What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FBG Mag revisited (1 Viewer)

JayMan

JayMan

Footballguy
I have looked at the FBG '06 Strategy guide - particularly the Value plays and Overvalued players articles - where Staff members state whether a player in undervalued or overvalued according to his positional ranking and ADP...

Using FBG scoring (what the preseason ADP was based on) and looking at stats up until week11 (i.e. prior to Thanksgiving games) I was able to categorized each Staff member player evaluation as a hit/miss/neutral...

A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;

One that stays in the +/-5 ranks is classified as neutral;

One that is underscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks is a miss;

Conversely, for overvalued players the system is reversed... hit if underscoring by at least 5 ranks... neutral (+/-5 ranks)... miss if outscoring by at least 5 ranks...

The number of "bets" varies largely by Staff member... going from 3 (Magaw) to 23 (Pasquino)...

---

I understand completely that the season is not over (far from it) / that injuries and opportunities changes the rankings / that these predictions represent bets made in May / that many other external factors are to be taken into account... but I thought it would be fun to look at these initial bets...

By no mean am I calling on the Staff members - I truly believe that FBG is offering the best service on the net in order for us to Dominate our league - I am a satisfied customer - this is not a complaining thread, far from it!

I also understand that it is very easy to say that "this guy or that person completely blew it on this call" having not stepped up to the plate myself... I am just doing this for the sake of the discussion... and if we can get something interesting out of it (i.e. figuring out if there is a factor that is falsely exagerated in placing early bets or else), I think it's worth it...

Enough chit-chat... the results:

---

Overall FBG hits...

(only meaningful / top positional rankings / no injuries involded are looked at):

QBs --- undervalued M. Vick (QB11 / QB4): Gray, Smith

QBs --- overvalued E. Manning (QB5 / QB12): Bloom, Wood

RBs --- unvervalued F.Gore (RB35 / RB6): Brown, Dodds, Hicks

RBs --- unvervalued C. Taylor (RB22 / RB9): Lammey, Pasquino, Smith, Yudkin

RBs --- unvervalued M. Barber III (RB41 / RB17): Grant, Pasquino, Rudnicki

WRs --- undervalued R.Brown (WR42 / WR16): Bloom, Lammey, Norton, Pasquino, Wood, Yudkin

WRs --- undervalued J. Walker (WR17 / WR2): Baker, Grant

WRs --- overvalued Mi. Clayton (WR33 / WR68): Bloom, Hicks, Rudnicki, Wimer

WRs --- overvalued C. Chambers (WR10 / WR27): Wood, Yudkin

WRs --- overvalued D. Mason (WR24 / WR52): Brown, Wimer

TEs --- undervalued B. Watson (TE14 / TE8): Bloom, Dodds, Rudnicki

TEs --- overvalued R. McMichael (TE7 / TE16); Henry, Norton

Overall FBG misses...

(only meaningful / top positional rankings / no injuries involded are looked at):

QBs --- undervalued J.Plummer (QB10 / QB21): Dodds, Gray, Tremblay

QBs --- overvalued M. Vick (QB11 / QB4): Lammey, Pasquino, Wimer

RBs --- undervalued R. Bush (RB25 / RB32): Dodds, Hicks, Smith

RBs --- overvalued D. McAllister (RB23 / RB14): Dodds, Gray, Hicks, Smith, Yudkin

