Confused about the Projections (1 Viewer)

[elshagon]

What would be cool in their rankings is this:

1. Some indication with updated rankings (color coordinated?) of players moving up or down.

2. Several players highlighted with debate from other FBG's staff who disagree with the current ranking.

I enjoyed Dodds thoughts on the season/players/drafting before the season began. Would love some focused discussion on some of the player rankings.

 

[shadow2k]

There are some staff comments about it in this thread from a couple days ago. I don't pay, so I can't really comment on it...I don't know what they look like.

Link

 

[beto]

I tend to agree with you. As a subscriber I would like to see them take a position.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't think the right word is generic, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with how big footballguys has gotten or being afraid to go out on a limb. Lots of good discussion here about this (I assumed you missed this and were at WCOFF).

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...777&hl=yard

 

[BeTheMatch]

What would be cool in their rankings is this:

1. Some indication with updated rankings (color coordinated?) of players moving up or down.

2. Several players highlighted with debate from other FBG's staff who disagree with the current ranking.

I enjoyed Dodds thoughts on the season/players/drafting before the season began. Would love some focused discussion on some of the player rankings.

 

[Mario Kart]

I think with the growing popularity of FBG's they are becoming less of a bystander and more of the standard. Thus, rankings viewed from other sources are not outlandish if they "agree" with FBG's rather they are looking to FBG's to rank their players.

I may be overexaggerating FBG's importance in the fantasy football community but having a magazine and ads on other websites I would imagine the traffic here becomes wider and wider each day.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Look, I like this place, but has it become the Wal mart of FF, where no one wants to take a stand for fear of being controversial?

See this threadThere's no fear of being controversial. The goal, however, is to be accurate. In the thread I just linked to, David Dodds elaborates a bit on his method of doing the weekly projections. If they end up being controversial, that's fine, but he's not going to try to be controvesial just for the sake of being controversial. He's going to try to be accurate.

Edit to acknowledge that shadow2k and Chase both beat me with the link.

 

[Gatorman]

I don't think the right word is generic, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with how big footballguys has gotten or being afraid to go out on a limb. Lots of good discussion here about this (I assumed you missed this and were at WCOFF).

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...777&hl=yard

You are right, I did miss it b/c I was at WCOFF, and BTW, I never saw a WCOFF perfect draft article. David explained to me he was too busy w/ content to do it, but again, color me surprised that it didn't happen (or that FBG's presence at WCOFF was so small in terms of staff and the like. 5 Years ago I met Joe and David, this year the only FBG staff there were the ones drafting teams of their own)

 

[pinequick]

I don't think the right word is generic, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with how big footballguys has gotten or being afraid to go out on a limb. Lots of good discussion here about this (I assumed you missed this and were at WCOFF).

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...777&hl=yard

You are right, I did miss it b/c I was at WCOFF, and BTW, I never saw a WCOFF perfect draft article. David explained to me he was too busy w/ content to do it, but again, color me surprised that it didn't happen (or that FBG's presence at WCOFF was so small in terms of staff and the like. 5 Years ago I met Joe and David, this year the only FBG staff there were the ones drafting teams of their own)

Didn't FBGs have a spat with those guys, or am I remembering that wrong?

 

[code]

I don't think the right word is generic, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with how big footballguys has gotten or being afraid to go out on a limb. Lots of good discussion here about this (I assumed you missed this and were at WCOFF).

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...777&hl=yard

You are right, I did miss it b/c I was at WCOFF, and BTW, I never saw a WCOFF perfect draft article. David explained to me he was too busy w/ content to do it, but again, color me surprised that it didn't happen (or that FBG's presence at WCOFF was so small in terms of staff and the like. 5 Years ago I met Joe and David, this year the only FBG staff there were the ones drafting teams of their own)

Didn't FBGs have a spat with those guys, or am I remembering that wrong?

You're thinking of FFTOCEdit to add link: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...42&hl=fftoc

 

[pinequick]

I don't think the right word is generic, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with how big footballguys has gotten or being afraid to go out on a limb. Lots of good discussion here about this (I assumed you missed this and were at WCOFF).

