Cian Fahey's rankings? (1 Viewer)

[J Giles Band]

Anyone else perplexed by Cian Fahey's rankings (offense & IDP)? Is he a new staff member?

I'm not familiar with the guy, but was looking at the staff rankings the last couple days and found his to have glaring omissions to the point they frankly aren't credible. When I say that, I don't just mean that I don't agree with some of his rankings (that can be healthy at times). Instead I mean he didn't even rank several top 10 type players.

I know you can choose to ignore a staff member's rankings, so I can work around his so they don't distort the aggregate. But wanted to bring this up to see if anyone else noticed the same thing. Just don't find it up to FBG's standards.

 

[Penguin]

I'm sure most of them are unintentional omissions. There's no way he doesn't think Eli is a top 35 QB this year.

 

[J Giles Band]

I'm sure most of them are unintentional omissions. There's no way he doesn't think Eli is a top 35 QB this year.

When I first noticed it, I suspected the same thing. But after I looked through all of the rankings position-by-position the omissions were simply too numerous to ignore. I mean we're talking about not even ranking offensive players Eli Manning, Shane Vereen and Eric Decker. And not ranking defensive players Michael Johnson, Chad Greenway, Eric Weddle and Roman Harper. I can appreciate varying opinions on all of the aforementioned. But there is no way they don't even make the list.

Either this is poor attention to detail or horrible analysis. Not sure which is worse. Hate to call the poor guy out, but his rankings stand out like a sore thumb. Just not up to snuff for FBG's.

 

[Casting Couch]

It's embarassing for the FBG to have such disfunctional rankings under their banner.

 

[cobalt_27]

SJAX #1 reeks of an attempt to be so edgy it borders on ________

Not ranking Eli is sloppy. Same for Gresham. Same for Fleener.

Percy Harvin at #29 is irresponsible (on 8/4, not like this is an outdated ranking).

This is what happens when you get too many cooks in the kitchen, particularly those who can't even fry a basic egg.

Can we leave projections to the three or four guys who actually know what they're doing?

 

[Gottabesweet]

Agree it's like random good message board posters are being promoted to rankings and are sloppy.

You can always exclude the nonsense and just go with the basic 5-8 guys like normal. That's what I do

 

[UKColt]

Cian is an excellent analyst who used to blog over at http://presnapreads.com/ and, I believe, is recently new to the FBG staff.

Odd that his rankings would miss players out, as his analysis is usually very good.

 

[Cian Fahey]

Random message board poster checking in here.

Some of the rankings were oversights as I adjust to the ranking system here on FBG. Some of the players mentioned are actually in my raw rankings already so either you've missed them or the transfer over had issues(we did originally have to deal with issues doing this).

As for Steven Jackson, Jermaine Gresham and Coby Fleener. Jackson is certainly my number one player and if you care to understand why then this article is worth your time. Gresham is now ranked, but I'm very low on him as I believe Eifert will take over the primary tight end role while the Bengals have too many options to support two fantasy TEs. I need Fleener to show me something before I make him a realistic fantasy option, although as of today I have ranked him because of Heyward-Bey's injury.

Actually my Harvin ranking is accurate. There is so much depth at wide receiver that I think it's worth taking him at that point because you can still get another solid WR to rely on after that point, but then have Harvin come in for the final stretch.

Roman Harper isn't listed because I'm not sure Rob Ryan will start him. Harper doesn't fit the system in New Orleans at all so until I see that he is at least in nickel packages during the preseason, I won't have him ranked. There's a reason he took a pay-cut this off-season.

 

[J Giles Band]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

 

[GregR]

Cian, I think the load of your overall rankings may still be glitched. For example, you have Richardson, Morris, Chris Johnson, Forte and Gore all ranked in the 10 to 20 range at RB, but they show as being unranked in your Overall rankings, and RBs you have after them in your RB rankings show up in the Overall.

 

[cdubz]

SJAX #1 reeks of an attempt to be so edgy it borders on ________

Not ranking Eli is sloppy. Same for Gresham. Same for Fleener.

Percy Harvin at #29 is irresponsible (on 8/4, not like this is an outdated ranking).

This is what happens when you get too many cooks in the kitchen, particularly those who can't even fry a basic egg.

Can we leave projections to the three or four guys who actually know what they're doing?

I just wanted to touch on this point. I disagree with having fewer people do rankings. There are certain people such as Dodds that I have more faith in their rankings, but I like to see the range of rankings on certain players.

Matt Waldman was by far the highest on Brandon Marshall last year (#2 WR I believe), but what that did was get me thinking more about Marshall's situation and what type of upside he did have. Grabbing Marshall in an FPC league and in the subscriber contest helped net me some serious $.

 

[one time]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

Ill preface this by saying I am not a subscriber and have not seen the full rankings:

I disagree with this. There appears to be 2 main gripes.

1) Player omission

This isn't the first time that something has gotten mucked up with the system and transferring stuff over. In the last 3-4 year I remember similar threads at least twice calling out some of the better talent evaluators IMO due to similar system problems. It sounds like this is a known problem and is in the process of being fixed. Could there be more safeguards before rankings are officially posted? Sure. But this is no reason to inappropriately bash a staffer's ability at assessing players over a clear system problem.