RBs --- overvalued K. Jones (RB15 / RB7): Bloom, Dodds, Henry, Smith

WRs --- undervalued R. Smith (WR26 / WR63): Dodds, Gray, Lammey, Wimer, Wood

WRs --- undervalued Mi. Clayton (WR33 / WR68): Brown, Grant, Smith, Yudkin

WRs --- overvalued J. Walker (WR17 / WR2): Brown, Gray, Hicks, Yudkin

---

By Staff Member

Staff ---- Hit -- Neut. -- Miss ---- TotalBaker ---- 2 -- 2 -- 1 --- 5Bloom ---- 7 -- 5 -- 8 -- 20Brown ---- 5 -- 6 -- 6 -- 17Dodds ---- 3 -- 6 -- 8 -- 17Grant ---- 2 -- 6 -- 2 -- 10Gray ----- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 18Henry ---- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 12Hicks ---- 6 -- 2 -- 7 -- 15Lammey --- 6 -- 2 -- 5 -- 13Magaw ---- 0 -- 1 -- 2 --- 3Norton --- 5 -- 0 -- 3 --- 8Pasquino - 7 -- 7 -- 9 -- 23Rudnicki - 6 -- 6 -- 4 -- 16Smith ---- 3 -- 6 -- 7 -- 16Tremblay - 5 -- 3 -- 7 -- 15Wimer ---- 7 -- 4 -- 3 -- 14Wood ----- 6 -- 5 -- 6 -- 17Yudkin --- 5 -- 2 -- 8 -- 15Total ---- 83 -- 73 -- 98 -- 254Overall Best/Worst bet (by either saying the player was overvalued or undervalued:Baker: J. Walker-u / D. Culpepper-u

Bloom: Re. Brown-u / D. Mason-u

Brown: F. Gore-u / J. Walker-o

Dodds: F. Gore-u / R. Smith-u

Grant: M. Barber III-u / Mi. Clayton-u

Gray: J. Addai-u / R. Smith-u

Henry: R. McMichael-o / K. Jones-o

Hicks: F. Gore-u / D. McAllister-o

Lammey: C. Taylor-u / L. White-u

Magaw: D. Foster-u / B. Leftwich-u

Norton: J. Addai-u / C. Benson-u

Pasquino: M. Barber III-u / L. Evans-o

Rudnicki: Mi. Clayton-o / D. Williams-u

Smith: M. Vick-u / K. Jones-o

Tremblay: L. Maroney-u / J. Plummer-u

Wimer: W. McGahee-o / R. Smith-u

Wood: C. Chambers-o / L. White-u

Yudkin: C. Taylor-u / J. Walker-o

If you want more specific information - just ask...

Thoughts...

 
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
 
Nice post JayMan. I will be interested in a refresh at the end of the season. As we can see from the results above, an ADP list is quite difficult to beat, just like beating the stock market, even with a group of people who know their stuff.

 
Limp Ditka said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
Click to expand...
Need help with the big words?
Click to expand...
Sure, how do you spell that word in that old movie Mary Poppins? Supercala...?Thanks

As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Islander said:
Nice post JayMan. I will be interested in a refresh at the end of the season. As we can see from the results above, an ADP list is quite difficult to beat, just like beating the stock market, even with a group of people who know their stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words... I surely will refresh this at the end of the year...Some of the results are impressive - considering that they had to post them in May for the Mag...
 
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
It is only a matter of understanding the process... since, for example, staff members were asked if Javon Walker was undervalued or overvalued at WR17... I'm pretty sure those saying he was undervalued had a "hit" (since Walker is WR2 right now)...
 
Not to make any excuses for anyone, but the content for the magazine was due light years before the season started. IMO, a more accurate perspective of staff opinions would probably be gleaned from the web site over/under rated articles.

 
David Yudkin said:
Not to make any excuses for anyone, but the content for the magazine was due light years before the season started. IMO, a more accurate perspective of staff opinions would probably be gleaned from the web site over/under rated articles.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree - and I don't think excuses are needed - since some of the results are pretty impressive for calls made in May...I will try and do the same with the .com - If I can find all the info... it would only show that it's important to subscribe to FBG ;) (baring the results!)
 
David Yudkin said:
Not to make any excuses for anyone, but the content for the magazine was due light years before the season started. IMO, a more accurate perspective of staff opinions would probably be gleaned from the web site over/under rated articles.
Click to expand...
ADPs were from May as well. So it was fair game. If you did this in August, then we'd have to refresh the ADPs for August drafts only. Your rankings would probably be better in August than in May, but so would the ADPs.
 
