Do FBG rankings have value anymore? (1 Viewer)

[BeTheMatch]

So, I've been a longtime subscriber to FBG, and there is a lot of content other than the rankings, but the rankings are still used by a lot of people each week. I've been growing increasingly down on them. There are a number of head-scratchers each week.

But since I'm a paying subscriber, I'd like to at least use the "expert" rankings that I'm paying for to help me make the tougher lineup decisions each week if nothing else. Especially come playoff time.

So all week I'm left to decide between Hasselbeck and Vick. I had Hasselbeck in all week. Late in the week, I check out the rankings and FBG has Vick No. 1 and Hass No. 10. I thought I've remembered Vick struggling against T.B. in the past, but since there was such a big gap between them in the rankings, I thought I'd trust the people I'm paying for advice, and obviously I've been burned badly this week.

This isn't a whining thread (I don't know the outcome of my playoff game yet), but I have a legitmate question here. Every time this season I've had a tough decision to make, I've let the FBG rankings decide, and they have been correct only 23 percent of the time. That's astounding. You could flip a coin and do better.

In light of all this, my question is, is anyone using even using these rankings anymore? Why do they even bother to offer them? I, for one, will never even look at the FBG rankings ever again. They've screwed me all year. I know any given week can produce some unusual results, but they've been so bad for so long that I'm jumping off the ship.

And if I'm not going to use the rankings anymore, I'm wondering if there's any point in being a premium content subscriber anymore. I trust the free advice from sharks on this board more than that of the FBG staff.

 

[bentley]

So, I've been a longtime subscriber to FBG, and there is a lot of content other than the rankings, but the rankings are still used by a lot of people each week. I've been growing increasingly down on them. There are a number of head-scratchers each week.

But since I'm a paying subscriber, I'd like to at least use the "expert" rankings that I'm paying for to help me make the tougher lineup decisions each week if nothing else. Especially come playoff time.

So all week I'm left to decide between Hasselbeck and Vick. I had Hasselbeck in all week. Late in the week, I check out the rankings and FBG has Vick No. 1 and Hass No. 10. I thought I've remembered Vick struggling against T.B. in the past, but since there was such a big gap between them in the rankings, I thought I'd trust the people I'm paying for advice, and obviously I've been burned badly this week.

This isn't a whining thread (I don't know the outcome of my playoff game yet), but I have a legitmate question here. Every time this season I've had a tough decision to make, I've let the FBG rankings decide, and they have been correct only 23 percent of the time. That's astounding. You could flip a coin and do better.

In light of all this, my question is, is anyone using even using these rankings anymore? Why do they even bother to offer them? I, for one, will never even look at the FBG rankings ever again. They've screwed me all year. I know any given week can produce some unusual results, but they've been so bad for so long that I'm jumping off the ship.

And if I'm not going to use the rankings anymore, I'm wondering if there's any point in being a premium content subscriber anymore. I trust the free advice from sharks on this board more than that of the FBG staff.

And please show your work for the 23%.

 

[Shermanator]

This isn't a whining thread

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I think you need to compare those rankings to other rankings. I look at four or five different sites and I'm pretty sure they all suck sometimes. Not starting Hasselbeck vs the Cardinals is your fault IMO. That matchup is gold and a lot less nerve racking than starting Vick. I don't care if Vick is ranked 1st in week 14, he won't be starting for my team if I have Hasselbeck vs the Cards.

 

[Bri]

So, I've been a longtime subscriber to FBG, and there is a lot of content other than the rankings, but the rankings are still used by a lot of people each week. I've been growing increasingly down on them. There are a number of head-scratchers each week.But since I'm a paying subscriber, I'd like to at least use the "expert" rankings that I'm paying for to help me make the tougher lineup decisions each week if nothing else. Especially come playoff time. So all week I'm left to decide between Hasselbeck and Vick. I had Hasselbeck in all week. Late in the week, I check out the rankings and FBG has Vick No. 1 and Hass No. 10. I thought I've remembered Vick struggling against T.B. in the past, but since there was such a big gap between them in the rankings, I thought I'd trust the people I'm paying for advice, and obviously I've been burned badly this week.This isn't a whining thread (I don't know the outcome of my playoff game yet), but I have a legitmate question here. Every time this season I've had a tough decision to make, I've let the FBG rankings decide, and they have been correct only 23 percent of the time. That's astounding. You could flip a coin and do better.In light of all this, my question is, is anyone using even using these rankings anymore? Why do they even bother to offer them? I, for one, will never even look at the FBG rankings ever again. They've screwed me all year. I know any given week can produce some unusual results, but they've been so bad for so long that I'm jumping off the ship.And if I'm not going to use the rankings anymore, I'm wondering if there's any point in being a premium content subscriber anymore. I trust the free advice from sharks on this board more than that of the FBG staff.