2) Player rankings

I think he did a great job illustrating his thought process on the players he was called out on. While putting Steven Jackson #1 is a pretty out there compared to current ADP, it does 2 things. It shows his true opinion and get everyone to see if there is something they were missing. His current ADP is about the #11RB and I think is pretty low. I personally think he will wind up Top 5 based on everything going for him.

No credibility? Come on

 

[J Giles Band]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

Ill preface this by saying I am not a subscriber and have not seen the full rankings:

I disagree with this. There appears to be 2 main gripes.

1) Player omission

This isn't the first time that something has gotten mucked up with the system and transferring stuff over. In the last 3-4 year I remember similar threads at least twice calling out some of the better talent evaluators IMO due to similar system problems. It sounds like this is a known problem and is in the process of being fixed. Could there be more safeguards before rankings are officially posted? Sure. But this is no reason to inappropriately bash a staffer's ability at assessing players over a clear system problem.

2) Player rankings

I think he did a great job illustrating his thought process on the players he was called out on. While putting Steven Jackson #1 is a pretty out there compared to current ADP, it does 2 things. It shows his true opinion and get everyone to see if there is something they were missing. His current ADP is about the #11RB and I think is pretty low. I personally think he will wind up Top 5 based on everything going for him.

No credibility? Come on

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[UKColt]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

I'll preface this by saying I am a subscriber and seen the rankings.

The errors in his ranking have been explained by glitches in the system. That happens, and would explain the glaring omissions.

And as someone who has read alot of Cian's stuff previously (he's often one of the only people tweeting NFL in my timezone!) I can tell you that he is definitely up to the standards of FBG.

Also, who died and made you judge and jury on who is ready? Subscribers pay money because they trust the service being received. The people in charge of that service have seen fit to hire him. QED.

 

[cobalt_27]

Random message board poster checking in here.

Some of the rankings were oversights as I adjust to the ranking system here on FBG. Some of the players mentioned are actually in my raw rankings already so either you've missed them or the transfer over had issues(we did originally have to deal with issues doing this).

As for Steven Jackson, Jermaine Gresham and Coby Fleener. Jackson is certainly my number one player and if you care to understand why then this article is worth your time. Gresham is now ranked, but I'm very low on him as I believe Eifert will take over the primary tight end role while the Bengals have too many options to support two fantasy TEs. I need Fleener to show me something before I make him a realistic fantasy option, although as of today I have ranked him because of Heyward-Bey's injury.

Actually my Harvin ranking is accurate. There is so much depth at wide receiver that I think it's worth taking him at that point because you can still get another solid WR to rely on after that point, but then have Harvin come in for the final stretch.

Roman Harper isn't listed because I'm not sure Rob Ryan will start him. Harper doesn't fit the system in New Orleans at all so until I see that he is at least in nickel packages during the preseason, I won't have him ranked. There's a reason he took a pay-cut this off-season.

Did your rankings get taken down? I can't find anything listed under your name.

Appreciate that a rationale was behind your rankings. Can't say I agree with any of your positions except Gresham. But, he does need to be ranked, and I'm glad to hear that you've reconsidered this and included him.

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

 

[one time]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

Ill preface this by saying I am not a subscriber and have not seen the full rankings:

I disagree with this. There appears to be 2 main gripes.

1) Player omission

This isn't the first time that something has gotten mucked up with the system and transferring stuff over. In the last 3-4 year I remember similar threads at least twice calling out some of the better talent evaluators IMO due to similar system problems. It sounds like this is a known problem and is in the process of being fixed. Could there be more safeguards before rankings are officially posted? Sure. But this is no reason to inappropriately bash a staffer's ability at assessing players over a clear system problem.

2) Player rankings

I think he did a great job illustrating his thought process on the players he was called out on. While putting Steven Jackson #1 is a pretty out there compared to current ADP, it does 2 things. It shows his true opinion and get everyone to see if there is something they were missing. His current ADP is about the #11RB and I think is pretty low. I personally think he will wind up Top 5 based on everything going for him.

No credibility? Come on

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

People mentioned the most glaring problems with a set of rankings and then the person who made the rankings explains every single problem as either being a system issue or with good, valid reasons. Unless there is more to this, I don't need to be a subscriber to be able to get a really good feel on what the situation is.

 

[J Giles Band]

I'll preface this by saying I am a subscriber and seen the rankings.

The errors in his ranking have been explained by glitches in the system. That happens, and would explain the glaring omissions.

And as someone who has read alot of Cian's stuff previously (he's often one of the only people tweeting NFL in my timezone!) I can tell you that he is definitely up to the standards of FBG.

Also, who died and made you judge and jury on who is ready? Subscribers pay money because they trust the service being received. The people in charge of that service have seen fit to hire him. QED.

Cute.

Really not trying to make this the typical shark pool pissing contest. So you are saying it is out of line to question the validity of someone's rankings that are mistake filled at a minimum and likely simply poor analysis? It's not like my post completely ripped the guy with no basis. I raised the question to see if I were the only one who thought so and gave the examples why. Judging by your profile, it looks like you've been on FBG's for all of a year so I will spell it out for you...

