Provoking Thoughts: Expected Values

Recently, we've seen an event draw the ire of some folks. And naturally, there are perfectly logical arguments made by people on both sides. And naturally, I think that this whole thing is hilarious.

I'll just put it like this. If you DON'T ask Dez Bryant if his mother was a prostitute, then the terrorists win, and we shame the memory of those who died in 9/11. Bear with me... as I present some things for you to consider.

The first is the story behind the Jeff Ireland - Dez Bryant's Mom's thing. Where basically, as the Miami Dolphins are doing a pre-draft interview, and there's some exchange, where apparently (and this is not clear), Dez Bryant (the player being interviewed) tells Jeff Ireland (the Dolphins' GM) that his dad was a pimp, and that his mom worked for his dad. So, Ireland decides to ask Dez if his mom's a prostitute. Seems logical enough. Sadly, there were plenty of other questions that weren't asked. The question that I'm curious about is, "Is your dad friends with Lawrence Taylor?"

So there are all sorts of questions flying around. Should Ireland have asked this? Should Bryant be offended? Who should apologize to whom? And embedded in all of this is the underlying question of should this even matter?

I can see Dez Bryant being upset, and that Ireland maybe apologizing for asking an inflammatory question. After all, it's a small league, and you never know when the Dolphins may end up bringing in Bryant for another workout in a few years. And if I'm Ireland, I probably send a little letter to Dez Bryant's mom to apologize, as well. But what I think is hilarious is Dez Bryant's mom getting all righteous on us and demanding an apology. Now, this is a woman who has had a few run-ins with the law - she was arrested 12 years ago for selling crack, was arrested last April for selling crack, and then arrested last August for possession. And along the way, she decided that she was going to be a lesbian, much to the chagrin of her son. The lesbian thing isn't really pertinent to my point, but just makes me enjoy the story more. In any case the problems with this is that any time you have a story that makes headlines, the idiots come out of the woodwork.

Now, the idiots on the fringes, I don't worry much about. For example, you have this moron taking 1 or 2 sentences out of context, and vilifying someone who dislikes someone's choices. But happily, idiots don't make it on to my radar. But then you get other idiots who have a bigger stage. When you have folks like Rick Reilly (who have access to a huge, global stage) writing an article that has roots in something between intellectual laziness and downright stupidity, then you have idiocy that I'm worried about. Because of the way the article is written - pretty smooth and apparently unassuming, Reilly's argument becomes attractive because it's so simple and so appealing. And listening to stuff like that, without thinking further, is generally a recipe for disaster.

The reality is that we are very much influenced by the folks around us, and the presence (or absence) of parental influences is crucial to proper development (intellectual, emotional, whatever). And we are very much ensnared by the sins of the father, much like we are bolstered by the successes of the father. The point that I hope that Reilly was trying to make was that the failures of a parent are not guaranteed to lead to the downfall of the next generation, and that genius can arise from meager beginnings. We should intuitively know that, and can see it all around us. However, the more interesting question is how much should we temper hope with prudence. And in this question, not everyone is created equal.

Suspend disbelief for a second, and make the assumption that decision making in real life can be described with fantasy sports analogies. I've written the past that winning fantasy is all about making sure that you don't screw up the first few rounds, and then get lucky in the late rounds or in free agency. Basically, you need to make sure your sure things are sure things. This reflects this 80-20 rule that you hear people throw around all the time (and many folks argue that it's more like the 95-5 rule). Basically, it boils down to something like this: 20% of the things you encounter have 80% of the impact. 20% of the people in an organization do 80% of the work. 20% of the events of your life drive 80% of the outcome. 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth (or commit 80% of the crime). You get the idea.

The next step is the thought that not everything should be equal, because the gravity of each thing is different. Certain decisions require much more intense scrutiny. Again, this should be intuitive. It makes more sense that for the decisions that are in the 20% (which lead to the 80% of utility), you want to dig deeper. But I'll argue that the fundamental question that you should ask is different.