Make your own rankings, compare it to their's, then decide your own lineup

 

[BeTheMatch]

I think you need to compare those rankings to other rankings. I look at four or five different sites and I'm pretty sure they all suck sometimes. Not starting Hasselbeck vs the Cardinals is your fault IMO. That matchup is gold and a lot less nerve racking than starting Vick. I don't care if Vick is ranked 1st in week 14, he won't be starting for my team if I have Hasselbeck vs the Cards.

But that's my point. I'd love to hear an explanation behind ranking Vick first and Hasselbeck 10th this week. I figured the "experts" knew something I didn't. Apparently they didn't.

 

[bentley]

The rankings aren't all that important to me. There are other reasons to subscribe.

 

[Shermanator]

You do realize that rankings are educated guesses right?

Thats why I dont understand why people would pay for someone elses guesses. Make your own calls. Its more fulfilling. LOL

 

[Muldoon]

The OP raises a valid point about his premium subscription.

Of course, all can come on here and call him a "whiner". and give the TIRED "point to the shirt" schtick, but ... I see his point.

It wasn't like a toss-up between the #6 and the #9 QB ... Vick was ranked #1. If the service here is worth their salt, than they stand by their convictions, yes? And, the OP, as a PREMIUM subscriber, looked for some sagacity.

To chastise him is useless ... he did no more than take the advice of the "experts" he PAYS to give some wisdom.

'Nuff said.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I think you need to compare those rankings to other rankings. I look at four or five different sites and I'm pretty sure they all suck sometimes. Not starting Hasselbeck vs the Cardinals is your fault IMO. That matchup is gold and a lot less nerve racking than starting Vick. I don't care if Vick is ranked 1st in week 14, he won't be starting for my team if I have Hasselbeck vs the Cards.

But that's my point. I'd love to hear an explanation behind ranking Vick first and Hasselbeck 10th this week. I figured the "experts" knew something I didn't. Apparently they didn't.

Predicting fantasy outcomes is far from a science. You crunch numbers, consider personnel, and look at history. I don't know what to tell you but this game is about 30 percent luck and when we depend on stats for playoff games, we often find ourselves disappointed. I don't even blame myself for losing games. I'm a good player and I still come up short more than not for championships. Most do.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

the difference in projections for Vick and Hasselbeck this week was 2 fantasy points.

I think people tend to focus too much on the ranking instead of looking at the stats and points projected for these players.

Nobody is going to be 100% accurate with their projections/rankings, etc. This is an inexact science. But, I'd still guess that Dodds does better than almost anybody else out there. I'd also be very surprised if anyone else put in more work on them than he does each week.

 

[dparker713]

Actually, he took their advice and ignored his own feelings on the situation. The rankings are a tool. Another opinion to look at. They're not perfect nor can you expect them to be. What value that has to each person is therefore variable, and not worth the subscription for everyone.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The OP raises a valid point about his premium subscription. Of course, all can come on here and call him a "whiner". and give the TIRED "point to the shirt" schtick, but ... I see his point. It wasn't like a toss-up between the #6 and the #9 QB ... Vick was ranked #1. If the service here is worth their salt, than they stand by their convictions, yes? And, the OP, as a PREMIUM subscriber, looked for some sagacity. To chastise him is useless ... he did no more than take the advice of the "experts" he PAYS to give some wisdom.'Nuff said.

+ =

 

[Lambert]

So, I've been a longtime subscriber to FBG, and there is a lot of content other than the rankings, but the rankings are still used by a lot of people each week. I've been growing increasingly down on them. There are a number of head-scratchers each week.

But since I'm a paying subscriber, I'd like to at least use the "expert" rankings that I'm paying for to help me make the tougher lineup decisions each week if nothing else. Especially come playoff time.

So all week I'm left to decide between Hasselbeck and Vick. I had Hasselbeck in all week. Late in the week, I check out the rankings and FBG has Vick No. 1 and Hass No. 10. I thought I've remembered Vick struggling against T.B. in the past, but since there was such a big gap between them in the rankings, I thought I'd trust the people I'm paying for advice, and obviously I've been burned badly this week.