If subscribers find rankings that omit numerous top 10 or 20 players at their respective positions (some apparently not by mistake) and have Vernon Davis the #13 overall ranked player (not the #13 TE... the #13 overall player), they will begin to question what they are paying for and may not be subscribers for long.

The IDP rankings, in particular, appear to reveal very little experience with IDP.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

It depends on what you want from the rankings. Personally if he thinks that Steven Jackson will finish as RB1 (which isn't as outlandish as you seem to think it is), shouldn't he rank him there? I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than not agreeing with the ranking.

Let's put it this way, if you had the No. 1 pick and truly believed Steven Jackson will finish No. 1 and there was no way to trade back, what would you do? Hope he falls to 2.12, just because you don't want to "reach"?

 

[J Giles Band]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

Ill preface this by saying I am not a subscriber and have not seen the full rankings:

I disagree with this. There appears to be 2 main gripes.

1) Player omission

This isn't the first time that something has gotten mucked up with the system and transferring stuff over. In the last 3-4 year I remember similar threads at least twice calling out some of the better talent evaluators IMO due to similar system problems. It sounds like this is a known problem and is in the process of being fixed. Could there be more safeguards before rankings are officially posted? Sure. But this is no reason to inappropriately bash a staffer's ability at assessing players over a clear system problem.

2) Player rankings

I think he did a great job illustrating his thought process on the players he was called out on. While putting Steven Jackson #1 is a pretty out there compared to current ADP, it does 2 things. It shows his true opinion and get everyone to see if there is something they were missing. His current ADP is about the #11RB and I think is pretty low. I personally think he will wind up Top 5 based on everything going for him.

No credibility? Come on

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

People mentioned the most glaring problems with a set of rankings and then the person who made the rankings explains every single problem as either being a system issue or with good, valid reasons. Unless there is more to this, I don't need to be a subscriber to be able to get a really good feel on what the situation is.

Trust me, he didn't explain every single problem...

Honestly, I agree with the premise of your two points. Especially about the issues with the transfer of rankings on the website. I even said in one of my posts it might be primarily an issue with detail (not analysis).

And I assure you, this isn't a personal attack on the guy (I've never heard of him). But your judgement is poorly conceived if it is based solely on the information in this thread. The examples in the thread are the tip of the iceberg. You'd have to see his rankings to get a full appreciation of my concern.

 

[cobalt_27]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

It depends on what you want from the rankings. Personally if he thinks that Steven Jackson will finish as RB1 (which isn't as outlandish as you seem to think it is), shouldn't he rank him there? I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than not agreeing with the ranking.

Let's put it this way, if you had the No. 1 pick and truly believed Steven Jackson will finish No. 1 and there was no way to trade back, what would you do? Hope he falls to 2.12, just because you don't want to "reach"?

Like I said, it's,good to see folks who dare to think outside the box. But, creativity doesnt automatically equate to success. Look, my Cowboys took C Travis Fredrick with a first round pick when everyone else had him on a 3rd round grade. It's Jerry's team, he can pick whomever he likes, and we Cowboy fans just have to live with the aftermath of disappointment each year. By the same token, Cian makes his rankings, he can play around in the sand box all he wants with his pecking order. I'm just saying that i've seen enough with the SJax ranking, the Eli omission, putting Harvin as a top-30 WR, and not ranking Fleener or Gresham, that his attention to detail is suspect and more importantly the way he thinks about players, their roles, their contributions to their teams...it's clearly much different than my own.

Thankfully, I can ignore his evaluations with the Exclude function in a way I wish I could with my favorite team's thinking-outside-the-box GM.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'll preface this by saying I am a subscriber and seen the rankings.

The errors in his ranking have been explained by glitches in the system. That happens, and would explain the glaring omissions.

And as someone who has read alot of Cian's stuff previously (he's often one of the only people tweeting NFL in my timezone!) I can tell you that he is definitely up to the standards of FBG.

Also, who died and made you judge and jury on who is ready? Subscribers pay money because they trust the service being received. The people in charge of that service have seen fit to hire him. QED.

Cute.

Really not trying to make this the typical shark pool pissing contest. So you are saying it is out of line to question the validity of someone's rankings that are mistake filled at a minimum and likely simply poor analysis? It's not like my post completely ripped the guy with no basis. I raised the question to see if I were the only one who thought so and gave the examples why. Judging by your profile, it looks like you've been on FBG's for all of a year so I will spell it out for you...

If subscribers find rankings that omit numerous top 10 or 20 players at their respective positions (some apparently not by mistake) and have Vernon Davis the #13 overall ranked player (not the #13 TE... the #13 overall player), they will begin to question what they are paying for and may not be subscribers for long.

The IDP rankings, in particular, appear to reveal very little experience with IDP.

Once again, why are people so hung up about an "outlier" player ranking.

Many people have advocated using a late first, early second round pick on Jimmy Graham because of what his VBD will be in a now heavily weakened TE pool.

If he feels Vernon Davis can have a Jimmy Graham type season, that ranking makes sense. Is it hard to beleive that the most talented pass catcher on a team with a very good young QB could put up monster stats? Have you read where Davis has been lining up a lot at WR in practices? If Davis produces like a WR1 from the TE position that ranking is surely warranted.

