]

It's a lot easier to spot the hole from your living room...

I'd imagine even the best RBs miss more than a few openings a game.

A great example of why this type of film analysis is not useful- it’s not quantified. You can breakdown a YouTube clip where Miles Sanders misses a hole, but you have no idea what that means regarding his vision unless you’re looking at every touch for every running back and charting how often they miss those holes.

You can do it with Taylor, and illustrate why he missed a hole, and you could be right! And that’s cool, but you’re not providing any information that’s actionable to FF players unless you’re doing for everybody and giving us information about the player relative to his peers. This is what I’m talking about when I’m ranting about film analysis.

I was actually going to mention this further, but figured you'd chime in. I don't totally discount film, NFL teams use it, it's necessary, but needs context.

And I don’t either, even if it seems like it. Here’s my outline:

1. Film analysis is already heavily baked into NFL draft capital. So even the “analytics” folks aren’t discounting it.
2. There are plenty of people who watch film systematically and chart what they see. This can be useful, even if their rankings aren’t. Matt Harmon’s work is a great example.
3. For the average fantasy gamer to actually benefit from watching film, they need to practice and learn how to do it and then watch way, way, way more of it and chart what they’re seeing. That’s a ton of time, and at the end of it you’re unlikely to produce better information than somebody like Waldman, for whom this is a job.

TL;DR: the concept of watching film is valuable, but amateur film study is extremely unlikely to consistently provide tangible value and is only worth doing if it’s fun for you.

[FantasyFreak]

A great example of why this type of film analysis is not useful- it’s not quantified. You can breakdown a YouTube clip where Miles Sanders misses a hole, but you have no idea what that means regarding his vision unless you’re looking at every touch for every running back and charting how often they miss those holes.

You can do it with Taylor, and illustrate why he missed a hole, and you could be right! And that’s cool, but you’re not providing any information that’s actionable to FF players unless you’re doing for everybody and giving us information about the player relative to his peers. This is what I’m talking about when I’m ranting about film analysis.

I was actually going to mention this further, but figured you'd chime in. I don't totally discount film, NFL teams use it, it's necessary, but needs context.

And I don’t either, even if it seems like it. Here’s my outline:

1. Film analysis is already heavily baked into NFL draft capital. So even the “analytics” folks aren’t discounting it.
2. There are plenty of people who watch film systematically and chart what they see. This can be useful, even if their rankings aren’t. Matt Harmon’s work is a great example.
3. For the average fantasy gamer to actually benefit from watching film, they need to practice and learn how to do it and then watch way, way, way more of it and chart what they’re seeing. That’s a ton of time, and at the end of it you’re unlikely to produce better information than somebody like Waldman, for whom this is a job.

TL;DR: the concept of watching film is valuable, but amateur film study is extremely unlikely to consistently provide tangible value and is only worth doing if it’s fun for you.

For sure. Thanks for pointing it out. It may be "fun" in the sense you feel more pride when you get a player right, in Dynasty. Doesn't mean it's actually the best process to figure out how to put a roster together in this game we play, though. It's probably not, TBH.

[TheNuts]

I would trade Jeudy for Claypool in a hot minute

[gogobradyarm]

I would trade Jeudy for Claypool in a hot minute

Thats a massive overreaction my friend and totally unrelated to this thread.

[FantasyFreak]

I would trade Jeudy for Claypool in a hot minute

Thats a massive overreaction my friend and totally unrelated to this thread.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I would trade Jeudy for Claypool in a hot minute

[TheNuts]

I would trade Jeudy for Claypool in a hot minute

Thats a massive overreaction my friend and totally unrelated to this thread.

Got my threads mixed up. It's also not an overreaction because I had Claypool rated ahead of Jeudy anyway

[dynastyninja]

I would trade Jeudy for Claypool in a hot minute

Thats a massive overreaction my friend and totally unrelated to this thread.

Got my threads mixed up. It's also not an overreaction because I had Claypool rated ahead of Jeudy anyway

You're nuts Nuts

[Hottoddies]

A great example of why this type of film analysis is not useful- it’s not quantified. You can breakdown a YouTube clip where Miles Sanders misses a hole, but you have no idea what that means regarding his vision unless you’re looking at every touch for every running back and charting how often they miss those holes.

You can do it with Taylor, and illustrate why he missed a hole, and you could be right! And that’s cool, but you’re not providing any information that’s actionable to FF players unless you’re doing for everybody and giving us information about the player relative to his peers. This is what I’m talking about when I’m ranting about film analysis.

I was actually going to mention this further, but figured you'd chime in. I don't totally discount film, NFL teams use it, it's necessary, but needs context.