This isn't a whining thread (I don't know the outcome of my playoff game yet), but I have a legitmate question here. Every time this season I've had a tough decision to make, I've let the FBG rankings decide, and they have been correct only 23 percent of the time. That's astounding. You could flip a coin and do better.

In light of all this, my question is, is anyone using even using these rankings anymore? Why do they even bother to offer them? I, for one, will never even look at the FBG rankings ever again. They've screwed me all year. I know any given week can produce some unusual results, but they've been so bad for so long that I'm jumping off the ship.

And if I'm not going to use the rankings anymore, I'm wondering if there's any point in being a premium content subscriber anymore. I trust the free advice from sharks on this board more than that of the FBG staff.

I'm curious to see your data for that 23% figure as well. Having said that, if for whatever reason their rankings are doing that poorly for you in your decisions, maybe you should jump off the ship. As for me, the FBG ship, while not perfect, has been doing much better in my decisions than your 23%, so I plan to stay onboard myself. Bon voyage!

 

[Da Guru]

They never did have value.

FF is a futures market. No one can predict what is going to happen. Maurice Drew would have been the #1 RB if we could have predicted the outcomes.

Rankings are all matchup based. Mike Vick was the #1 QB and he bombed this week.

The funny thing about rankings is that no one ever posts the rankings and results of the rankings.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

the difference in projections for Vick and Hasselbeck this week was 2 fantasy points.I think people tend to focus too much on the ranking instead of looking at the stats and points projected for these players.Nobody is going to be 100% accurate with their projections/rankings, etc. This is an inexact science. But, I'd still guess that Dodds does better than almost anybody else out there. I'd also be very surprised if anyone else put in more work on them than he does each week.

Honestly 90% of the time his rankings are late and seem thrown together. The email updates come out after the morning games start, so if your not at your computer to check it out the news your screwed. It would be nice if those were sent out prior so we could use our mobile devices and not have to wonder if we are going to get them or not. I paid this year because of the subsriber contest, but the content is and has been for the last 2 years sub par.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Whatever anybody says, the difference between a regular lurker and an "expert" is mostly "finger in the air" guesswork. There are a lot of fantasy football analysts, many of them good and many of them on this board. There are no "experts."

Acquire as much information as you can - stats, projections, injuries, etc. - because that's the key to success.

What's the point of being in FF if you're just going to enter a lineup based on someone's projections?

 

[cracKer]

You do realize that rankings are educated guesses right?

Not necessarilly, more like likely conclusions based on a variety of factors. Obviously the NFL doesn't always play out as expected.

 

[Shermanator]

You do realize that rankings are educated guesses right?

Not necessarilly, more like likely conclusions based on a variety of factors.

So you mean an educated guess.

 

[TommyKramer]

Based on all of the responses, I would conclude that the consensus is:

1.) FF is HARD to predict

2.) Thus, you should trust your OWN analysis first (otherwise it's not fulfilling anyways)

3.) So, stop #####ing if you felt Hasselbust was better

My take on this - why subscribe?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Based on all of the responses, I would conclude that the consensus is:1.) FF is HARD to predict2.) Thus, you should trust your OWN analysis first (otherwise it's not fulfilling anyways)3.) So, stop #####ing if you felt Hasselbust was betterMy take on this - why subscribe?

Just a few reasons:Marques Colston Brandon MarshallHank Baskettall 3 were mentioned as possible breakouts before June.Potential Breakout players nearly every week in the Dynasty WatchSee the sig - there's about 100 reasons, besides the value it represents. The rankings are just a small portion of the offered content.To each their own, but there's many subscribers who can tell you why they subscribe. That's more valuable than anything I can tell you. I do know that the rankings would likely not be the highest thing on their reason list.

 

[prosopis]

I like the rankings and use them. I also use the projections quite a bit. They have been good to me. I would put them at 84.173903% correct.

 

[Zaxxon]

I just burned my house down over this situation. Michael Vick should have scored another 14 points or so.

 

[TommyKramer]

Based on all of the responses, I would conclude that the consensus is:1.) FF is HARD to predict2.) Thus, you should trust your OWN analysis first (otherwise it's not fulfilling anyways)3.) So, stop #####ing if you felt Hasselbust was betterMy take on this - why subscribe?