Bri said:
Limp Ditka said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
Click to expand...
Need help with the big words?
Click to expand...
Sure, how do you spell that word in that old movie Mary Poppins? Supercala...?Thanks

As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed the point above - we held players "undervalued" if we expected them to significantly out perform their ADP. If they DID outperform their ADP and we said they outperformed their ADP, then it was a "hit."Keep in mind, the MAGAZINE over/under value plays was submitted in early May. Our June under/over value play that was done for the site is probably a better reflection of our predictive ability since the draft and mini camp had occurred.

 
JayMan said:
I will try and do the same with the .com - If I can find all the info... it would only show that it's important to subscribe to FBG ;) (baring the results!)
Click to expand...
:no:IIRC, we provided that content for free.Yes, it is a good idea to subscribe, but the under/over value play on the site was free for everyone.
 
Marc Levin said:
JayMan said:
I will try and do the same with the .com - If I can find all the info... it would only show that it's important to subscribe to FBG ;) (baring the results!)
Click to expand...
:no:IIRC, we provided that content for free.Yes, it is a good idea to subscribe, but the under/over value play on the site was free for everyone.
Click to expand...
Ooops... thanks for the head's up... I thought it was subscriber content...Again - I have not started this thread to bash on FBG staff (au contraire!) - I think some did a fairly good job with a May deadline... I think it's just important to figure out if we can see trends instead (particulalry for those playing in [DYNASTY] leagues - in regards to trades made early in the off-season) - is there a position that is less "secure" (i.e. changing depth charts from May to September) than the other? If so, how to exploit this when trading in May?...
 
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
Limp Ditka said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
Click to expand...
Need help with the big words?
Click to expand...
Sure, how do you spell that word in that old movie Mary Poppins? Supercala...?Thanks

As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed the point above - we held players "undervalued" if we expected them to significantly out perform their ADP. If they DID outperform their ADP and we said they outperformed their ADP, then it was a "hit."Keep in mind, the MAGAZINE over/under value plays was submitted in early May. Our June under/over value play that was done for the site is probably a better reflection of our predictive ability since the draft and mini camp had occurred.
Click to expand...
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
 
JayMan said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
It is only a matter of understanding the process... since, for example, staff members were asked if Javon Walker was undervalued or overvalued at WR17... I'm pretty sure those saying he was undervalued had a "hit" (since Walker is WR2 right now)...
Click to expand...
I disagree. If (suppose)Yudkin ranked Favre as the 23rd QB and he is the 23rd QB now, that's a hit IMO. How much more right could the guy be? Instead you call that neutral and don't give credit for that. According to your process/system above(again with supposed results)

Favre=23rd QB

Yudkin ranks him as 23rd and gets no credit.

Dodds ranks him as 18th.

Carlton ranks him as 28th.

You give praise and negatives to Carlton and Dodds and Yudkin gets nada. I don't think that's right

 
Bri said:
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
Limp Ditka said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
Click to expand...
Need help with the big words?
Click to expand...
Sure, how do you spell that word in that old movie Mary Poppins? Supercala...?Thanks

As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed the point above - we held players "undervalued" if we expected them to significantly out perform their ADP. If they DID outperform their ADP and we said they outperformed their ADP, then it was a "hit."Keep in mind, the MAGAZINE over/under value plays was submitted in early May. Our June under/over value play that was done for the site is probably a better reflection of our predictive ability since the draft and mini camp had occurred.
Click to expand...
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
Click to expand...
????You are STILL missing the point - he is not evaluating our rankings or anyone;s rankings. He used the word "ranking" but he meant ADP ranking, not FBG ranking.

He is evaluating how we did in an article ENTITLED under/over value plays. We looked at the then current ADP lists and ID'd what players we felt were over/under valued. If we "HIT" then we were RIGHT about the player performing above/below his then current ADP.

Not sure where your brain-fart is on his rating system.