Instead of slamming some one for outside the box thinking why not just reflect on it a bit?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

It depends on what you want from the rankings. Personally if he thinks that Steven Jackson will finish as RB1 (which isn't as outlandish as you seem to think it is), shouldn't he rank him there? I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than not agreeing with the ranking.

Let's put it this way, if you had the No. 1 pick and truly believed Steven Jackson will finish No. 1 and there was no way to trade back, what would you do? Hope he falls to 2.12, just because you don't want to "reach"?

Like I said, it's,good to see folks who dare to think outside the box. But, creativity doesnt automatically equate to success. Look, my Cowboys took C Travis Fredrick with a first round pick when everyone else had him on a 3rd round grade. It's Jerry's team, he can pick whomever he likes, and we Cowboy fans just have to live with the aftermath of disappointment each year. By the same token, Cian makes his rankings, he can play around in the sand box all he wants with his pecking order. I'm just saying that i've seen enough with the SJax ranking, the Eli omission, putting Harvin as a top-30 WR, and not ranking Fleener or Gresham, that his attention to detail is suspect and more importantly the way he thinks about players, their roles, their contributions to their teams...it's clearly much different than my own.

Thankfully, I can ignore his evaluations with the Exclude function in a way I wish I could with my favorite team's thinking-outside-the-box GM.

Well, ranking Steven Jackson number 1 and taking him well above his ADP (which in essense is what the Cowboys did) is two different things. If his rankings reflect where he thinks the guy will finish doesn't mean he has to be drafted there. Knowing Jackson's ADP is somehwere around 1.11-2.02 (I think) maybe you try and move back at least 6-7 spaces and take him there. However, if you can't find a trade partner I take my guy and ADP be damned.

ETA: Let's put it this way most rankings have the following guys ranked ahead of Jackson: ADP, Foster, Charles, Spiller, Rice, McCoy, Richardson, Lynch and Martin. I think you can make a case for Jackson over at least half that list, easily.

 

[Abrantes]

Instead of slamming some one for outside the box thinking why not just reflect on it a bit?

That's too much work for some.

 

[J Giles Band]

Once again, why are people so hung up about an "outlier" player ranking.

Many people have advocated using a late first, early second round pick on Jimmy Graham because of what his VBD will be in a now heavily weakened TE pool.

If he feels Vernon Davis can have a Jimmy Graham type season, that ranking makes sense. Is it hard to beleive that the most talented pass catcher on a team with a very good young QB could put up monster stats? Have you read where Davis has been lining up a lot at WR in practices? If Davis produces like a WR1 from the TE position that ranking is surely warranted.

Instead of slamming some one for outside the box thinking why not just reflect on it a bit?

You are using one example as if it is the problem. It most definitely IS NOT. You're missing the point.

If there were only ONE extreme outlier (Vernon Davis, for example) there would be no thread. Outliers can absolutely be healthy. Even if I don't agree with them, I can gleen something and look at something differently. But in this case, his rankings are so full of outliers and omissions you can't take them seriously. I'd argue the omissions are more damning than the outliers actually. And nevermind all of the errors. Those can be forgiven for a first timer.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Just a heads up, there is a filter for the staff rankings.

 

[cobalt_27]

Just a heads up, there is a filter for the staff rankings.

In the past, this has been helpful to target rankings from Dodds or MT or guys i really think have a solid read on a particular position. This is the first time I've ever used it to weed out a staff member.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Once again, why are people so hung up about an "outlier" player ranking.

Many people have advocated using a late first, early second round pick on Jimmy Graham because of what his VBD will be in a now heavily weakened TE pool.

If he feels Vernon Davis can have a Jimmy Graham type season, that ranking makes sense. Is it hard to beleive that the most talented pass catcher on a team with a very good young QB could put up monster stats? Have you read where Davis has been lining up a lot at WR in practices? If Davis produces like a WR1 from the TE position that ranking is surely warranted.

Instead of slamming some one for outside the box thinking why not just reflect on it a bit?

You are using one example as if it is the problem. It most definitely IS NOT. You're missing the point.

If there were only ONE extreme outlier (Vernon Davis, for example) there would be no thread. Outliers can absolutely be healthy. Even if I don't agree with them, I can gleen something and look at something differently. But in this case, his rankings are so full of outliers and omissions you can't take them seriously. I'd argue the omissions are more damning than the outliers actually. And nevermind all of the errors. Those can be forgiven for a first timer.

I beleive the omissions have been explained away (for the most part). As far as "too many" outliers, I guess we'll see how things shake out at season's end. Maybe the guy is a loon - I don't know him from a hole in the wall - but after reading through the Steven Jackson article he linked, he does make a valid point at least. I have the No. 3 pick in my draft and I will not be taking Steven Jackson there, but it did at least put some thought into my head about it - and gave me hope that some how he falls to 2.10.

Also Vernon Davis at 13 overall made me think of the points I listed above. Sometimes its the bold moves that win you leagues. When I'm OTC at 3.03 it will give me something to think about (and most likely I'll pass).

