Last edited by a moderator:
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!
Bob Sorter's Composite Draft Rankings (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sigmund Bloom
- Start date
Mr. Brownstone
Footballguy
Team Legacy
Footballguy
Kevin Ashcraft
Footballguy
nice...that made my afternoon much more interesting!
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
Wow, this is nice.
looks like someone has a case of the Fridays.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Nice Work. Will say though that the SSR value as-is isn't particularly informative to me. Seems to heavily favor weight over speed in terms of "value".
To me, 220 and 4.39 (Paterson) is MUCH more impressive than 235, 4.64 (Jason Snelling), but Snelling's SSR is "better". I'd suggest a different formula for that calculated value.
Unless I am missing something?
To me, 220 and 4.39 (Paterson) is MUCH more impressive than 235, 4.64 (Jason Snelling), but Snelling's SSR is "better". I'd suggest a different formula for that calculated value.
Unless I am missing something?
you got that right, but it's about over
i really don't need to be downloading on my work computer. besides if i did want to download something, i could think of something better than NFL prospects.
Warpig
Footballguy
I think that category is just a "bonus" for you to peruse. It's not meant to tell you to take Snelling over Peterson.I've noticed it seems to benefit DL and OL more becuase if they are 300+ lbs and still run a 4.6 then their SSR will be better. It just gives you an idea of the freakish athletes some of those hogs can be. Ofcourse your skill players probably won't rate as high because they are smaller and faster.
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
Awesome. He doesn't have Samardija on there, but I would bet some team will draft him late.
Dope
Footballguy
That is really some impressive work.
I even took a look at the 2005 and 2006 versions. The one thing that I noticed after a quick glance is that when it comes to RB's and QB's these guys have it down pretty good. The only glaring miss was on Frank Gore who they had at #118 overall. WR's are more hit and miss, but that's a given.
I think this may be very useful
BIG
I even took a look at the 2005 and 2006 versions. The one thing that I noticed after a quick glance is that when it comes to RB's and QB's these guys have it down pretty good. The only glaring miss was on Frank Gore who they had at #118 overall. WR's are more hit and miss, but that's a given.
I think this may be very useful
BIG
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I hear you. I'm sure they didn't intend for it to be the #1 thing to look at. I'm just saying that within a given position group (in this case RBs, but WRs I think will be the same), I would hope it might give a better indication than it does of general "size/speed ratio". In my mind, Peterson has a MUCH MUCH better size/speed ratio than Snelling (who I just picked as an example), but he has a lower SSR. Problem is the fairly arbitrary calculation used to arrive at the SSR. Weight dominates the result more than it should. Basically it works out to the heavier a player is, the better his SSR almost regardless of speed and I don't think that is what they were trying to accomplish there.To give non-player examples:If a 235 pounder runs a 4.40 he gets 7.31 and a 250 pounder running a 4.60 gets a 7.37. Which has a better size/speed ration to you?Another:230 pounder runs a silly 4.30 and gets a 7.31, and he by FAR has a better size/speed ration than the other two in my book.Warpig said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Men-in-Cleats
Footballguy
If SSR was a strong indicator of performance, I'd rank in there with the kickers unless I beefed up another 120 lbs or so and kept the same speed.
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
D'oh! Missed him somehow. That's pretty far down.
chris1969
Footballguy
The only problem I see with this are that the rankings are a snapshot of when the publications came out and then adjusted for speed/strength. If there was a way of putting in a last minute "hype quotient" for things like the Branch stress fracture rumor, it would be absolutely perfect!
Hi, there. This is Bob, the author of the sheet. I hope this doesn't sound as defensive as it might. I totally agree with you that taken by itself and used to compare one player to another, you have to be careful. The application of it within the sheet was meant to compare RBs to RBs, OLs to OLs, etc. This was done by dividing the player's individual SSR by the positional average. That is what was used in the formula for the overall rating. Thus, if a player's SSR was 7.5 and the positional SSR was 7.25, the individual's "overall average" was boosted by about 15 percent. The end result is an accordian affect on the entire list.If you look at previous year's sheets, I had separate listings for ratings, those with SSR and those without. Maybe I'll provide that next year if there's enough people want it.
