i agree.

and since it wasn't 'fleshed out' COMPLETELY before the draft, how can we assign value to health now??

that ain't Assani's or anyone else's fault...but that's what i've been getting at all along. i'm not looking for loopholes or cherry-picking..while it's true i'm finding the way the rules interpret my team to be better, why would i be doing otherwise?

it wasn't as if i made the LT2 trade strictly for a reason to argue...obviously i assumed Easley would be healthy, right?

anyhow, obviously no hard feelings...normally that statement doesn't come until the morning after. i'm not ready to say i'm wrong, but i'll admit that there is at least another side to my own opinion..

yeah just simulate the league 1000000x imo

Adrian Peterson has only missed 2 games, what? Everyone keeps saying he's this big injury risk and his career will be short... and he has missed 2 games. I don't get it.

Just use your best judgment imo. It's not like everything else we're taking into account is clear cut. We don't expect perfection.

or if you're worried about people considering one of your players injury prone, give us a case as to why we shouldn't count it against it. i think most of us are going to be pretty reasonable when it comes to that, provided you give us an explanation.

Hell, it's not like we're ever actually going to rank these teams, we still haven't started on the NBA teams.

My judgement will be bias in some manner, I can make much better assumptions if I assume everyone will be healthy. Like obviously Brady and Palmer are not more likely to get their knee blown up than Favre, they just got unlucky. Then you have a guy like Culpepper who never recovered, Palmer hasn't been the same, it's a violent game and there are a ton of injuries every year. My best judgement based on watching games tells me that about 10 qb's should be expected to miss time and even more rb's... etc. But you can see how stupid this would be in evaluation in the end I hope.

Right, I'm not going to ding someone who has missed a few game here or there, but only in the most egregious examples, Bob Sanders as the quintessential great player with tons of injuries. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to quantify the difference between Joe Montana and Brett Favre, but if it's close between two teams and one of them has a couple of key players with a history of injuries, that could be the difference.

In the end though, it isn't even about winning and losing and where your team ranks, it's about the process of getting there and debating the value of offensive line versus running back and wide receiver versus quarterback and pass rush versus stopping the run and whatever else comes up during the discussion that doesn't have anything to do with the arcane rules to this totally ridiculous hypothetical draft. We don't have enough information to accurately rank the teams anyways, just make the best picks you can make and argue your team the best you can and however it shakes out, it shakes out.

I think that is a better way to look at it. Go through all teams and assume everyone is healthy. Then for those who are close, you look at injury concern to tip the scales. I like it.

Hell, I don't know if his career will be shoirt, as a faootball fan, I hope it wont. But Sophomore year in college and junior year he missed games, an his rookie year in nfl he missed games. Also earlier this year his performance dropped because of a minor injury. He is clearly, an injury risk, but he is also clearly an amaing RB,

I know he was injured a ton in college, but he's been average to above average health in the NFL. There are players who missed significant action in college and then went on to never get hurt in the NFL, usually turn out to be draft steals when some team takes the risk and others fail him medically, etc. Too soon to say anything on ADP specifically, he could breakdown in 2 years or play 8 more without missing a game. Or stuff in the middle.

this sounds best to me

i know your excessive usage of greater than signs is hyperbole, but Thomas is elite and up there w/ the best. He had tons of passes defended, INTs, he played on good defenses vs the pass, and never left the field for nickle or dime.

thanks kk

hehe

this. the rule had been established, and it was a real negative of certain players (those mentioned above). in fact, i went to GREAT PAINS in my writeup to explain how we would DEAL with easley missing games; it was ASSUMED he wouldn't play 16, but rather we wanted ~13 brilliant games because that gave us the best chance to win the championship or whatever.

Exactly. Sorry Epi, but those players above will all miss time

this. 99% wiper blacked out at some point

im going to assume murder isn't against the law, regardless of whether that's true or not, and kill everyone that disagrees with me.

Dudd helped me reach a superior method. I can say one team is more injury prone relative to another but saying X player will likely miss Y games is not possible and this is why I was ignoring them. If you have a way to avoid this that is even better by all means let me know.

kkcountry has the clearest head of anyone:
From my Kenny Easley writeup...

Meaning, you should assume Easley, a DPOY player, was still in his peak, but had a malady of injuries that will cause him to miss time. So rather than get a player who is 80% of the best player ever, you get a player who is 100% of the best player ever, 80% of the time.

Yeah, this is fine. Is your method just like games played / possible games played? This seems ok to me. You are ignoring playing hurt or less than 100% though. And the level of defense is such that I would anticipate far greater injury rates on both sides.

I wish I didn't have Bob Sanders in that this isn't some attempt for me to get people to ignore his injury proneness. It's obviously there. Sanders seems to play either the whole season or miss 75% of it in his career to this point. Does this mean he misses like 7 games or does it mean he misses 12+/none? I suppose this is for everyone to figure out.

Basically how I'm approaching the whole injury thing is that I'm giving a slight downgrade to players that are injury prone. Because we can't realistically say that they'd miss X games in a season on average, I think giving a slight downgrade to their talent level in this draft when evaluating is the way to go.

Also, hopefully my last comment about Emmitt for a while: Possibly his best asset is his durability, which even in a one year league is still the most important asset for power runningbacks. When I get Emmitt, I get a guy that I know is able to pound the rock 300+ times a season, have a lower risk than just about anybody for injury, and rack up a ton of carries without risk of his production dropping. The fact that Emmitt was playing (when you factor in pre and post season) 19-20 games per season, carrying the full load every game, and still had excellent production is being slightly overlooked imo.

I realize that I'm not going to change anybody's mind about Emmitt because ZOMG HE WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED IN ROUND 2 HUDGE REACH!!! but when you evaluate my team with Emmitt, try to ignore where Assani drafted him and just look at my team and the type of production you would expect from Emmitt + Neal + My Offensive Line.

This is how I have looked at it as well.

i'm too old to blackout. i will say that the 34oz mug i have in the dishwasher right now makes it waaay too easy to be drinking 3 beers at a time though..

as far as injuries, i like what bobbo said...i'll take 13-14 excellent games over what i could've gotten in the late rounds at FS for sure..

i do tend to argue a little more on friday/saturday nights, huh?

I'm interested in trading up. Players can be involved. I'm bored, lets do something

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ3u3fTG70Q

Sweet ****ing hangover jesus