Also I buy into the Greschem explanation - wouldn't touch him...but think the Harvin explantion is just way too risky for me.

Maybe it would help if comments were added to all the rankings.

 

[cobalt_27]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

It depends on what you want from the rankings. Personally if he thinks that Steven Jackson will finish as RB1 (which isn't as outlandish as you seem to think it is), shouldn't he rank him there? I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than not agreeing with the ranking.

Let's put it this way, if you had the No. 1 pick and truly believed Steven Jackson will finish No. 1 and there was no way to trade back, what would you do? Hope he falls to 2.12, just because you don't want to "reach"?

Like I said, it's,good to see folks who dare to think outside the box. But, creativity doesnt automatically equate to success. Look, my Cowboys took C Travis Fredrick with a first round pick when everyone else had him on a 3rd round grade. It's Jerry's team, he can pick whomever he likes, and we Cowboy fans just have to live with the aftermath of disappointment each year. By the same token, Cian makes his rankings, he can play around in the sand box all he wants with his pecking order. I'm just saying that i've seen enough with the SJax ranking, the Eli omission, putting Harvin as a top-30 WR, and not ranking Fleener or Gresham, that his attention to detail is suspect and more importantly the way he thinks about players, their roles, their contributions to their teams...it's clearly much different than my own.Thankfully, I can ignore his evaluations with the Exclude function in a way I wish I could with my favorite team's thinking-outside-the-box GM.

Well, ranking Steven Jackson number 1 and taking him well above his ADP (which in essense is what the Cowboys did) is two different things. If his rankings reflect where he thinks the guy will finish doesn't mean he has to be drafted there.

Well, that's great for the guy picking 8th overall. He can say, "Yay, I got SJAX at 8 when Cian thinks he'll be #1 overall!" But, God help the poor soul who is selecting #1 overall and passes on AP, among others, to take SJAX because of Cian's rankings. I doubt he'd even have the stones to make that SJAX pick with #1 overall in a standard league with a $1000 entry fee.

 

[Warrior]

I just chalked it up to a "I'll be different so people will pay attention to me" attitude. There's outside the box thinking, than then there's "I would draft SJax before Adrian Peterson" nonsense.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

It depends on what you want from the rankings. Personally if he thinks that Steven Jackson will finish as RB1 (which isn't as outlandish as you seem to think it is), shouldn't he rank him there? I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than not agreeing with the ranking.

Let's put it this way, if you had the No. 1 pick and truly believed Steven Jackson will finish No. 1 and there was no way to trade back, what would you do? Hope he falls to 2.12, just because you don't want to "reach"?

Like I said, it's,good to see folks who dare to think outside the box. But, creativity doesnt automatically equate to success. Look, my Cowboys took C Travis Fredrick with a first round pick when everyone else had him on a 3rd round grade. It's Jerry's team, he can pick whomever he likes, and we Cowboy fans just have to live with the aftermath of disappointment each year. By the same token, Cian makes his rankings, he can play around in the sand box all he wants with his pecking order. I'm just saying that i've seen enough with the SJax ranking, the Eli omission, putting Harvin as a top-30 WR, and not ranking Fleener or Gresham, that his attention to detail is suspect and more importantly the way he thinks about players, their roles, their contributions to their teams...it's clearly much different than my own.Thankfully, I can ignore his evaluations with the Exclude function in a way I wish I could with my favorite team's thinking-outside-the-box GM.

Well, ranking Steven Jackson number 1 and taking him well above his ADP (which in essense is what the Cowboys did) is two different things. If his rankings reflect where he thinks the guy will finish doesn't mean he has to be drafted there.

Well, that's great for the guy picking 8th overall. He can say, "Yay, I got SJAX at 8 when Cian thinks he'll be #1 overall!" But, God help the poor soul who is selecting #1 overall and passes on AP, among others, to take SJAX because of Cian's rankings. I doubt he'd even have the stones to make that SJAX pick with #1 overall in a standard league with a $1000 entry fee.

I'm not sure about you but if I had Steven Jackson projected as my No. 1 RB, I'd take him there (if I couldn't trade back).

I have Jamal Charles projected at No. 1 overall (ppr) - if I had the No. 1 pick, I'd take him there, even if the whole world has ADP as consensus No. 1. At 3 (my pick), I'll take him there even if most have Arian Foster and Doug Martin ranked ahead of Charles.

I understand your point - but I guess my question to you is what would you have Cian do, if he truly feels Jackson will finish as the No. 1 RB, give in and go with the consensus?

 

[J Giles Band]

On a related note... there appear to be website errors with several of the more recent rankings of others as well (notably Wimer, Hester & Brimacombe). With the except of Wimer, the consistent theme relative to the website errors appears to be new rankers.

 

[cobalt_27]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and not beholden to the trappings of groupthink. But, going so far to the extreme often can reflect a pattern of being out of touch with reality.

It depends on what you want from the rankings. Personally if he thinks that Steven Jackson will finish as RB1 (which isn't as outlandish as you seem to think it is), shouldn't he rank him there? I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than not agreeing with the ranking.