Just a few reasons:Marques Colston Brandon MarshallHank Baskettall 3 were mentioned as possible breakouts before June.Potential Breakout players nearly every week in the Dynasty WatchSee the sig - there's about 100 reasons, besides the value it represents. The rankings are just a small portion of the offered content.To each their own, but there's many subscribers who can tell you why they subscribe. That's more valuable than anything I can tell you. I do know that the rankings would likely not be the highest thing on their reason list.

Fair enough. So the jist is:subscribe for the off-season content, not the in-season rankingsI'm not trying to be facetious. Is this what you're saying?

 

[chris1969]

Based on all of the responses, I would conclude that the consensus is:1.) FF is HARD to predict2.) Thus, you should trust your OWN analysis first (otherwise it's not fulfilling anyways)3.) So, stop #####ing if you felt Hasselbust was betterMy take on this - why subscribe?

Just a few reasons:Marques Colston Brandon MarshallHank Baskettall 3 were mentioned as possible breakouts before June.Potential Breakout players nearly every week in the Dynasty WatchSee the sig - there's about 100 reasons, besides the value it represents. The rankings are just a small portion of the offered content.To each their own, but there's many subscribers who can tell you why they subscribe. That's more valuable than anything I can tell you. I do know that the rankings would likely not be the highest thing on their reason list.

What he said! These are rankings of probability not rankings of clairvoyance.

 

[-OZ-]

Anyone who expects predictions to be 100% correct are going to be disapointed.

I don't subscribe for the projections, although I use them to double check myself. It's the writing / analysis and predraft content I find worthwhile.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Anyone who expects predictions to be 100% correct are going to be disapointed. I don't subscribe for the projections, although I use them to double check myself. It's the writing / analysis and predraft content I find worthwhile.

100 percent???? Who said that? Not me. My point was that, in my case, in the times that I've used them, they've been FAR BELOW 100 percent.

 

[Gamblor]

This isn't a whining thread

 

[-OZ-]

Anyone who expects predictions to be 100% correct are going to be disapointed. I don't subscribe for the projections, although I use them to double check myself. It's the writing / analysis and predraft content I find worthwhile.

100 percent???? Who said that? Not me. My point was that, in my case, in the times that I've used them, they've been FAR BELOW 100 percent.

Good, now what percentage are you shooting for?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi mnsv,

I wish we could guarantee totally accurate projections. I can promise you that will never happen. What I can promise you is that we'll work as hard as we possibly can to bring you the best projections we can. We saw Vick scoring a couple more fantasy points than Hasselbeck. That projetion came after a ton of thought and research and number crunching and injury info and matchup analysis and lots more.

Obviously, we won't be right every time.

All we can do is try to provide our readers information that feel is worth the $25 subscription cost and give them information from August until the Super Bowl.

We have the best guarantee in the business offering people a money back guarantee up until the end of September to see if they think what we give them is worth the money.

In your case, I'll extend that up till this week if you like and refund your money if you're not happy with the subscription purchase. Thanks for subscribing in the past but if you'd rather get your money back and cancel, no hard feelings.

J

 

[Gamblor]

the difference in projections for Vick and Hasselbeck this week was 2 fantasy points.I think people tend to focus too much on the ranking instead of looking at the stats and points projected for these players.

This is a great point which most dont consider. Dont look at the rankings at all. Look at the projections on those ranking. If there are less then a handful of points projected between your two choices, what are you about?

 

[BeTheMatch]

Hi mnsv,I wish we could guarantee totally accurate projections. I can promise you that will never happen. What I can promise you is that we'll work as hard as we possibly can to bring you the best projections we can. We saw Vick scoring a couple more fantasy points than Hasselbeck. That projetion came after a ton of thought and research and number crunching and injury info and matchup analysis and lots more. Obviously, we won't be right every time.All we can do is try to provide our readers information that feel is worth the $25 subscription cost and give them information from August until the Super Bowl.We have the best guarantee in the business offering people a money back guarantee up until the end of September to see if they think what we give them is worth the money. In your case, I'll extend that up till this week if you like and refund your money if you're not happy with the subscription purchase. Thanks for subscribing in the past but if you'd rather get your money back and cancel, no hard feelings.J

Well, as I said, I don't expect you to be right all the time or even the great majority of the time. That being said, the rankings are the only reason I get a paid subscription, and since I've been unhappy with them and since you're offering a money-back guarantee, sure, I'll take you up on it.