In science, we talk about Type I and Type II errors. Basically, you can screw up in one of two ways. The first, a Type I error, is a false positive. You have an alarm system, the alarm sounds, but there was no intruder. The second, a Type II error, is a false negative. Here, you have an alarm system, the alarm doesn't sound, but there was an intruder. In this instance, a Type I error leads to some annoyance, but a Type II error may make you dead. Evolution has taught us to be a little skittish at times, mainly so we avoid fatal Type II errors. Think about it in terms of hunting. Basically, thinking that a deer is there, when it isn't (a Type I error) makes you go hungry. Not noticing that a tiger is behind you when it actually is (a Type II error) makes you tiger food.

As we think about the case of Dez Bryant, we're looking at a player that was going to be a first round pick. The investment would have been somewhere around $8-$15 million dollars in guaranteed money. You don't want to brick your first round picks. Teams that get production out of their draft picks, do well, can manage the salary cap, and build teams that are successful year to year. Teams that brick their draft picks end up having to get free agents, wrecking their salary cap, and need to get lucky to win. The impact of first round picks are even more amplified because of the guaranteed money.

At this stage of the game, you assume that if things go well, the players you're looking to get are of roughly the same talent and will contribute roughly the same. However, if something goes poorly, you could submarine yourself. Think about outcomes on a 0 to 10 scale. First round players, could tank (and score you a zero), or they could play reasonably well, and perform somewhere between a 7 and a 9. A Type I error, may cause you to miss out on a guy that will perform at a 9, but if you avoid a Type II error, the worst you'll do is a 7, and you could just as well end up with a 8.5 or even another 9. On the other hand, making a Type II error, missing out on the fact that a guy may end up in jail, or whatever, could result in a 0. In this case, it's more important you you avoid the 0, than it is to make the pick that gives you the optimal expected value. This is a case where variance is more important than the mean.

In the choices that we make on a day-to-day basis, more of them are ones where the downside is minimal. These are the situations where we can be a little risk-seeking, take some chances and try to get a little margin. This is trying a new beer, ordering pheasant at the restaurant, or seeing some foreign film. But there are situations where we need to see the entire picture a little more clearly. These situations may be somewhat exotic, like eating fugu (the poisonous blowfish that kills roughly 5 or 6 people per year in Japan) or street racing (where about 100 or so people per year die in the U.S. each year). But they can be much more mundane, as well.

Think about something like screening x-rays at the airport. If you make a Type I error, you slow down the queue, and maybe bring some poor schmuck in for a strip search and/or waterboarding. If you make a Type II error, the terrorists win - literally. Now, statistically inclined folks generally make the case that people tend to spend too much time worrying about the tiger, and that they would gain more utility by trying to find more deer. Or, in this case moving the lines at the airport along a bit quicker. And that's definitely a valid point, for certain situations, but finding that sweet spot is a bit beyond this discussion. And there's something intuitively wrong about worrying too much about the productivity or personal convenience lost when you have to wait in line a little longer, when that tiny bump up in productivity or personal liberty results in being less likely to catch that 1 in a million event.

So, at the end of it all, what I'm saying is this. If you DON'T ask Dez Bryant if his mother was a prostitute, then the terrorists win, and we shame the memory of those who died in 9/11.

-Chairman

Why I am a Bad Person

Well, there are many reasons, actually. But high on the list is probably how easily I am amused, particularly when it comes to minor human deformities. So I'm sitting here in Panera, just chilling out. I theory, I should be punching out my dissertation proposal, but instead, I'm just zoning out, doing a crossword, and people-watching. So, in walk a couple girls, who sit down. I notice that one of them is sort of cute. So I pay a little more attention. And then I see her take out not one, but two small, clear mouthpieces. After a few seconds, I realize that they're actually the InvisAlign braces, which make things funnier. And then I realize that this girl has a lazy right eye. She looks one way, and a split-second later the right eye catches up. She looks the other way, and a split-second later the right eye catches up. At this point, I'm chuckling out loud. But I have a computer and a newspaper in front of me so it doesn't appear that I'm laughing at anyone. Then I imagined trying to have a conversation with this person. And it was over. I'm just laughing out loud like a lunatic in the middle of Panera. Little quirks like this just amuse me thoroughly. It's like when my little bro was sitting behind OD while we were driving out to Cooperstown back in NY, and happened to notice that OD's ears were just a bit uneven. Noticing that amused me to no end, much to OD's chagrin. The little things that people try to hide are horribly intriguing to me.