Let's put it this way, if you had the No. 1 pick and truly believed Steven Jackson will finish No. 1 and there was no way to trade back, what would you do? Hope he falls to 2.12, just because you don't want to "reach"?

Like I said, it's,good to see folks who dare to think outside the box. But, creativity doesnt automatically equate to success. Look, my Cowboys took C Travis Fredrick with a first round pick when everyone else had him on a 3rd round grade. It's Jerry's team, he can pick whomever he likes, and we Cowboy fans just have to live with the aftermath of disappointment each year. By the same token, Cian makes his rankings, he can play around in the sand box all he wants with his pecking order. I'm just saying that i've seen enough with the SJax ranking, the Eli omission, putting Harvin as a top-30 WR, and not ranking Fleener or Gresham, that his attention to detail is suspect and more importantly the way he thinks about players, their roles, their contributions to their teams...it's clearly much different than my own.Thankfully, I can ignore his evaluations with the Exclude function in a way I wish I could with my favorite team's thinking-outside-the-box GM.

Well, ranking Steven Jackson number 1 and taking him well above his ADP (which in essense is what the Cowboys did) is two different things. If his rankings reflect where he thinks the guy will finish doesn't mean he has to be drafted there.

Well, that's great for the guy picking 8th overall. He can say, "Yay, I got SJAX at 8 when Cian thinks he'll be #1 overall!" But, God help the poor soul who is selecting #1 overall and passes on AP, among others, to take SJAX because of Cian's rankings. I doubt he'd even have the stones to make that SJAX pick with #1 overall in a standard league with a $1000 entry fee.

I'm not sure about you but if I had Steven Jackson projected as my No. 1 RB, I'd take him there (if I couldn't trade back).

I have Jamal Charles projected at No. 1 overall (ppr) - if I had the No. 1 pick, I'd take him there, even if the whole world has ADP as consensus No. 1. At 3 (my pick), I'll take him there even if most have Arian Foster and Doug Martin ranked ahead of Charles.

I understand your point - but I guess my question to you is what would you have Cian do, if he truly feels Jackson will finish as the No. 1 RB, give in and go with the consensus?

No no. Not at all. In fact, this really isn't about Jackson per se but rather Jackson seems to be a pattern of a much larger issue in his rankings, including errors, omissions, and crazy outliers...Jackson certainly falling at least 3 SD off from his ADP. These issues, treated as a collective, warrant scrutiny, caution, skepticism and in my case outright dismissal.

 

[GregR]

Obviously we try to catch any software-type issues like this, and unfortunately one got through this time.

But I'll say this about Cian. I became aware of his writing earlier this year thanks to Chase. I love that he is an avid tape watcher and bases his opinions on what he sees. I was excited when I heard he was coming on board. I think he's going to create a lot of content that we will want to see. I don't for a moment think he created the ranking to draw attention. This is a guy who I started reading because he evaluated every sack by the elite pass rushers, because he evaluated every play that a group of elite corners were thrown at so they could be compared. Taking the Howard Stern approach seems completely out of character with the deep analysis person I've seen in his writing.

Agree or don't agree with a ranking, I would rather see it and his reasons and be able to re-evaluate my own position.

 

[J Giles Band]

Obviously we try to catch any software-type issues like this, and unfortunately one got through this time.

But I'll say this about Cian. I became aware of his writing earlier this year thanks to Chase. I love that he is an avid tape watcher and bases his opinions on what he sees. I was excited when I heard he was coming on board. I think he's going to create a lot of content that we will want to see. I don't for a moment think he created the ranking to draw attention. This is a guy who I started reading because he evaluated every sack by the elite pass rushers, because he evaluated every play that a group of elite corners were thrown at so they could be compared. Taking the Howard Stern approach seems completely out of character with the deep analysis person I've seen in his writing.

Agree or don't agree with a ranking, I would rather see it and his reasons and be able to re-evaluate my own position.

All good points Greg. I don't disagree with one word you said. And if Cian does as much homework as you suggest, I am sure he will prove to be a valuable addition at FBG's.

That said, without more experience it doesn't make him a reliable source for player rankings at a subscription website like FBG's. And that is as much a testament to the expectations at FBG's as it is a knock on him.

 

[cobalt_27]

Obviously we try to catch any software-type issues like this, and unfortunately one got through this time.

But I'll say this about Cian. I became aware of his writing earlier this year thanks to Chase. I love that he is an avid tape watcher and bases his opinions on what he sees. I was excited when I heard he was coming on board. I think he's going to create a lot of content that we will want to see. I don't for a moment think he created the ranking to draw attention. This is a guy who I started reading because he evaluated every sack by the elite pass rushers, because he evaluated every play that a group of elite corners were thrown at so they could be compared. Taking the Howard Stern approach seems completely out of character with the deep analysis person I've seen in his writing.

Agree or don't agree with a ranking, I would rather see it and his reasons and be able to re-evaluate my own position.

 

[kurtrudder]

Obviously we try to catch any software-type issues like this, and unfortunately one got through this time.