 
Bri said:
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
Click to expand...
You raised a good point Bri - It was my initial explanation that was not clear... the positional ranking was just the underlying of the player's ADP - not FBG view...For example, according to his ADP - Javon Walker was usually the 17th WR taken in drafts - hence his WR17 ranking... FBG staff members were then asked if Walker was under or overvalued according to this ADP (and accordingly positional ranking)...Hoping this helps...
 
Bri said:
JayMan said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
It is only a matter of understanding the process... since, for example, staff members were asked if Javon Walker was undervalued or overvalued at WR17... I'm pretty sure those saying he was undervalued had a "hit" (since Walker is WR2 right now)...
Click to expand...
I disagree. If (suppose)Yudkin ranked Favre as the 23rd QB and he is the 23rd QB now, that's a hit IMO. How much more right could the guy be? Instead you call that neutral and don't give credit for that. According to your process/system above(again with supposed results)

Favre=23rd QB

Yudkin ranks him as 23rd and gets no credit.

Dodds ranks him as 18th.

Carlton ranks him as 28th.

You give praise and negatives to Carlton and Dodds and Yudkin gets nada. I don't think that's right
Click to expand...
I was under the impression he was only talking about FBGs Under/Overvalued players coming in to the season, not general rankings.Doesnt look like he is taking anything else in to account beyond a certain staffer saying a guy definitely would/would not outplay his ADP.

 
Bri said:
JayMan said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
It is only a matter of understanding the process... since, for example, staff members were asked if Javon Walker was undervalued or overvalued at WR17... I'm pretty sure those saying he was undervalued had a "hit" (since Walker is WR2 right now)...
Click to expand...
I disagree. If (suppose)Yudkin ranked Favre as the 23rd QB and he is the 23rd QB now, that's a hit IMO. How much more right could the guy be? Instead you call that neutral and don't give credit for that. According to your process/system above(again with supposed results)

Favre=23rd QB

Yudkin ranks him as 23rd and gets no credit.

Dodds ranks him as 18th.

Carlton ranks him as 28th.

You give praise and negatives to Carlton and Dodds and Yudkin gets nada. I don't think that's right
Click to expand...
Wow - this really proves you've missed what the OP is doing. If I were you, I'd stop digging this hole and re-read the point of the thread.
 
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
Limp Ditka said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
Click to expand...
Need help with the big words?
Click to expand...
Sure, how do you spell that word in that old movie Mary Poppins? Supercala...?Thanks

As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed the point above - we held players "undervalued" if we expected them to significantly out perform their ADP. If they DID outperform their ADP and we said they outperformed their ADP, then it was a "hit."Keep in mind, the MAGAZINE over/under value plays was submitted in early May. Our June under/over value play that was done for the site is probably a better reflection of our predictive ability since the draft and mini camp had occurred.
Click to expand...
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
Click to expand...
????You are STILL missing the point - he is not evaluating our rankings or anyone;s rankings. He used the word "ranking" but he meant ADP ranking, not FBG ranking.

He is evaluating how we did in an article ENTITLED under/over value plays. We looked at the then current ADP lists and ID'd what players we felt were over/under valued. If we "HIT" then we were RIGHT about the player performing above/below his then current ADP.

Not sure where your brain-fart is on his rating system.
Click to expand...
well it says "ADP AND ranking" what you just wrote seems like two of the same thing to me
 
InTheLoo said:
Bri said:
You give praise and negatives to Carlton and Dodds and Yudkin gets nada. I don't think that's right
Click to expand...
I was under the impression he was only talking about FBGs Under/Overvalued players coming in to the season, not general rankings.Doesnt look like he is taking anything else in to account beyond a certain staffer saying a guy definitely would/would not outplay his ADP.
Click to expand...
That is correct.Our player rankings have nothing to do with this thread, which is why I am not included above. I was unable to participate in the magazine over/under value play article.

I was able to participate in the over/under play piece we did for the site.

