Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Walter Football
Under quarterbacks, ESPN has Aaron Rodgers 17th and Jason Campbell 18th. I like Rodgers more than that, but whatever; I'm not really going to argue rankings.
But here's the weird part: They gave Rodgers 2,620 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 picks. For Campbell, they projected 3,410 yards, 194 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.
Umm... what the heck does ESPN base its rankings on? Why rank Player B lower than Player A, if you're predicting better stats for Player B? We already knew that ESPN loves to hire people who can't use grammar correctly. Apparently, they've brought in some writers who are mathematically challenged as well.
|
So, apparently there are no other stats than passing yards, TD's and picks? This really bothered me when he said this, it's not probable and I don't think it will happen, but those 2 could have those stats and it wouldn't be a statistical impossibility that Rodgers has more points for the season. Like I said, I don't think it will happen, but there are leagues where you can lose points for fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks.
That would mean that Campbell would have to lose about 32 points because of fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks. (that's based on my league) Will it happen? Probably not, but it's not impossible...@$$
All that said, just because they have projections doesn't mean that they don't consider things like upside, so maybe ESPN thinks Rodgers has more upside next season than Campbell.
I used to like this guy, but if you're going to correct people, you'd better be sure you're right. He makes his disdain for ESPN pretty clear before he gets into the article, but some of his points were a little weak.