Of course, I was planning on writing about a couple things. The first is a brief Super Bowl review. Long story short, Brady played so-so until the 4th quarter, when he looked pretty good. New England made some tactical errors, which is sort of stunning for a Belichick led team. And Eli got lucky. He had 1 unlucky pick, 1 legit pick. There were 5 other times after he let go of the ball when I said out loud that a pick was coming. Watching Eli was like watching Brett Favre a couple weeks ago against the Giants. It looked like Eli was just trying to throw the game away. But he got bailed out by the underrated Giants receiving corps. I'm sad that I didn't get to see history, but I am highly amused that Eli won a championship before Phillip Rivers (who I still think looks like Ryan Leaf when he's got his helmet off). Brady will be back, and when he finally wins #4 (and maybe 5 and 6), he'll put himself on top of the QB Mt. Rushmore. As it stands, I still have him behind Joe Montana, and right with Aikman and Elway. I fully expect that to change in the next few years.

From Super Sunday to Super Tuesday, it's interesting to see how Obama has closed the gap. Obama will probably slaughter whoever the GOP puts up in November, but Hillary is defeatable. Lots of folks that are slightly right of center will gravitate toward Obama, but will be vehemently against Hillary (see how bad she does in the Midwest). Let's face it. California, NY, and NJ are probably going Democrat in November, regardless. However, in swing states like Ohio, Hillary may not play as well, particularly if a moderate GOP candidate like McCain emerges, which looks likely. Because Romney is done. He's the choice that goes farthest to the right in this election (save Ron Paul, who's still irrelevant), whereas Huckabee's morals run right, but his policies seem slightly left of center, actually. And McCain is similar.

So what does this mean?

If you think back to the Hoteling model, if you believe that you can put candidates on a single continuum, voters will go for whoever they believe is closest to them in terms of this left-right distinction, so the candidate that is the first to hit the center of the voting population wins. I don't think that it's quite that simple, but you can quick look at it. First, if you scale everything from -1 to 1, it simplifies things. So, let's say that me, Stalin and Hitler are on the extreme right, and Marx is on the extreme left. This puts Ron Paul at about .95, Romney at about .9, and James Dobson at 1.3 (just kidding, if you cap things off at 1, then you probably put him at .9). The more moderate Huckabee places right around .4, since his morality is close to the far right, but his policy is almost left-center. And McCain is probably a .25, since he runs a bit more left than Huckabee. I'd guess that perceptions of Obama have him at -0.15 or so, and Hillary places at about -0.5. It appears that McCain will only get people within .65 to even consider him, so he loses the far right. Hillary has a similar problem, in that only those within .5 will consider her (I can't see Republicans voting for her, no matter how moderate they are, unless Hillary were to run against Hugo Chavez). Obama may not have as big of a restriction as McCain,

Let's start with Obama v. McCain. Obama takes all of the left, and jostles with McCain for the middle. The problem for McCain is that the folks at the far right may just not bother to vote at all, if you buy into James Dobson. This is makes the Dobson-ites useless in this election, and probably kills McCain. Obama wins this race 80 out of 100 times, I'd say. Oddly enough, Huckabee may have a better chance against Obama, because he (albeit reluctantly) wins the vote of the far right, and is moderate enough that he can spin his position to be a little more centrist. But Obama still wins something like 70% of the time.