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...777&hl=yard

You are right, I did miss it b/c I was at WCOFF, and BTW, I never saw a WCOFF perfect draft article. David explained to me he was too busy w/ content to do it, but again, color me surprised that it didn't happen (or that FBG's presence at WCOFF was so small in terms of staff and the like. 5 Years ago I met Joe and David, this year the only FBG staff there were the ones drafting teams of their own)

Didn't FBGs have a spat with those guys, or am I remembering that wrong?

You're thinking of FFTOC

Roger.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Looking at last weeks projections, I was amazed at how middle of the road everthing was.No QB over 254 yards passing, and only 2 with less than 150 (including Vince young). No projections of over 1.9 TDs. WRs: No one with more than 7 receptions. No hundred yard receiving days, no one with more that .8 of a TD predicted.RBs: No one with over 24 carries, no one at 100 yards, no one with more than 1.2 TDsTEs: No one with more than 6 catches, no one over 70 yards, no one with more than .5 TDs.Look, I like this place, but has it become the Wal mart of FF, where no one wants to take a stand for fear of being controversial? And before anyone chimes in with the "make your own lineup decisions" nonsense, my answer is "then why pay for the site?" I can guess for myself that on a large enough scale, it is easier to predict the middle than the outliers.Dave and all other FBG staffers. Success is a nice thing. Complacency is not. More info an OPINIONS please, even if they are wrong./rant

They do have the darkhorses every week don't they? Strong Play/StrongReach and those type of plays...look there and you will get some good stuff.I didn't particularly like their matach ups last week but the wonderful thing about the ovards is you can start your own thread and get more feedback.

 

[kevthegrad]

It was also only week 1 of the reg season guys, not making excuses here but who wants to put a stake in the ground on week one and proclaim that Chad Pennington is going to throw for 300 yds? All we've got to base week 1 on is the rusty 15 or 20 mins of cumulative playing time the starters have had all pre-season.

Lets relax and try to pan FBG on things like my missing rushing and passing projections last week from my e-mail box.

 

[Willowdoc]

I love the strategy articles and the didatic player discussions (and Draft dominator), I believe David writes wonderfully interesting articles (I used his WCOFF summary to help draft my team this year - though I think I waited too long for my QB with Delhomme instead of Warner), BUT - the projections are always bunched to the middle - preseason and inseason they never predict the spectular game or season that wins shark leagues. For example, in their projections only one player (SA) was projected for more than 20 touchdowns, LT and LJ were just below and noone projected to 15 - 18 range. Their technology just isn't made to project breakout games or seasons via projection. But, their evaluations help me to decide who I think may end up there and that makes it more than pedestrian.

 

[phrozen]

Has footballguys become so big it is now vanilla?

fixed

 

[kevthegrad]

would "homogonized" be appropriate here too? Not fond of Vanilla.

 

[Mario Kart]

Also, it is very difficult to be proactive in this hobby. Thus any projections from anywhere should be taken with a few grains of salt. Putting projections before the game happens as some kind of concrete numbers is foolish by the reader. I think that is what is getting caught up here. People see these numbers and think they are somehow concrete and set in stone. Then they come here and complain if those projections are off or, likely, way off and fault arbitrary numbers just because they failed to do the homework themselves.

With that said, I think FBG's offers the most tools out of other sites but any fantasy football information is best when it is retroactive and not proactive because it simply cannot be done.

 

[Mike Anderson]

Looking at last weeks projections, I was amazed at how middle of the road everthing was.No QB over 254 yards passing, and only 2 with less than 150 (including Vince young). No projections of over 1.9 TDs. WRs: No one with more than 7 receptions. No hundred yard receiving days, no one with more that .8 of a TD predicted.RBs: No one with over 24 carries, no one at 100 yards, no one with more than 1.2 TDsTEs: No one with more than 6 catches, no one over 70 yards, no one with more than .5 TDs.Look, I like this place, but has it become the Wal mart of FF, where no one wants to take a stand for fear of being controversial? And before anyone chimes in with the "make your own lineup decisions" nonsense, my answer is "then why pay for the site?" I can guess for myself that on a large enough scale, it is easier to predict the middle than the outliers.Dave and all other FBG staffers. Success is a nice thing. Complacency is not. More info an OPINIONS please, even if they are wrong./rant

Only thing I would add in here is that David has said every year that Projections improve as we get later in the season, and trends can be looked at.