And I don’t either, even if it seems like it. Here’s my outline:

1. Film analysis is already heavily baked into NFL draft capital. So even the “analytics” folks aren’t discounting it.
2. There are plenty of people who watch film systematically and chart what they see. This can be useful, even if their rankings aren’t. Matt Harmon’s work is a great example.
3. For the average fantasy gamer to actually benefit from watching film, they need to practice and learn how to do it and then watch way, way, way more of it and chart what they’re seeing. That’s a ton of time, and at the end of it you’re unlikely to produce better information than somebody like Waldman, for whom this is a job.

TL;DR: the concept of watching film is valuable, but amateur film study is extremely unlikely to consistently provide tangible value and is only worth doing if it’s fun for you.

I think the biggest value of watching film is to contextualize the numbers. especially on the collegiate level, raw stats can be mostly useless without an understanding how they are achieved. Cam Akers' numbers looked really awful, but after a simple viewing of some FSU games and you could easily see that his OL wasn't doing him any favors. On the other hand, Taylor's numbers looked otherworldly, but watching the tape gives you a better understanding of why that was. And without watching the Alabama WRs play you might not have the proper context to understand the meaning of their dominator ratings. Analytics based on production is meaningless without the proper context.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I was actually going to mention this further, but figured you'd chime in. I don't totally discount film, NFL teams use it, it's necessary, but needs context.

And I don’t either, even if it seems like it. Here’s my outline:

1. Film analysis is already heavily baked into NFL draft capital. So even the “analytics” folks aren’t discounting it.
2. There are plenty of people who watch film systematically and chart what they see. This can be useful, even if their rankings aren’t. Matt Harmon’s work is a great example.
3. For the average fantasy gamer to actually benefit from watching film, they need to practice and learn how to do it and then watch way, way, way more of it and chart what they’re seeing. That’s a ton of time, and at the end of it you’re unlikely to produce better information than somebody like Waldman, for whom this is a job.

TL;DR: the concept of watching film is valuable, but amateur film study is extremely unlikely to consistently provide tangible value and is only worth doing if it’s fun for you.

I think the biggest value of watching film is to contextualize the numbers. especially on the collegiate level, raw stats can be mostly useless without an understanding how they are achieved. Cam Akers' numbers looked really awful, but after a simple viewing of some FSU games and you could easily see that his OL wasn't doing him any favors. On the other hand, Taylor's numbers looked otherworldly, but watching the tape gives you a better understanding of why that was. And without watching the Alabama WRs play you might not have the proper context to understand the meaning of their dominator ratings. Analytics based on production is meaningless without the proper context.

I feel like you’re making my point for me. You literally did not have to personally spend a single second of your own time watching “film” to know these things.

The analytic approach rarely involves the “raw stats” that you mention. The idea is to figure out which metrics meaningfully correlate with fantasy and NFL success, which ones are just noise, and then use that information to target players who are undervalued by the community and your league-mates. There’s no perfect formula, it’s just about trying to focus on things that actually matter.

[PR0v3]

And I don’t either, even if it seems like it. Here’s my outline:

1. Film analysis is already heavily baked into NFL draft capital. So even the “analytics” folks aren’t discounting it.
2. There are plenty of people who watch film systematically and chart what they see. This can be useful, even if their rankings aren’t. Matt Harmon’s work is a great example.
3. For the average fantasy gamer to actually benefit from watching film, they need to practice and learn how to do it and then watch way, way, way more of it and chart what they’re seeing. That’s a ton of time, and at the end of it you’re unlikely to produce better information than somebody like Waldman, for whom this is a job.

TL;DR: the concept of watching film is valuable, but amateur film study is extremely unlikely to consistently provide tangible value and is only worth doing if it’s fun for you.

I think the biggest value of watching film is to contextualize the numbers. especially on the collegiate level, raw stats can be mostly useless without an understanding how they are achieved. Cam Akers' numbers looked really awful, but after a simple viewing of some FSU games and you could easily see that his OL wasn't doing him any favors. On the other hand, Taylor's numbers looked otherworldly, but watching the tape gives you a better understanding of why that was. And without watching the Alabama WRs play you might not have the proper context to understand the meaning of their dominator ratings. Analytics based on production is meaningless without the proper context.

I feel like you’re making my point for me. You literally did not have to personally spend a single second of your own time watching “film” to know these things.

The analytic approach rarely involves the “raw stats” that you mention. The idea is to figure out which metrics meaningfully correlate with fantasy and NFL success, which ones are just noise, and then use that information to target players who are undervalued by the community and your league-mates. There’s no perfect formula, it’s just about trying to focus on things that actually matter.

The only thing that actually matters is the player’s skill and on-field abilities. That is what translates to the league and will determine whether they succeed or fail, and you aren’t going to learn anything about a player’s skill or abilities through numbers.