Moving on to Hillary v. McCain, you see that Hillary takes the extreme left, but McCain carves into the moderate-left. If you believe Dobson, then you still have a gap on the right for McCain. But McCain competes enough for the left-center to make things interesting. I'd say that Hillary wins 55% of the time against McCain. Hillary likely mops up Huckabee, simply because votes are probably along party lines. More Democrats have been voting in the primaries than Republicans. This would be something like 80% for Hillary.

So what does this mean right now? Let's say that Obama and Hillary are 50-50. And McCain is 90-10 over Huckabee. This suggests that we'll see Obama v. McCain 45% of the time, Obama v. Huckabee 5% of the time, Hillary v. McCain 45% of the time, and Hillary v. Huckabee 5% of the time. Put in the victory numbers, and you start to see some overall chances for each candidate:

Obama looks to be the front runner, not because he's ahead of Hillary, but because he's so dominant over the GOP candidates. My little simulation puts him at 39.5% to be the next POTUS. Right after him comes McCain at 29.25%. This is mainly because Hillary has a good chance to beat Obama, which is good for McCain. In 3rd, is Hillary at 28.75%. She's neck and neck with Obama, but more vulnerable to the GOP candidate in November. Of course, my guy Huckabee is coming in at only 2.5%. Really, you have to say that Romney has about the same chance as Huckabee right now, so it's more like 1.25% each for both Huckabee and Romney.

You can certainly build more complex models, particularly if you go into 2D or 3D spaces, but instinctively, this seems to be about right. You can quantify why the percentages are the way they are a little more, and get a more refined view, as well. But if you assume that the victory percentages are accurate, then this is how the numbers work out.

And once again, I drone on longer than I was planning. I think that I had other stuff to vent on, but I've forgotten it all. But I'll leave you with this. The second-most recent example of how I am a bad person is that despite being curious, and even analytical about the election, I didn't bother voting. Which makes me awesome.

-Chairman

Wait 'til Later This Year

It was scary how good USC looked. First, on defense, they were incredibly fast to the outside. As I recall, we only had a single good outside option play, where we got a nice little chip block on the end, and Rashard Mendenhall took it about 25 yards. But other than that, they killed us to the outside. Really, the only complaint that I had about them was that they were passing too much early in the game. Booty didn't look good early on, and was not accurate with the ball. They were running the ball at will, but still throwing on 1st and 2nd down in the 2nd and 3rd quarter. That actually gave us a chance to come back in the 3rd quarter, but it wasn't enough.

In a game where we needed the bounces and calls to go our way, we had them go the other way in droves:

-The non-fumble to open up the game (as well as the non-challenge)
-The McKnight "Immaculate Reception" sort of play on their first scoring drive
-USC hitting a trick play to make it 14-0
-A missed chip shot figgie

Of course, our defense got some traction, and started competing legitimately (thanks largely to USC passing too much). You could've made the argument that it could've easily been something like USC 14, Illinois 10 at halftime, but instead, it was 21-0. But even in the 3rd quarter, we looked alright. We had 2 big plays go our way in a very nice Mendenhall 79-yard TD run to make it 21-10. Then we got our stop, and got another big Mendenhall play, a 55-yard play off of a short dump off pass. Our defense was starting to slow down the run, and we were getting some more pressure on Booty. Our offense had seemed to get things figured out. Then, we threw a completion deep into USC territory, which was followed immediately by:

-The Willis fumble going toward the endzone to keep it from going to 21-17

This was brutal. This was the reverse of the "hometown boy stars in underdog role" story. Along with the early Kyle Hudson dropped pass, this was the "hometown kids come up short" story, which isn't nearly as sexy. But, our defense was still competing, so if we could have gotten another stop, we were still in business. Instead:

-The lateral that McKnight picked up and ran 65 yards (as well as the bad challenge)

That made it 28-10 with a lot of time left to go, but to put the nail in the coffin, Juice overthrew Cumberland, and got picked, which led to USC scoring to make it 35-10, effectively ending the game. Looking at it honestly, we got 2 big plays, and had 6 go against us. If things balance out, we get the 2 big ones, and only have 4 go against us, we're looking at something like 28-20, with us starting a drive with about 4 minutes left in the 3rd. We're still behind, but we're competing. So, we ran into a superior team that got a couple more bounces than we did. That's a recipe for a blowout.