 

[Bri]

dead horse long beaten

 

[Scarpati]

Week 1 report

Here are the results so far:

QB

Wk Player Proj Act Ratio Hit 300-- ----------- --- --- ---- ----1 K. Warner 254 301 119% YESRB

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  ----1   L. Johnson	 98	68	69%  NO

WR

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  ----1   R. Moss		82	47	57%  NO

Overall average

Wk  Ratio--  -----1	82%

This tells us nothing after one week (you knew I was going to say that, didn't you?)

One out of the three players hit the magic number, and as a group they averaged 82% of FBG's projected production.

Dentist, please post your three selections for Week 2 and we'll continue.

 

[Dentist]

ugh.. when I picked Larry I was thinking someone who was a lock for 100 yards because my league operates in terms of total yards gained.. not slicing things up... however I did still think he'd get 100 rushing.

overall I did real bad in week 1, obviously. Also I was a total donkey for not picking fitzgerald to hit 100... why I went with Moss I don't know.. i rushed it.. horrid play

Here are my week 2 picks, although as I said before, this isn't the point of this thread really... I'm no expert and I don't claim to be.. I pay for the service because I'm not an expert and am looking for help.

QB - Manning 300 yards

RB - S. Alexander

WR - M. Harrison

 

[LHUCKS]

I don't have a problem with the lack of variance in the projections. From a statistical odds perspective I would've projected similarly on a collective basis, particularly in week one.

 

[Scarpati]

QB - Manning 300 yards

Shall I assume that's Peyton Manning?

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I remember when I first started coming to this site, I was surprised by the fractional TDs and 87 yard projections because everyone else doing published projections was taking wild pot shots at who would score 2 TDs and 150 yards so that twice a year they could say "I called it when so-and-so hit it big". Those rankings get skewed heavily by whether or not someone gets the 6 for a TD or not or who is the guess-of-the-week to hit big yardage.

Having seen how things work around here, I appreciate the rigor and process that goes into this type of projection and understand how it is meant to work with probabilities over time. I definitely prefer this approach and that is one reason why I have stayed around

That said, I still preferred a couple years ago when they produced two sets of projections (I think Bob Henry did the second set the year he joined the staff). Having two projections to compare helped raise questions and provoke thought more than simply reading down a single list. That is something I really wish they would do again. If staffing/time is the issue, I would gladly give up several of the weekly articles for this feature alone.

 

[Dentist]

QB - Manning 300 yards

Shall I assume that's Peyton Manning?

sorry.. yes pheyton manningunless they both retired

 

[Scrap Iron]

I'm behind the times, having just read this old thread tonight, nonetheless I'll add a couple of quick comments:

* David - it sounds to me like lots of guys are hungry for something along the lines of your "From the Gut" article from a couple of weeks ago - on a weekly basis. That article seemed to be very well received. We know you've already got a full plate, but some abbreviated form of it might be just what the doctor ordered.

* Wouldn't it be true to say that the numeric values themselves in the projections are pretty meaningless? Aren't the projected stats of a player only useful, for FF purposes, insomuch as how they compare with the projected stats of the other players at the same position? i.e. Who cares if Boldin projects for 87 yards, 120 yards or 500 yards if in each case he projects as the 5th best play that week as compared to the rest of the WR pool.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

* Wouldn't it be true to say that the numeric values themselves in the projections are pretty meaningless? Aren't the projected stats of a player only useful, for FF purposes, insomuch as how they compare with the projected stats of the other players at the same position? i.e. Who cares if Boldin projects for 87 yards, 120 yards or 500 yards if in each case he projects as the 5th best play that week as compared to the rest of the WR pool.

He might be the 5th best in one scoring system and 12th best in another. Doing projections allows you to figure rankings for a wide variety of different scoring systems.

 

[Marc Levin]

I'm apparently chasing MT around tonight - dead-on, Maurile.