 
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
It is only a matter of understanding the process... since, for example, staff members were asked if Javon Walker was undervalued or overvalued at WR17... I'm pretty sure those saying he was undervalued had a "hit" (since Walker is WR2 right now)...
Click to expand...
I disagree. If (suppose)Yudkin ranked Favre as the 23rd QB and he is the 23rd QB now, that's a hit IMO. How much more right could the guy be? Instead you call that neutral and don't give credit for that. According to your process/system above(again with supposed results)

Favre=23rd QB

Yudkin ranks him as 23rd and gets no credit.

Dodds ranks him as 18th.

Carlton ranks him as 28th.

You give praise and negatives to Carlton and Dodds and Yudkin gets nada. I don't think that's right
Click to expand...
Wow - this really proves you've missed what the OP is doing. If I were you, I'd stop digging this hole and re-read the point of the thread.
Click to expand...
you're not me
 
Bri said:
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
Marc Levin said:
Bri said:
Limp Ditka said:
Bri said:
JayMan said:
A player that is outscoring his positional ranking by at least 5 ranks and was considered undervalued by that Staff member is classified as a hit;
Click to expand...
huh?
Click to expand...
Need help with the big words?
Click to expand...
Sure, how do you spell that word in that old movie Mary Poppins? Supercala...?Thanks

As for this thread, why is undervaluing a "hit"? "hit" to me would be correct ranking or pretty close to it. Seems over or under would be a misjudgement, no? I think credit should go to the "neutral" as categorized above.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed the point above - we held players "undervalued" if we expected them to significantly out perform their ADP. If they DID outperform their ADP and we said they outperformed their ADP, then it was a "hit."Keep in mind, the MAGAZINE over/under value plays was submitted in early May. Our June under/over value play that was done for the site is probably a better reflection of our predictive ability since the draft and mini camp had occurred.
Click to expand...
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
Click to expand...
????You are STILL missing the point - he is not evaluating our rankings or anyone;s rankings. He used the word "ranking" but he meant ADP ranking, not FBG ranking.

He is evaluating how we did in an article ENTITLED under/over value plays. We looked at the then current ADP lists and ID'd what players we felt were over/under valued. If we "HIT" then we were RIGHT about the player performing above/below his then current ADP.

Not sure where your brain-fart is on his rating system.
Click to expand...
well it says "ADP AND ranking" what you just wrote seems like two of the same thing to me
Click to expand...
Nope - you mis-read it and/or he mis-spoke (if he mis-spoke, you are the only one who is not understanding what he is doing).
 
JayMan said:
Bri said:
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
Click to expand...
You raised a good point Bri - It was my initial explanation that was not clear... the positional ranking was just the underlying of the player's ADP - not FBG view...For example, according to his ADP - Javon Walker was usually the 17th WR taken in drafts - hence his WR17 ranking... FBG staff members were then asked if Walker was under or overvalued according to this ADP (and accordingly positional ranking)...Hoping this helps...
Click to expand...
OK well then if ya feel up to it, sometime in the future please consider using their actual rankings. I'd be curious how that worked out. I tend to notice the guys that don't follow the herd and try and think to myself "why does soandso like or dislike this guy?" Those stand out to me in preseason as maybe a point worth researching further. I'd be curious how it winds up now.
 
Bri said:
JayMan said:
Bri said:
I understand that re-ADP but it says above it's based on "ranking and ADP". You, FBG, provided the ranking then consider someone undervalued....well rank him higher then. If you didn't have the conviction to raise someone in the ranking but had a gut feel he'd do better, fine but I wouldn't give credit for that. That's credit for correcting yourself. If some other site's ranking was used as the root/base then it'd be reasonable but I don't see it, as is.
Click to expand...
You raised a good point Bri - It was my initial explanation that was not clear... the positional ranking was just the underlying of the player's ADP - not FBG view...For example, according to his ADP - Javon Walker was usually the 17th WR taken in drafts - hence his WR17 ranking... FBG staff members were then asked if Walker was under or overvalued according to this ADP (and accordingly positional ranking)...Hoping this helps...
Click to expand...
OK well then if ya feel up to it, sometime in the future please consider using their actual rankings. I'd be curious how that worked out. I tend to notice the guys that don't follow the herd and try and think to myself "why does soandso like or dislike this guy?" Those stand out to me in preseason as maybe a point worth researching further. I'd be curious how it winds up now.
Click to expand...
If you just want divergent rankings analysis, that is something you could easily do yourself in about a half hour.If you want the stuff across the board, that would be very time consuming.
 