Interesting thought. Since it's easily downloadable from the website, we could tweak it at the last minute and still have it available. I'll see what we can do along that line next year.One other thought. I'm thinking we might plug in the actual position a player was taken and compare it with the "Overall ranking". Maybe show hits, +/- 1s, +/- 2s, etc. Then again, if we start getting +/-87s, we might rethink that. LOL!
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Didn't sound defensive at all, but I'm not sure you understand what I am getting at.I WAS comparing RBs to RBs etc. But if the relative SSRs between players is not accurate the effect it has on the overall average is not doing anything helpful either. If you actually look at my examples you'll see what I was talking about. If a 230 guy running a 4.3 has the same ratio as the 235 guy running a 4.4, both of those guys are going to get the same "boost" to their overall, and that just doesn't make sense. The 4.3 guy has an obvious SSR advantage in theory, but the formula gives the same value.If the SSR has no value in terms of comparing players at a given position, why use it at all?I'm honestly not trying to crap on your list, I think the concept is great and the composite numbers are great. Even the SSR concept is good. I just think it is not telling you what you think it is. The formula was arbitrary (I assume), so tweeking the formula (maybe for next year) shouldn't hurt anything.The thing is, a full tenth in 40 time is a HUGE difference when you think about the fact that extreme range in times is probably only 3 tenths. But a full tenth is only worth as much as about 5 pounds in the current formula.Aside from theory, in practical terms it means that all the heavy guys (like Snelling) are getting bigger "boosts" than they really deserve (particularly when it is more than Peterson's "boost").Edit: going back to look at receivers. Another good example is Meachum vs Bowe, where Bowe's 220 4.52 gives a better boost than Meachem's 210 4.39. Should be pretty easily the other way around. Then look at Matt Trannon at 232 and 4.67 with the 2nd highest ratio on the board at WR. A guy with those numbers should NOT be getting any kind of boost relative to guys like Meachum and Bowe (and all the rest for that matter) for having a "superior" size/speed ratio.At TE, Greg Olson (255, 4.51) has the same ratio as Ben Patrick at (268, 4.74).At FB, Leron McClain who ran a 4.86 at 258 gets a bigger speed ratio boost than Brian leonard who ran a 4.56 at 240?
Last edited by a moderator:
After providing us with the best composite rankings ANYWHERE, Bob Sorter has been kind enough to provide us with a post-draft analysis of his rankings compared to the actual picks. The analysis includes:
* Every Pick Broken Down By Team
* Was It a Reach or a Steal?
* How Big of a Reach or Steal?
* Overall Team Grade
* All Picks Listed In Order of Original Grade, Color-coded by Actual Round Chosen
And as always, Bob provides a legend to explain how he arrived at those outcomes.
Post Draft Analysis
* Every Pick Broken Down By Team
* Was It a Reach or a Steal?
* How Big of a Reach or Steal?
* Overall Team Grade
* All Picks Listed In Order of Original Grade, Color-coded by Actual Round Chosen
And as always, Bob provides a legend to explain how he arrived at those outcomes.
Post Draft Analysis
his predraft rankings and once again thank Bob for his generosity in sharing this with us all !Hi, this is Bob. Most of the 40 times came from the first web site I used to initially populate the spreadsheet. It was easy to copy and paste into the spreadsheet and saved me beaucoup time in typing. The problem was that there seem to be quite a few discrepancies in the data. Next year I'll try to incorporate combine figures as much as I can.Let me also thank everyone for the kind words. Trust me... I enjoyed putting this together as much as you all seem to have enjoyed looking at it.See you next year... with a few more new "features".
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob, again. Point well taken. It should be pretty easy to come up with a way to tweak it and make favour speed slightly over size. I'll see what I can come up with.
chris1969
Footballguy
Bob, if you need a hand with things, let me know. You're moving in the right direction.
mightyeskimo
Footballguy
Just wanted to give this thread a bump to bring it to the attention of any newbies here. Can't wait for the 2008 edition.
ya know.....I thought 2008 version was up, grrr
mightyeskimo
Footballguy
I don't think it goes up until May.