I really like the way David does projections - I simply give it a plus/minus factor of 20% or so. I believe he is usually within 20% of the vast bulk of the players he projects - and he does ALL the players.

If he sold out on his "gut" in doing projections, what does that say about the projections he does for all the "non-sexy" guys?

I DO agree that we need some more "gut" reactions. Maybe for next year, we can get a staff thing together, similar to the roundtabel, where we highlight a handful of players, and a few staff guys give alternative projections, with reasoning, for those few players. We can float that in our brainstorming sessions for next year, but I wouldn;t expect much to change for this year.

 

[Scrap Iron]

* Wouldn't it be true to say that the numeric values themselves in the projections are pretty meaningless? Aren't the projected stats of a player only useful, for FF purposes, insomuch as how they compare with the projected stats of the other players at the same position? i.e. Who cares if Boldin projects for 87 yards, 120 yards or 500 yards if in each case he projects as the 5th best play that week as compared to the rest of the WR pool.

He might be the 5th best in one scoring system and 12th best in another. Doing projections allows you to figure rankings for a wide variety of different scoring systems.

Of course, projections are necessary for the reason you cited, but ultimately they are still just a tool used to generate rankings, right? I'm just saying that I think the actual number of yards/completions/TDs/catches in the projection is somewhat arbitrary. What counts is how they cumulatively stack up relative to the projections for the rest of the players at the same position. I would think that holds true regardless of scoring system.

 

[Marc Levin]

* Wouldn't it be true to say that the numeric values themselves in the projections are pretty meaningless? Aren't the projected stats of a player only useful, for FF purposes, insomuch as how they compare with the projected stats of the other players at the same position? i.e. Who cares if Boldin projects for 87 yards, 120 yards or 500 yards if in each case he projects as the 5th best play that week as compared to the rest of the WR pool.

He might be the 5th best in one scoring system and 12th best in another. Doing projections allows you to figure rankings for a wide variety of different scoring systems.

Of course, projections are necessary for the reason you cited, but ultimately they are still just a tool used to generate rankings, right? I'm just saying that I think the actual number of yards/completions/TDs/catches in the projection is somewhat arbitrary. What counts is how they cumulatively stack up relative to the projections for the rest of the players at the same position. I would think that holds true regardless of scoring system.

You can sort to look at just WRs and you can get that information. And, no, you are completely incorrect in your bolded statement - the differing scoring systems re-rank each player based on the scoring system - a TD heavy league would have a WR projected for 95 yards and .5 TDs much lower than he'd be in a league that rewards yardage more heavily.

 

[Scrap Iron]

* Wouldn't it be true to say that the numeric values themselves in the projections are pretty meaningless? Aren't the projected stats of a player only useful, for FF purposes, insomuch as how they compare with the projected stats of the other players at the same position? i.e. Who cares if Boldin projects for 87 yards, 120 yards or 500 yards if in each case he projects as the 5th best play that week as compared to the rest of the WR pool.

He might be the 5th best in one scoring system and 12th best in another. Doing projections allows you to figure rankings for a wide variety of different scoring systems.

Of course, projections are necessary for the reason you cited, but ultimately they are still just a tool used to generate rankings, right? I'm just saying that I think the actual number of yards/completions/TDs/catches in the projection is somewhat arbitrary. What counts is how they cumulatively stack up relative to the projections for the rest of the players at the same position. I would think that holds true regardless of scoring system.

You can sort to look at just WRs and you can get that information. And, no, you are completely incorrect in your bolded statement - the differing scoring systems re-rank each player based on the scoring system - a TD heavy league would have a WR projected for 95 yards and .5 TDs much lower than he'd be in a league that rewards yardage more heavily.

I realize that players will be ranked in different slots based on differences in scoring systems. When I said "stack up" I meant where they fell in order after the scoring rules were already applied. Much of the talk earlier in the thread focused on single projections (such as yardage for a receiver) that are only one component of the players overall projected weekly ranking. My point, perhaps badly made up to now, is just that the numeric projection (rcvg yds for instance) is less important in and of itself than where it falls in order among all the other projections (for rcvg yds) at that position. So, I'm in the camp (where I believe DD, MT and you are) saying that there is no point in projecting a 100 yard guy if the statistics don't bear it out. Whether your guy is projected at 100 or 80, if he's the highest, he's the highest. How that 100 or 80 fits into an overall projection along with catches, TDs or whatever else, taking scoring system into account, comes next.