Now, some folks had issue with the play call on the last interception. I don't.

We got exactly what we wanted. Our biggest receiver (a Walter Young type guy) 1-on-1 to the outside. We actually got a shot with that same matchup in the 2nd quarter and took a shot. On the earlier play, we say that Harris (the CB) was actually outrunning Cumberland on the play, blanketing him. That play ended in an incompletion. Cumberland had about 6" on Harris, so the best throw there is a high, jump-ball sort of throw. Conversely, since Harris was playing ahead of Cumberland, a slight underthrow would been great, as well. So, on a play where Juice had to go with either the high jump-ball, or the underthrow, he zips a laser that's overthrown, and gets picked.

That said, I like Juice a lot. What I described above is something that you only see good QB's do. Right now, Juice is probably still under orders to throw the ball away at the first sign of trouble. I'm guessing that by design, he has 2 downfield routes that he's looking at, as well as a safety valve. He has improved his passing tremendously, but still needs to add to his repertoire. He has looked much better this year on the little swing passes, and some of the short passes across the middle. You still want to work receivers in front of him, rather than have him make reads across the entire field. He is still very much a work in progress.

You saw some issues with height. He's listed at 6'2", which, coincidentally, is the shortest that many NFL teams will allow their QB's to be. Rumor has it that he's a hair under 6'1". In the opening quarter, there were 2 throws tipped at the line, the 2nd of which was picked on the play immediately preceding the flea flicker that made it 14-0.

But here's the thing. He just finished his sophomore year. Right now, he's ahead of where Dennis Dixon, Troy Smith, and most college run/throw QB's not named McNabb, Vick, or Tebow were after their sophomore years. QB's take time to mature. You see quantum leaps from a lot of guys. Dixon looked shaky until this year. Andre Woodson was shaky until his junior season. Troy Smith really became an excellent QB after his junior year. Donovan McNabb was ahead of Juice, but even he was under 55% in his 2nd and 3rd years starting, before having a great senior season.

So, I think that things look rosy for the Illini, just not at this moment. Next year, we get more experience out of Benn/Cumberland as WR's, as well as Brian Gamble, who switched over from the defensive side of the ball. We'll have to replace some of the interior linemen, including our all-Amerian, Martin O'Donnell. On the defensive side, we'll lose a little more, notably J Leman, Antonio Steele, and Kevin Mitchell. We'll see how guys like Josh Brent and Martez Wilson fill in on the defensive line, and we'll see who steps up to fill the role that Leman played for us the last few years. Best guess is Britt Miller will do very well in the LB, and that Will Davis will have a good year on the line.

The biggest question is whether Mendenhall will be back next year. I think that Mendenhall showed the burst, as well as the toughness to go on the 1st day in the draft. I'm guessing that he'll work out for teams, and get evaluated. If he's a 1st rounder, he pretty much has to go pro. From what's out there, the consensus top 3 RB's are Darren McFadden, Ray Rice, and Felix Jones. Mendenhall may be able to creep in there, maybe even up to #2, which would put him in the mid/late 1st round. But if he projects out as a mid-2nd round pick, that's a big difference in guaranteed money than a mid-1st round. That likely means that he'll be back next year as a preseason Heisman and Doak Walker candidate, and in line to be a top 20 pick next year, and really cash in. Of course, even without Rashard Mendenhall, we still have Walter Mendenhall, who has shown a some toughness (though not the speed) to get a few carries. And Daniel "Shawshank" Dufrene has busted a few long ones, including the non-fumble early on against Ohio St.

In any case, early guess is that we'll be in the top 10-15 to start out the season. After that, it's up to how we perform on the field. I think that another bowl game will happen, but the question is what sort of bowl we'll be going to.

