I have the #1 pick in my draft brehs

[Listen]

No way. There were 5 guys last year who broke 200, 7 guys in 2010 and 6 guys in 2009 that did it. Foster, Rice, McCoy I think are going to get over that 200 mark definitely.

I pool together projected stats from 5 different sources, combine them, average them out, then push them through a algorithm with different scoring settings adjusted for a 'APP' (Average Projected Points).

In the format I mentioned above (10 yards = 1 point, no PPR, TD=6 points) Rice and Foster are the only two who cracked 200 based on the projection analysis. It does not take in any bonus' you may run, like plus points for runs over 20 yards or shyt like that.

McCoy was 198.

Still subjective because who the fukk knows who will really do what.

 

[NamelessPimp]

I pool together projected stats from 5 different sources, combine them, average them out, then push them through a algorithm with different scoring settings adjusted for a 'APP' (Average Projected Points).

In the format I mentioned above (10 yards = 1 point, no PPR, TD=6 points) Rice and Foster are the only two who cracked 200 based on the projection analysis. It does not take in any bonus' you may run, like plus points for runs over 20 yards or shyt like that.

McCoy was 198.

Still subjective because who the fukk knows who will really do what.

Not really sure where you got those numbers from at all. I'm completely lost with what you're trying to do here.

In the format that you mentioned Rice had 284 points, McCoy had 264, MJD with 247, Foster at 233, Lynch at 201...Michael Turner even had 197.

Thats even including -2 for fumbles. Are you not counting receiving stats?

 

[Listen]

Not really sure where you got those numbers from at all. I'm completely lost with what you're trying to do here.

In the format that you mentioned Rice had 284 points, McCoy had 264, MJD with 247, Foster at 233, Lynch at 201...Michael Turner even had 197.

Thats even including -2 for fumbles. Are you not counting receiving stats?

I'm using projected stats for THIS year, not who did what last year.

In a standard format where you only count these stats for RB's:

Rushing Yards (10 yards = 1 point), Rushing TD's (6 points), Receiving Yards (10 yards = 1 point), & Receiving TD's (6)

Not including projected fumbles or any other items your league might count for scoring, I am using that scoring method and averaging out projected 2012 stats from 5 sources.

In that model only Foster and Rice are PROJECTED for more than 200 points. Doesn't mean they wont score more.

 

[NamelessPimp]

I'm using projected stats for THIS year, not who did what last year.

In a standard format where you only count these stats for RB's:

Rushing Yards (10 yards = 1 point), Rushing TD's (6 points), Receiving Yards (10 yards = 1 point), & Receiving TD's (6)

Not including projected fumbles or any other items your league might count for scoring, I am using that scoring method and averaging out projected 2012 stats from 5 sources.

In that model only Foster and Rice are PROJECTED for more than 200 points. Doesn't mean they wont score more.

Just saying 2 seems fairly low due to how many guys do it year in and year out. especially considering this doesnt even take away points for fumbles!! more guys should be over that 200 mark. I mean, Rice was almost at 300 points last year!

 

[Listen]

Just saying 2 seems fairly low due to how many guys do it year in and year out. especially considering this doesnt even take away points for fumbles!! more guys should be over that 200 mark. I mean, Rice was almost at 300 points last year!

But theirs also a HUGE discrepancy from site to site on projected stats.

For example:

One site has Foster with:

Yards TD's Catches Yards TD's

1515 14 76 659 3

For a total of 251 points based on those 4 categories.

Another has him with:

Yards TD's Catches Yards TD's

1350 14 58 636 2

For a total of 225 points based on those 4 categories.

Now add in 3 MORE projected statistical entities, and you can see why my APP stat is so 'low'.

I have found it to be an excellent baseline to work off of in the past, with obvious variables affecting who really does what.