 

[Marc Levin]

I guess I don't understand your point then. Sorry.

The actual numbers Dodds comes up with are not designed as a ranking tool for players per position. While the numbers can be sorted that way, that's not what he's trying to do. And he sorts the numbers that way for his top-250.

That said, Dodds is trying to be as accurate as possible with his numbers - he factors in past perfomance, team defense versus position, other factors like injury and new competition for targets/carries.

When he comes up with 85 yards and .5 TDs for a player, he believes theprobability is that the player will have 85 yards and either one or no TDs. However you choose to interpret/use that projection (in what you apparently want is a ranking of players per position) is up to you - once he creates the numbers, we have sorting tools - including custimized cheetsheets per scoring system.

His job is not to accurately predict which receivers get 100 yards. It is to accurately project each receiver's numbers for that week.

 

[Scrap Iron]

I guess I don't understand your point then. Sorry.

That's cool. I do think a lot in terms of projections being only a means to ultimately generate weekly customized cheatsheets. Maybe that's where we're not on the same wavelength. I do think DD's top down approach is a proven winner, and "going out on a limb" more like some have suggested earlier in this thread would do more harm than good.

 

[The Jerk]

Marc,

All Scrap Iron is trying to say is that much of the value of projections comes from comparisons among players. As you state, Dodds is predicting for accuracy in these statistics, but I'm with Scrap Iron in stating that my interest in terms of choosing a lineup is based more on comparisons between each of my players and their respective position pool than literally the projected number.

For example, projected yardage, receptions and TDs can be used to determine how receivers separate themselves from the pack -- and from each other -- in each of these categories. Different scoring systems just mean that the importance of each individual statistical separation are different.

Ideally, projections are both accurate AND good at player separation. However, unless an owner is dealing with a flex start decision, accurate separation is arguably more valuable than accurate raw numbers.

 

[Scrap Iron]

Marc,All Scrap Iron is trying to say is that much of the value of projections comes from comparisons among players. As you state, Dodds is predicting for accuracy in these statistics, but I'm with Scrap Iron in stating that my interest in terms of choosing a lineup is based more on comparisons between each of my players and their respective position pool than literally the projected number.For example, projected yardage, receptions and TDs can be used to determine how receivers separate themselves from the pack -- and from each other -- in each of these categories. Different scoring systems just mean that the importance of each individual statistical separation are different.Ideally, projections are both accurate AND good at player separation. However, unless an owner is dealing with a flex start decision, accurate separation is arguably more valuable than accurate raw numbers.

Well said, Navin Johnson.

 

[bentley]

Marc,All Scrap Iron is trying to say is that much of the value of projections comes from comparisons among players. As you state, Dodds is predicting for accuracy in these statistics, but I'm with Scrap Iron in stating that my interest in terms of choosing a lineup is based more on comparisons between each of my players and their respective position pool than literally the projected number.For example, projected yardage, receptions and TDs can be used to determine how receivers separate themselves from the pack -- and from each other -- in each of these categories. Different scoring systems just mean that the importance of each individual statistical separation are different.Ideally, projections are both accurate AND good at player separation. However, unless an owner is dealing with a flex start decision, accurate separation is arguably more valuable than accurate raw numbers.

Well said, Navin Johnson.

Great analysis for someone that was born a poor black child. Also, I completely agree with the way Dodds does his projections. Especially considering that they're the only projections on the site. It would be different if there was a "boom or bust" section or something like that. One shouldn't expect picks out on a limb from someone that's providing the primary statistical analysis.