But I'll say this about Cian. I became aware of his writing earlier this year thanks to Chase. I love that he is an avid tape watcher and bases his opinions on what he sees. I was excited when I heard he was coming on board. I think he's going to create a lot of content that we will want to see. I don't for a moment think he created the ranking to draw attention. This is a guy who I started reading because he evaluated every sack by the elite pass rushers, because he evaluated every play that a group of elite corners were thrown at so they could be compared. Taking the Howard Stern approach seems completely out of character with the deep analysis person I've seen in his writing.

Agree or don't agree with a ranking, I would rather see it and his reasons and be able to re-evaluate my own position.

All good points Greg. I don't disagree with one word you said. And if Cian does as much homework as you suggest, I am sure he will prove to be a valuable addition at FBG's.

That said, without more experience it doesn't make him a reliable source for player rankings at a subscription website like FBG's. And that is as much a testament to the expectations at FBG's as it is a knock on him.

why/how do you pass judgement on Cian's experience? Yours is hardly an authoritative statement and is based on very little other than some system glitches. You walked in here with your ridiculous MB post and you hadn't heard of Cian.....that reflects poorly on you JGB. People in the know already know of Cian and his work and he has respect in the FF community. Get off your soap box or instead be constructive.

 

[J Giles Band]

why/how do you pass judgement on Cian's experience? Yours is hardly an authoritative statement and is based on very little other than some system glitches. You walked in here with your ridiculous MB post and you hadn't heard of Cian.....that reflects poorly on you JGB. People in the know already know of Cian and his work and he has respect in the FF community. Get off your soap box or instead be constructive.

My ridiculous post? People in the know? LOL... I expect more from you of all people KR. After all the years competing in the IDP Survivor leagues you should know me better than that.

None of my posts were inflammatory. None were personal (as yours bordered on). I asked a question as to why the guy's rankings were out of whack. Which they were. Significantly. And have since been removed, btw. And though I did not pass judgement on his experience, the facts are he is a NEW staff member who hadn't done ratings here before. Maybe he isn't ready to bite that off yet? All I had to go on was his first run which were questionable, at best.

So speaking of constructive, before you jump in late, guns a blazing... you might be a bit more measured yourself. As I was in bringing up the topic.

Good luck with your Paragon leagues, btw.

 

[joffer]

Big fan

 

[Nucker101]

While I don't agree with some of his rankings, It's nice to see someone who's not afraid to go totally against the grain of consensus and ADP. The best experts are the one's who aren't afraid to go against the grain, AND have the facts/support to back up their claims. That being said, Dodds is still the man at FBG's.

 

[pizzatyme]

I love it when someone calls someone out for a "crazy" projection. I mean when someone nails it perfectly, then and only then can they chastise for craziness.

Case in point, half of the first round projections based on ADP last year, did not finish near the first round.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Random message board poster checking in here.

Some of the rankings were oversights as I adjust to the ranking system here on FBG. Some of the players mentioned are actually in my raw rankings already so either you've missed them or the transfer over had issues(we did originally have to deal with issues doing this).

Just wanted to chime in here and say that FBG's ranking interface definitely takes some getting used to, and I had some problems with it early on, too. Once you get everything in and live, it's pretty easy to maintain, but getting everyone entered for the first time can be a chore and a few glitches are almost to be expected.

Also, for what it's worth, I'll echo Greg. I've never checked out Cian's rankings, but I've been following him on twitter and reading his blog for a while now, and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw he'd been added to staff. I don't have time to be constantly watching Twitter, so I keep my follow list very short (around 25-30 names, iirc). I've always thought Cian (@Cianaf) and Joe Bussell (@NFLosophy) were the two guys no one has ever heard of but everyone should be following- regardless of what you think of his rankings, if you're on twitter, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you give him a follow.

 

[silentcoach]

I just chalked it up to a "I'll be different so people will pay attention to me" attitude. There's outside the box thinking, than then there's "I would draft SJax before Adrian Peterson" nonsense.

honestly, who cares. anyone can come up with peterson, martin, charles....i dont mind outside the box thinking if you can explain your reasoning.

you don't need to sign up to fbg to understand the consensus rankings.

Cian, thank you for thinking outside the box

 

[MAC_32]

Random message board poster checking in here.

Some of the rankings were oversights as I adjust to the ranking system here on FBG. Some of the players mentioned are actually in my raw rankings already so either you've missed them or the transfer over had issues(we did originally have to deal with issues doing this).

Just wanted to chime in here and say that FBG's ranking interface definitely takes some getting used to, and I had some problems with it early on, too. Once you get everything in and live, it's pretty easy to maintain, but getting everyone entered for the first time can be a chore and a few glitches are almost to be expected.

Also, for what it's worth, I'll echo Greg. I've never checked out Cian's rankings, but I've been following him on twitter and reading his blog for a while now, and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw he'd been added to staff. I don't have time to be constantly watching Twitter, so I keep my follow list very short (around 25-30 names, iirc). I've always thought Cian (@Cianaf) and Joe Bussell (@NFLosophy) were the two guys no one has ever heard of but everyone should be following- regardless of what you think of his rankings, if you're on twitter, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you give him a follow.

I'll echo this.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I just chalked it up to a "I'll be different so people will pay attention to me" attitude. There's outside the box thinking, than then there's "I would draft SJax before Adrian Peterson" nonsense.

honestly, who cares. anyone can come up with peterson, martin, charles....i dont mind outside the box thinking if you can explain your reasoning.

you don't need to sign up to fbg to understand the consensus rankings.