David Yudkin said:
Not to make any excuses for anyone, but the content for the magazine was due light years before the season started. IMO, a more accurate perspective of staff opinions would probably be gleaned from the web site over/under rated articles.
Click to expand...
Why does no one consider that some drafts occur early in the offseason. I really enjoy those leagues because it provides an edge to owners who anticipate player moves. Obviously injuries and even retirements can have even greater effect but it still gives us something to do in offseason. How foolish would it be to watch baseball. :YUCK:
 
:construction: is for something "under construction", like the Raiders ;) .

I'll take credit for finding both, but Shick! added them for me. I like 'em both.

(FWIW - when I post something lengthy and might have to come back to it - that's really the best use of :construction: . However, some of the best smiley usages have come from non-intended usage, like B :IBTL: )

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JayMan said:
Islander said:
Nice post JayMan. I will be interested in a refresh at the end of the season. As we can see from the results above, an ADP list is quite difficult to beat, just like beating the stock market, even with a group of people who know their stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words... I surely will refresh this at the end of the year...Some of the results are impressive - considering that they had to post them in May for the Mag...
Click to expand...
Hi Jayman! I think it is a very helpful idea to re-visit what our thoughts were back in April and early May. The one thing I am discovering over the years is that as often as news during that period can help a fantasy owner, it can also mislead him in a big way. Let's take Michael Clayton for example. Many were down on him after a brutal 2005 season but all early news had him turning the corner in a big way. Here are the only two blurbs on him from April 1st to June 1st...



Search Results:

May 19, 2006, 08:09

Buccaneers :: WR

WR Mi.Clayton Vowed To Improve, Gruden Pleased

Katherine Smith, Tampa Tribune - [Full Article]

Earlier this offseason, WR Michael Clayton paid a visit to HC Jon Gruden's office, seeking advice on how he could improve. Gruden reached into his desk drawer and produced a contract, then a pen. The contract would hold Clayton accountable for working hard during the offseason. Clayton needed a push. Last year's lack of production was attributed to injuries and the fact he was not able to participate in the team's offseason program. He vowed this offseason would be different. Clayton's goal is to regain his rookie form, when he became the No. 1 receiver in Gruden's offense.

April 12, 2006, 10:05

Buccaneers :: QB, WR

Return Of WR Mi.Clayton Bonus For QB Simms

Rick Stroud, St. Petersburg Times - [Full Article]

A big bonus for QB Chris Simms is the return of WR Michael Clayton, who missed all offseason workouts a year ago recovering from knee surgery. "It's great. Clayton has been working his butt off all offseason and his knee is feeling better and better," Simms said. "It's just great to have him back because people kind of forgot about him last year and they don't realize he played with a bum knee the whole year and never complained or said anything."

Those two blurbs above was the consensus I was hearing coming out of Tampa Bay during the early part of the year. It seemed legitimate enough to warrent calling him out as a bargin in early season ADPs.

Unfortunately as we all know by now, nothing could be farther from the truth and it appears it is his rookie season and not his play over the past two seasons that is the fluke.

I will be spending less time trying to pick apart the truth from the fiction in early season news reports and instead rely mostly on what I see this season up until the start of training camp.

So if I can give everybody just one piece of advice if they have early drafts (prior to training camp) it is to formulate your rankings based more on what a player was able to do in the last 12 months than the 'news' that is coming out on a player.

That said, if everybody is positive on a player and there are many eye-witness accounts praising him instead of speculation or coach speak then that is something to possibly help tweak your opinion on a player.

I won't make the same mistake again next year (players like Michael Clayton and Reggie Williams always seem to light up the NFL in April).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting topic.