 

[Marc Levin]

Marc,All Scrap Iron is trying to say is that much of the value of projections comes from comparisons among players. As you state, Dodds is predicting for accuracy in these statistics, but I'm with Scrap Iron in stating that my interest in terms of choosing a lineup is based more on comparisons between each of my players and their respective position pool than literally the projected number.For example, projected yardage, receptions and TDs can be used to determine how receivers separate themselves from the pack -- and from each other -- in each of these categories. Different scoring systems just mean that the importance of each individual statistical separation are different.Ideally, projections are both accurate AND good at player separation. However, unless an owner is dealing with a flex start decision, accurate separation is arguably more valuable than accurate raw numbers.

Well said, Navin Johnson.

Great analysis for someone that was born a poor black child.

Looks like he found the beat.I understand what y'all are saying - all I'm saying is the Dodds projection scheme is, IMO, the "most" accurate way of doing projections for EVERY playuer in the league (which is what he does) and the tools are all there on the site to convert his projections into whatever ranking tool you want to use.I find the raw projection numbers VERY helpful when I want to decide if I should, for example, play a player b/c I think he'll be used a lot (thus, I am looking for high yardage versus TDs). I also find the numbers helpful when I am scouting which DEFENSE to play. I also like to see the numbers if a player is injured and I want an idea of what I should expoect from his backup/other receiver.If I have just the rankings, those things aren't there.

 

[Scarpati]

Week 2 report

Here are the results so far:

QB

Wk Player Proj Act Ratio Hit 300-- ----------- --- --- ---- -----1 K. Warner 254 301 119% YES2 P. Manning 284 400 141% YES-- ----------- --- --- ---- -----Tot 538 701 130% 2/2RB

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----1   L. Johnson	 98	68	69%   NO2   S. Alexander   99	89	90%   NO--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----Tot			   197   157	80%   0/2

WR

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----1   R. Moss		82	47	57%   NO2   M. Harrison	97   127   131%   YES--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----Tot			   179   174	97%   1/2

Overall average

Wk  Ratio  Hit--  -----   ---1	 82%   1/32	121%   2/3--  -----   ---Tot  102%   3/6

This still doesn't mean much, though we're right at 50%. The average over all three positions is 102% of the FBG projections.Dentist, be sure to send in those picks for Week 3!

 

[Dentist]

week 3: (and I can update these as the week progresses)

QB - McNabb

RB - (i don't like anyone here) stephen jackson

WR - M. Harrison

 

[Scarpati]

Here's an interesting observation about the FBG "top down" method of stats prediction.

One easy stat to check is total yards across the whole league for a week (passing yards for QBs, rushing yards for RBs, and receiving yards for WRs, to make it simple.) This number isn't highly dependent on any one player's performance, so it should be statistically more consistent.

If we look at rushing yards for RBs, the final Week 1 FBG prediction was 3,398 yards. The actual number was 3,064, which is pretty close. For Week 2, the FBG prediction was 3,253 yards (maybe they dropped it because they were too high the previous week) and the actual number was 3,098, even closer.

It's a totally different story with passing yards for QBs. In Week 1, the final FBG prediction was 6,715 yards, and the actual number was 6,609 yards. Again very close. In Week 2, however, while the FBG prediction was 6,744 yards, the actual number was 7,555 yards. Passing yards shot up by almost 1,000 yards (roughly 15%) in Week 2, and FBG was way off because they were predicting a number consistent with the previous week. As you might expect, we saw a plethora of 300-yard passing games by QBs in Week 2.

For WRs in Week 1, FBG predicted 4,593 yards and the actual yardage was much smaller at 4,198. For Week 2, FBG predicted 4,444 yards, but the actual total jumped to 5,089---an increase of more than 20%.

I wonder what the reason for the huge increase in passing yards was this past week? Was it just random chance, or were the coaches all thinking the same way for some reason?