-Chairman

Strange Sensations

It sort of feels funny. It's like you've been there before, but it was so long ago that you forgot what it feels like. It's comforting, and strangely exciting. And you're openly happy about it. Though apt, I'm not talking about breastfeeding. I'm talking about Illini football.

Top 20.

No kidding.

The big thing is that we run the ball well, and we can play a little D. The Lou Tepper era was characterized by us running the ball for 2 yards, running the ball for a yard, and then throwing an incompletion, followed by punting. The D was pretty good, so we would lose a bunch of 17-3 games. The Ron Turner era was characterized by us running the ball for 7 yards on 1st down, and then throwing two incompletions and punting. The D wasn't as good, so we lost a bunch of 38-17 games. That's not to say that parts of the Ron Zook era didn't look bad early on. But oddly enough, the funky shotgun spread can be a power running formation. And this year, we're sticking with the run. A lot of that is because Juice Williams hasn't really improved as a passer (though in fairness, he's been banged up pretty good this year).

Some problems have always been game management. Ron Turner's teams looked like Mike Martz teams crossed with the old Oakland Raiders - sloppy with the time management and lots of penalties. We'd be giving away timeouts early in the 3rd quarters because we couldn't get plays in there. We'd take bad roughing the passer calls at the worst possible times. The Ron Zook teams have not been much better, though this last game was looking pretty good. We only had 3 penalties (plus an offsetting personal foul), and one of those was a shady roughing the passer call, where the ref's angle made a hit look worse than it was (from the side, a shoulder and a helmet lead are awfully similar). More interestingly, we didn't use any timeouts, which means that we were communicating well.

From here on out, you figure that we should beat Minnesota, Ball St., and Northwestern. We'll have a good shot at Iowa, but winning on the road is always tough. Ohio St. and Michigan are always problematic. If this trend of good game management continues, we're likely looking at a very nice 9-3 type of season and a bowl game in a nice city. Who knows? Alamo Bowl seems like a reasonable option. Being optimistic, maybe even a Florida game in January?

In any case, it'll be fun to see how this seasons unfolds.

-Chairman

Spoilers

I'm just happy that the Reds rolled over the Cards, basically ending their playoff hopes. That was sweet. Now, we get 3 more with the Brewers, and 6 more with the Cubs. If we could only end all of their playoff hopes, then that would be awesome. Unfortunately, someone has to win the NL Central. The Reds would have to go 14-2, and get a lot of help. So that's not going to happen. And frankly, I don't know if it matters. Of course, it wouldn't shock me if whoever comes out of the NL Central goes on to win a couple rounds, but let's face it. No one cares. These teams all suck. A strange stat. Since July 1st, the Reds are 8 games over .500. If we had been simply bad, rather than absolutely dreadful, at the start of the season, we'd be in the race. Go figure.

Going back to football, I've been thinking about the stealing of signs. And my basic instinct is, "so what?" Teams intercept other teams' calls all the time, and have been trying to do so forever. I still remember former Pro Bowl strong safety David Fulcher (a Bengals stalwart) talking about how he had read the lips from the 49er's sideline on the last play of the 49er's last drive during Super Bowl back in 1989. Basically, he read the lips of the coach calling in the play, and knew that it was going to be that slant to John Taylor. So, he slid over a few steps to the outside, jumped the route, and picked off the ball, taking it back to the 40, before he slid as time expired and the Bengals won their first, and to date, only Super Bowl.

Wait. No, he didn't. He still had responsibility to cover his spot, to he didn't slide over, to start, and was a step slow, as Taylor caught the touchdown, Joe Montana cemented his status as the best ever, and the 49er's completed their dominance of the 1980's, and the Bengals were sent into a downward spiral that was the 1990's.