 

[Couch Potato]

1 18.40 2 26.38 3 11.18 4 16.22 5 Bye 6 18.96 7 29.38 8 29.14 9 18.52 10 19.28 11 14.48 12 19.96 13 18.78So... we're basicallly saying here that a guy that's put up 18+ FP in 7 of the last 8 weeks has a stinker game, and it's Dodds' fault that he didn't predict it. Guys who can't deal with unpredictability should either

a) learn enough about statistical analysis to understand variability in small (one game) sample sizes

or

b) get out of fantasy football.

 

[kal-el]

the difference in projections for Vick and Hasselbeck this week was 2 fantasy points.I think people tend to focus too much on the ranking instead of looking at the stats and points projected for these players.

Here's my line of thinking:1) The most reliable NFL projections out there are the point spreads Vegas puts out. If someone could beat those consistently, they'd be rich.2) The projections FBG puts out add up to very close to the scores implied by the points spreads each week.3) The FBG projections are good as you're going to get. If you can't live with it, you need to find a new hobby.Final comment: It's important to keep in mind that what we're trying to predict is the outcome of 11 men weighing between 180 and 320 pounds running into another 11 men weighing between 180 and 320 pounds at very fast speeds.

 

[bjabrad]

Vick??? You're crying because you played Vick??? If they had Garrard ranked #1 this week were you gonna play him too? The problem here is that to believe in Vick you have to believe in the quality of his WR's and for me they're a big fat zero just like JAX. Vick is gonna get his yards on the ground every week and this week he had the fourth easiest passing DEF this week but this assumes he has average options at WR and that is the problem with Vick at #1.

Sorry you got burned, I hope you survive it. The good news is that you're a lot smarter after this week. I'll bet you make it a point to not even draft Vick next year.

I do like your point that the shared knowledge that is gained from bouncing ideas and insight from this board is superior to the rankings. I do think the rankings serve a purpose though and most times they are close enough. I like the rankings/projections because they give this board a baseline to start sharing knowledge. Believing that these rankings should be dead on every week is about as foolish as thinking that betting on NFL games can be profitable in the long term. It just doesn't happen because the teams are too close in talent and there are too many variables.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi mnsv,I wish we could guarantee totally accurate projections. I can promise you that will never happen. What I can promise you is that we'll work as hard as we possibly can to bring you the best projections we can. We saw Vick scoring a couple more fantasy points than Hasselbeck. That projetion came after a ton of thought and research and number crunching and injury info and matchup analysis and lots more. Obviously, we won't be right every time.All we can do is try to provide our readers information that feel is worth the $25 subscription cost and give them information from August until the Super Bowl.We have the best guarantee in the business offering people a money back guarantee up until the end of September to see if they think what we give them is worth the money. In your case, I'll extend that up till this week if you like and refund your money if you're not happy with the subscription purchase. Thanks for subscribing in the past but if you'd rather get your money back and cancel, no hard feelings.J

Well, as I said, I don't expect you to be right all the time or even the great majority of the time. That being said, the rankings are the only reason I get a paid subscription, and since I've been unhappy with them and since you're offering a money-back guarantee, sure, I'll take you up on it.

Sure thing. PM me your info and I'll take care of it for you. Sorry it didn't work out.J

 

[Eric Stratton]

Hi mnsv,I wish we could guarantee totally accurate projections. I can promise you that will never happen. What I can promise you is that we'll work as hard as we possibly can to bring you the best projections we can. We saw Vick scoring a couple more fantasy points than Hasselbeck. That projetion came after a ton of thought and research and number crunching and injury info and matchup analysis and lots more. Obviously, we won't be right every time.All we can do is try to provide our readers information that feel is worth the $25 subscription cost and give them information from August until the Super Bowl.We have the best guarantee in the business offering people a money back guarantee up until the end of September to see if they think what we give them is worth the money. In your case, I'll extend that up till this week if you like and refund your money if you're not happy with the subscription purchase. Thanks for subscribing in the past but if you'd rather get your money back and cancel, no hard feelings.J

Well, as I said, I don't expect you to be right all the time or even the great majority of the time. That being said, the rankings are the only reason I get a paid subscription, and since I've been unhappy with them and since you're offering a money-back guarantee, sure, I'll take you up on it.

Good luck with that extra money. Make sure it goes to your fund to get you out of your parents basement.