Cian, thank you for thinking outside the box

It's almost as if you can't win. If his top 10 RBs were: ADP, Foster, Martin, Charles, Spiller, McCoy, Rice, Richardson, Lynch and Morris everyone would say "What's the point", "that's just consensus" or "he's following the herd", but if you stray from the consensus then you're "an outlier", "crazy" "looking for webhits" or just "being different to be different".

 

[silentcoach]

as an aside--were these rankings taken down? I do not see them. thank you.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Random message board poster checking in here.

Some of the rankings were oversights as I adjust to the ranking system here on FBG. Some of the players mentioned are actually in my raw rankings already so either you've missed them or the transfer over had issues(we did originally have to deal with issues doing this).

As for Steven Jackson, Jermaine Gresham and Coby Fleener. Jackson is certainly my number one player and if you care to understand why then this article is worth your time. Gresham is now ranked, but I'm very low on him as I believe Eifert will take over the primary tight end role while the Bengals have too many options to support two fantasy TEs. I need Fleener to show me something before I make him a realistic fantasy option, although as of today I have ranked him because of Heyward-Bey's injury.

Actually my Harvin ranking is accurate. There is so much depth at wide receiver that I think it's worth taking him at that point because you can still get another solid WR to rely on after that point, but then have Harvin come in for the final stretch.

Roman Harper isn't listed because I'm not sure Rob Ryan will start him. Harper doesn't fit the system in New Orleans at all so until I see that he is at least in nickel packages during the preseason, I won't have him ranked. There's a reason he took a pay-cut this off-season.

Hi Cian, I enjoyed the article and agreed with virtually everything thing you said. However, having owned Jackson in previous years I feel his propensity for getting nicked up is a real concern. If I thought for a moment that he would stay healthy and start and finish all 16 games, I would be right on the band wagon with you. I believe he will start the season as a top 5 back, but I just can't help but feel that sooner, rather than later, he will get nicked up and become a very frustrating player to own (is he playing, will he be 100%, will he finish the game etc).

Welcome to the site!

 

[MAC_32]

Random message board poster checking in here.

Some of the rankings were oversights as I adjust to the ranking system here on FBG. Some of the players mentioned are actually in my raw rankings already so either you've missed them or the transfer over had issues(we did originally have to deal with issues doing this).

As for Steven Jackson, Jermaine Gresham and Coby Fleener. Jackson is certainly my number one player and if you care to understand why then this article is worth your time. Gresham is now ranked, but I'm very low on him as I believe Eifert will take over the primary tight end role while the Bengals have too many options to support two fantasy TEs. I need Fleener to show me something before I make him a realistic fantasy option, although as of today I have ranked him because of Heyward-Bey's injury.

Actually my Harvin ranking is accurate. There is so much depth at wide receiver that I think it's worth taking him at that point because you can still get another solid WR to rely on after that point, but then have Harvin come in for the final stretch.

Roman Harper isn't listed because I'm not sure Rob Ryan will start him. Harper doesn't fit the system in New Orleans at all so until I see that he is at least in nickel packages during the preseason, I won't have him ranked. There's a reason he took a pay-cut this off-season.

Hi Cian, I enjoyed the article and agreed with virtually everything thing you said. However, having owned Jackson in previous years I feel his propensity for getting nicked up is a real concern. If I thought for a moment that he would stay healthy and start and finish all 16 games, I would be right on the band wagon with you. I believe he will start the season as a top 5 back, but I just can't help but feel that sooner, rather than later, he will get nicked up and become a very frustrating player to own (is he playing, will he be 100%, will he finish the game etc).

Welcome to the site!

I'd be less concerned about S Jacks' durability if he didn't have a quality handcuff. S Jacks in round 2 paired with Quizz will be a very productive RB2, probably will outproduce many competitors RB1's.

 

[Moniker]

I just chalked it up to a "I'll be different so people will pay attention to me" attitude. There's outside the box thinking, than then there's "I would draft SJax before Adrian Peterson" nonsense.

honestly, who cares. anyone can come up with peterson, martin, charles....i dont mind outside the box thinking if you can explain your reasoning.

you don't need to sign up to fbg to understand the consensus rankings.

Cian, thank you for thinking outside the box

 

[threeputt]

I appreciate Cian's attempt to explain, but some of his omissions are too glaring to explain away. As a result his rankings have no credibility.

I can see the benefit for FBG's to be inclusive and have a wide range of views/opinions. But if you're gonna include someone who hasn't done rankings before without better vetting, it will erode subscriber confidence in the website that sells its product as expert analysis.

To be clear, 95% of the information FBG's provides is terrific. This is just an example of someone who is not ready to do rankings up to the standards of FBG's.

Bro, you are simply butt hurt you weren't asked to do what he is doing. If his explanation to you and a few others as to why some things were omitted and some guys were higher/lower than what you believe then I don't know what to tell you. Move along.

 

[silentcoach]

as an aside--were these rankings taken down? I do not see them. thank you.

Anyone?