Having knowledge assists in placing players in the right spot, but you still have to make the plays. If someone is on to your calls or your plays, change them up. How much game film is available now? How much time do the cameras spend on the sidelines now? The information is all out there. It's one thing to have spies infiltrate closed door meetings. But once you're out there on the field, and the whole world can see? That's not "spying." That's just observation of what's out there for the world to see, basically the same as figuring out the footwork that, say, Marvin Harrison uses on those goal-to-go slants that he and Peyton do so well.

I think that this is just an issue that people are worrying too much about. Shouldn't we be talking about dog fighting, or something?

-Chairman

Junkies Getting a Fix

So I have a bit of a crush right now. And no, it's not with the hot cartoon chick on the eSurance commercials. Well. Okay, maybe it is. But she's hot, she's wonderful, and I love her, and I don't care what anyone says. Quote, Buy, Print, dammit. We're going to have beautiful, black and pink haired, 2.5-dimensional children. Quote, Buy, Print.

In all seriousness, thank God football is back. I feel like an alcoholic with a cold beer right now. Like A1, yeah, it's that good. I think that I've spent more time watching football over the last 2 weeks than I have out of the apartment. I'm awesome. And I also promised a football preview after my fantasy draft. Of course, I lost my first game in my important league, so I don't know if my thoughts are worth anything (though I did get high score, and won a few bucks in my cash league). However, I will say that in my baseball preview, I actually did pretty well. It's sick. Who in the world would call Arizona as the NL West champs? And the Indians as the AL central champs was another surprisingly good call. Of course, there were a couple misses (I think that I was too lazy to edit out the A's after I copied and pasted from the previous year). But I think that C-Lauff is still upset about the whole Erik Bedard thing from last year and this year.

So, without further ado, my NFL picks:

AFC Division Champs and Wild Cards: New England, Indy, Denver, Cincy, Baltimore, San Deigo.
AFC Champion: New England over Indy
NFC Division Champs and Wild Cards: Chicago, Carolina, Philly, Seattle, New Orleans, Dallas.
NFC Champion: Carolina over Seattle
Super Bowl Winner: New England

NFL MVP: Tom Brady
NFL Offensive POY: Peyton Manning
NFL Defensive POY: Ray Lewis
Top 3 RB's: LT, LJ, Shaun Alexander
Apologies to: Run/catch threats Brian Westbrook and Steven Jackson
Under the radar RB's: Edgerrin James, Adrian Peterson,
Overrated: The rest of the U's backs (Gore, McGahee, Portis)

Top 3 WR's: TO, Steve Smith, Randy Moss
Apologies to: Bengals, Colts, and Rams corps
Under the radar WR's: Arnaz Battle, Santonio Holmes, Javon Walker
Overrated: Seahawks and Saints corps

Top 3 QB's: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer
Apologies to: Big Ben, Vince Young
Under the radar QB's: Eli's time to shine, Cutler and Campbell making believers.
Overrated: Drew Brees and Matt Hasselback

AFC items of note:
There are a number of freaks at TE; the Tony Scheffler and Daniel Graham combo will outperform most of them.
The Broncos match up well will the Chargers, and will be able t0 use 8 in the box to stop LT.
The Broncos can run on any team that's devoting 2 defenders to Javon Walker.
The play of Jonathan Ogden and Levi Jones will probably decide the AFC North.
The Jags may not regret dropping Leftwich, but they're not making the playoffs with Dave Garrard.
The Steelers will be tough, but are in the wrong division.
The Jets are looking at a long season.
A team that has a strange attraction for me is the Titans.

NFC items of note:
The Panthers defense will step up, and they'll get just enough big plays on offense to make a run.
I want to pick against the Bears, but the rest of the NFC North is so bad that I can't justify it.
I want to pick against the Saints, but the rest of of the NFC is so bad, that I can't justify it.
The popular sleeper picks (49ers, Cardinals, Rams, etc.) are generally lame.
Joey Harrington is still Joey Harrington.
Alex Smith and Matt Leinart will become legit NFL QB's.
The Eagles drafted a QB because they're a good organization.

Of course, I'm an idiot, so definitely ignore anything that I have written down here.

-Chairman