Response to Matthew Berry's Draft Day Manifesto

Good Morning God Hates Losers!

Today I want to put my two cents in about the infamous Draft Day Manifesto. The Manifesto is an epic post done every year and presented by Fantasy Guru Matthew Berry of ESPN. He is a writer that I truly respect and try to emulate with every post.

However, in the recent Draft Day Manifesto post, the first thing he talks about is Michael Vick. I would have no problem getting Vick on my team, but anyone who has read any of my posts will know that I don't find him a first round quarterback. Berry disagrees. You can read the entire Draft Day Manifesto here (don't worry kids, it will open in a new window). But I'll lay down the groundwork of the disputed statistics in his column.

Here we go.


Berry's argument is this: In the 12 games that Vick played last year, he averaged 25 points per game. Rodgers averaged 19.5 in the 15 games that he played. That is a 5 point difference. Berry also points out that Antonio Gates should be your tight end, since he scored 13.4 points per game that he played.

This statistic was also included:
Vick had 25 points per game. The average of the 2-11 finishing QBs had 16.8 points per game. A difference of 8.5 ppg.
Arian Foster had 19.6 ppg. Average of 2-11 RBs was 13.8. Difference: 5.8.
Hakeem Nicks/Brandon Lloyd: 12.7 ppg. Average of 2-11: 11.7. Difference: 0.9.
Antonio Gates: 13.4 ppg. Average of 2-11: 7.1. Difference 6.3

Berry goes on to state that had Vick played all 16 games, he would have scored 449 points. Compared to the 313 points that Arian Foster scored last year. If Vick played all 16 games, then he would have had more points that Rodgers and Cedric Benson combined.

That about sums it up. Matthew Berry is saying that your first round pick should be Vick and your third pick should be Antonio Gates.


My response to his column is this:

I won 3 different fantasy leagues last year. I didn't own Vick or Gates in a single one of those leagues. The stats are very impressive when you look at a ppg perspective, but that's not the real world. Vick didn't play for 5 games. That is five games that Vick owners were without their star QB. I will take a consistent quarterback that will always get me 20 points per game every single week over one who will get me 25 points per game but only play 2/3 of the games. Of course, no one can predict the injuries. Vick could very well play every single game.

A second prong to the argument is that if you take Vick with your first round pick, and Gates with your third round pick. You are going to be getting one good RB, and one mid-tier RB. And three mid tier receivers. The statistics that Berry uses in this article are flawed from a draft perspective. He shows the difference between the best at each position compared to the 2-11 placed players of that position. But by taking a QB and TE with round 1 and 3 means that you will get one running back that falls in 2-11, but your other RB and all three of your receivers will be out of that category. Vastly skewing the difference in points.

So, you can take Matthew Berry's data however you like. Personally, I still stand by the strategy that two elite RBs is the way to go. Berry brings up great points, but what it boils down to is that his stats are not at all true to actual drafts. If you pick Vick and Gates, there is no way that you are going to get any WRs in the top 11, and your RB2 won't be either.