I'm open to a review of what I did - frankly it's been so long, I don't remember every one of them.

I know I swung and missed on SF pretty much across the board, and I was late to the party on Vick.

Let me know my 23, and we can discuss, I'm cool by that.

 
Chris Smith said:
JayMan said:
Islander said:
Nice post JayMan. I will be interested in a refresh at the end of the season. As we can see from the results above, an ADP list is quite difficult to beat, just like beating the stock market, even with a group of people who know their stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words... I surely will refresh this at the end of the year...Some of the results are impressive - considering that they had to post them in May for the Mag...
Click to expand...
Hi Jayman! I think it is a very helpful idea to re-visit what our thoughts were back in April and early May. The one thing I am discovering over the years is that as often as news during that period can help a fantasy owner, it can also mislead him in a big way. Let's take Michael Clayton for example. Many were down on him after a brutal 2005 season but all early news had him turning the corner in a big way. Here are the only two blurbs on him from April 1st to June 1st...[...]So if I can give everybody just one piece of advice if they have early drafts (prior to training camp) it is to formulate your rankings based more on what a player was able to do in the last 12 months than the 'news' that is coming out on a player.
Click to expand...
Hi Chris,Thanks for the feedback - this was exactly the purpose of this thread... not trying to figure out what staff member we can rely on / not trying to find out a hit-rate... but rather learning from you guys that had to step up to the plate very early in the offseason what is often overlooked or exagerated - from past experience...Thanks again! :thumbup: and great calls on Chester Taylor and Michael Vick by the way!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Pasquino said:
Interesting topic.

I'm open to a review of what I did - frankly it's been so long, I don't remember every one of them.

I know I swung and missed on SF pretty much across the board, and I was late to the party on Vick.

Let me know my 23, and we can discuss, I'm cool by that.
Click to expand...
Without going into too much details... the most obvious hits and misses on your part Jeff (excluding guys that have missed a lot of time due to injury or change of role) were:Hits:

saying that C. Taylor was undervalued at RB22... he's RB9 right now;

saying that M. Barber III was undervalued at RB41... he's RB17 right now;

saying that C. Brown was overvalued at RB30... he's RB84 right now;

saying that Re. Brown was undervalued at WR42... he's WR16 right now;

saying that Je. Porter was overvalued at WR29... he's WR150 right now;

(other notable hits helped by injury though - M. Hasselbeck and Sa. Moss being overvalued)

Misses:

saying that L. Evans was overvalued at WR23... he's WR14 right now;

saying that M. Vick was overvalued at QB11... he's QB4 right now;

(other notable misses involded role changing... Bledsoe / Warner / Culpepper)

Very good track record... if you can exclude the "in my opinion, this QB is undervalued - but is not in fact since he's going to be benched this year" category...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought you all did a great job with such an early deadline.

I don't even really start my lists until early August. Until then its just about ammassing news and data on spreadsheets. :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JayMan said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
Interesting topic.

I'm open to a review of what I did - frankly it's been so long, I don't remember every one of them.

I know I swung and missed on SF pretty much across the board, and I was late to the party on Vick.

Let me know my 23, and we can discuss, I'm cool by that.
Click to expand...
Without going into too much details... the most obvious hits and misses on your part Jeff (excluding guys that have missed a lot of time due to injury or change of role) were:Hits:

saying that C. Taylor was undervalued at RB22... he's RB9 right now;

saying that M. Barber III was undervalued at RB41... he's RB17 right now;

saying that C. Brown was overvalued at RB30... he's RB84 right now;

saying that Re. Brown was undervalued at WR42... he's WR16 right now;

saying that Je. Porter was overvalued at WR29... he's WR150 right now;

(other notable hits helped by injury though - M. Hasselbeck and Sa. Moss being overvalued)

Misses:

saying that L. Evans was overvalued at WR23... he's WR14 right now;

saying that M. Vick was overvalued at QB11... he's QB4 right now;

(other notable misses involded role changing... Bledsoe / Warner / Culpepper)

Very good track record... if you can exclude the "in my opinion, this QB in undervalued - but is not in fact since he's going to be benched this year" category...
Click to expand...
Well, thanks. I'm sure I wasn't good on Gore - I was late to that party along with Vick (later drafted both in other leagues, including one league I have both). Wow on Chris Brown and Jerry Porter on the disparity. As for injuries and other misses, all part of the game.