 

[Scarpati]

Week 3 report

Here are the results so far:

QB

Wk Player Proj Act Ratio Hit 300-- ----------- --- --- ---- -----1 K. Warner 254 301 119% YES2 P. Manning 284 400 141% YES3 D. McNabb 280 296 106% NO-- ----------- --- --- ---- -----Tot 818 997 122% 2/3RB

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----1   L. Johnson	 98	68	69%   NO2   S. Alexander   99	89	90%   NO3   S. Jackson	 90	62	69%   NO--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----Tot			   287   219	76%   0/3

WR

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----1   R. Moss		82	47	57%   NO2   M. Harrison	97   127   131%   YES3   M. Harrison	91	94   103%   NO--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----Tot			   270   268	99%   1/3

Overall average

Wk  Ratio  Hit--  -----   ---1	 82%   1/32	121%   2/33	 93%   0/3--  -----   ---Tot  102%   3/9

There were two close ones this week, but no actual hits. Looks like it's especially hard to pick a high-scoring RB this year. Also, on average the FBG projections are doing pretty well, with an average Actual/Projected ratio of 99% so far.Dentist, send in another set of picks for Week 4.

 

[Scarpati]

Dentist, please send in your picks!

Just in case you don't pick, I'll take as defaults the top QB, top RB and top WR from the FBG.com final Offensive Projections for the week.

I'm going to be traveling next week, so I won't be able to update the results until later in the week.

 

[Otis]

whoa, whoa, whoaI'm not hating on the projections.... I'm not saying i'm better than anyone.I know this is not easy.However, I WILL guarantee you that there are at least 1 300 yard QB, 2-3 100 yard rushers, and probably 2-3 100 yard receivers... Why not go out on a limb a little and really make a big prediction.But 300 yard games by QB's and 100 yard games from WR's aren't THAT rare.But I'll bite.. however, i'm not the expert, I just pay for the service: (if you have a dental question and want a expert opinion, PM me)Warner 300 yards passingLJ 100 yards rushingMoss 100 yards receiving

Gore 100 yards rushing

 

[Dentist]

QB - McNabb

RB - Larry J

WR - Holt

 

[Scarpati]

Week 4 report

Here are the results so far:

QB

Wk Player Proj Act Ratio Hit 300-- ----------- --- --- ---- -----1 K. Warner 254 301 119% YES2 P. Manning 284 400 141% YES3 D. McNabb 280 296 106% NO4 D. McNabb 299 288 96% NO-- ----------- --- --- ---- -----Tot 1117 1285 115% 2/4RB

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----1   L. Johnson	 98	68	69%   NO2   S. Alexander   99	89	90%   NO3   S. Jackson	 90	62	69%   NO4   L. Johnson	115	101   88%   YES--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----Tot			   402   320	80%   1/4

WR

Wk  Player		Proj  Act  Ratio  Hit 100--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----1   R. Moss		82	47	57%   NO2   M. Harrison	97   127   131%   YES3   M. Harrison	91	94   103%   NO4   T. Holt	   105   102	97%   YES--  -----------   ---   ---   ----  -----Tot			   375   370	99%   2/4

Overall average

Wk  Ratio  Hit--  -----   ---1	 82%   1/32	121%   2/33	 93%   0/34	 94%   2/3--  -----   ---Tot   98%   5/12

Dentist hits 2 out of 3 this week. FBG.com did pretty well with the picks, too; McNabb and Holt were extremely close to the predicted numbers. We're now pretty close to a 50% hit ratio, and the actuals are 98% of the predictions, which isn't too shabby overall.Dentist, send in another set of picks for Week 5.

 

[Dentist]

QB - McNabbRB - Larry JWR - Holt

Same set for Week 5

 

[Otis]

QB - McNabbRB - Larry JWR - Holt

Same set for Week 5

 

[Dentist]

Its ultra lame that i can't just pick players for QB who get 300 yards combined.. or for RB/WR 100 yards combined.

this will be the 2nd time i've been hosed by LJ (had over 100 yards, but not rushing)

Why is this competition 100 yards receiving and 100 yards rushing? Everyone gets points for combined yards.

I refuse to continue picking until the rules are altered to how I want them to be.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why is this competition 100 yards receiving and 100 yards rushing?

no RB 100 yards on the ground?no WR 100 yards through the air?

 

[Dentist]

Why is this competition 100 yards receiving and 100 yards rushing?

no RB 100 yards on the ground?no WR 100 yards through the air?

BAH. I've still made a lot of good predicitons (save the randy moss week 1)and should be getting more credit.