I'll take that record out of the gate, though. :thumbup:

 
Jeff Pasquino said:
JayMan said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
Interesting topic.

I'm open to a review of what I did - frankly it's been so long, I don't remember every one of them.

I know I swung and missed on SF pretty much across the board, and I was late to the party on Vick.

Let me know my 23, and we can discuss, I'm cool by that.
Click to expand...
Without going into too much details... the most obvious hits and misses on your part Jeff (excluding guys that have missed a lot of time due to injury or change of role) were:Hits:

saying that C. Taylor was undervalued at RB22... he's RB9 right now;

saying that M. Barber III was undervalued at RB41... he's RB17 right now;

saying that C. Brown was overvalued at RB30... he's RB84 right now;

saying that Re. Brown was undervalued at WR42... he's WR16 right now;

saying that Je. Porter was overvalued at WR29... he's WR150 right now;

(other notable hits helped by injury though - M. Hasselbeck and Sa. Moss being overvalued)

Misses:

saying that L. Evans was overvalued at WR23... he's WR14 right now;

saying that M. Vick was overvalued at QB11... he's QB4 right now;

(other notable misses involded role changing... Bledsoe / Warner / Culpepper)

Very good track record... if you can exclude the "in my opinion, this QB in undervalued - but is not in fact since he's going to be benched this year" category...
Click to expand...
Well, thanks. I'm sure I wasn't good on Gore - I was late to that party along with Vick (later drafted both in other leagues, including one league I have both). Wow on Chris Brown and Jerry Porter on the disparity. As for injuries and other misses, all part of the game.

I'll take that record out of the gate, though. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
looks like good job Jeff, :thumbup:
 
I don't really know most of the staff, but Bloom is ALWAYS someone I listen to. Anytime he posts, I pay attention.

Good to see he's one of the top experts so far.

 
I guess I'll play (using the 7/24 site content):

QB Undervalued

Brooks QB17 :bag: (getting hurt didn't help any but wouldn't have made any difference)

Kitna QB25 :thumbup: currently QB8

QB Overvalued

Palmer QB2 currently QB5 but rising

Brady QB3 currently QB6 but will pass McNabb eventually

RB Undervalued

Dayne RB36 :bag: (was the starter in Denver at the time)

Gore RB37 :thumbup: currently RB6

Taylor RB21 :thumbup: currently RB9

RB Overvalued

Lewis RB18 currently RB24

Green RB31 currently RB21 but up and down

McAllister RB27 :thumbdown: currently RB18 (thought he'd be sluggish out of the gate)

WR Undervalued

Bruce WR45 currently WR35

Glenn WR37 currently WR25

Kennison WR34 currently WR37

WR Overvalued

Walker WR16 :thumbdown: Whoops

Curtis WR42 currently WR60

Edwards WR39 currently WR25 (at the time the talk was he'd be out through October)

Fitzgerald WR4 currently WR49 (not sure I get credit for a guy that got hurt)

TE Undervalued

Troupe TE16 currently TE25

Winslow TE12 :thumbup: currently TE2

TE Overvalued

Davis TE9 see Fitzgerald

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Official #3 Pick Strategy Discussion (Redraft, PPR, 12 Teams)
Replies
10
Views
3K
kyoun1e
K
K
Official #7 Pick Strategy Thread (12 team, PPR)
Replies
14
Views
4K
LionOfGosforth
LionOfGosforth
BobbyLayne
**SNF in DET - Rams at Lions** (-3.5, 51.0) 8:20
7 8 9
Replies
427
Views
8K
TheAristocrat
TheAristocrat

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top