 

[chris1969]

****stares at his half eaten Quarter-pounder with cheese...

****wonders if Mickey D's would give him his money back.

 

[Couch Potato]

Vick??? You're crying because you played Vick??? If they had Garrard ranked #1 this week were you gonna play him too? The problem here is that to believe in Vick you have to believe in the quality of his WR's and for me they're a big fat zero just like JAX. Vick is gonna get his yards on the ground every week and this week he had the fourth easiest passing DEF this week but this assumes he has average options at WR and that is the problem with Vick at #1. Sorry you got burned, I hope you survive it. The good news is that you're a lot smarter after this week. I'll bet you make it a point to not even draft Vick next year.

Look at his weekly FP in my post above. You're talking out of your a## and just sound foolish. Vick has been a solid, consistent play all year and has helped his owners a great deal. He has one bad game and suddenly he's a bum? Pathetic.

 

[-OZ-]

Well, as I said, I don't expect you to be right all the time or even the great majority of the time. That being said, the rankings are the only reason I get a paid subscription, and since I've been unhappy with them and since you're offering a money-back guarantee, sure, I'll take you up on it.

Sure thing. PM me your info and I'll take care of it for you. Sorry it didn't work out.J

Just asking... does a lifetime ban come with that rebate?

 

[Eric Stratton]

Well, as I said, I don't expect you to be right all the time or even the great majority of the time. That being said, the rankings are the only reason I get a paid subscription, and since I've been unhappy with them and since you're offering a money-back guarantee, sure, I'll take you up on it.

Sure thing. PM me your info and I'll take care of it for you. Sorry it didn't work out.J

Just asking... does a lifetime ban come with that rebate?

 

[McBokonon]

Can I have my money back, too? I found Random Shots to be somewhat ordered and it ####ed me all up in the head.

 

[belljr]

i"d also like in the rankings the prediction of 2 starting RB's getting injured for the #1 rated QB that week.

In all seriousness, he was ranked 1 but if you look at the predictions is was only marginally better than Hasselbeck.

I personally think they have done a great job with prediciting my WR's this year

 

[Couch Potato]

Just asking... does a lifetime ban come with that rebate?

I sure hope so. What a (oops, no namecalling...).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Guys who can't deal with unpredictability should either

a) learn enough about statistical analysis to understand variability in small (one game) sample sizes

or

b) get out of fantasy football.

I wouldn't have put it quite like that , but it is certainly true that whatever difference in expected points there is between two fantasy starters at the same position in a given week, it is likely to be dwarfed by the standard deviation of each player's weekly results.Vick may have been a 6-5 favorite to outscore Hasselbeck this week.* But 6-5 favorites lose quite often. If you have a biased coin that lands on heads 55% of the time, the best advice is to call heads -- but you certainly shouldn't be surprised if it lands on tails on any particular flip.

____

* The fact that Hasselbeck outperformed Vick this week, of course, is extraordinarily weak evidence that Vick was not really the favorite.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Vick??? You're crying because you played Vick??? If they had Garrard ranked #1 this week were you gonna play him too? The problem here is that to believe in Vick you have to believe in the quality of his WR's and for me they're a big fat zero just like JAX. Vick is gonna get his yards on the ground every week and this week he had the fourth easiest passing DEF this week but this assumes he has average options at WR and that is the problem with Vick at #1. Sorry you got burned, I hope you survive it. The good news is that you're a lot smarter after this week. I'll bet you make it a point to not even draft Vick next year.

Look at his weekly FP in my post above. You're talking out of your a## and just sound foolish. Vick has been a solid, consistent play all year and has helped his owners a great deal. He has one bad game and suddenly he's a bum? Pathetic.

Coming into this week:

1 QB  Manning,Peyton		IND 12  407  265 3315   22	8   18	15	 2	1 259.5  2 QB  Brees,Drew			NO  12  442  293 3655   20   10   30	36	 0	3 256.7  3 QB  Vick,Michael		  ATL 12  308  158 1892   15	9  105   929	 2	3 250.9  4 QB  Palmer,Carson		 CIN 12  386  249 3103   22	8   21	21	 0	6 237.6  5 QB  McNabb,Donovan		PHI 10  316  180 2647   18	6   32   212	 3	2 231.9  6 QB  Brady,Tom			 NE  12  406  249 2872   20   12   36	70	 0	3 218.9  7 QB  Bulger,Marc		   STL 12  443  281 3172   16	7   15	17	 0	3 217.6  8 QB  Kitna,Jon			 DET 12  442  273 3190   13   16   21	98	 2	6 217.5  9 QB  Favre,Brett		   GB  12  450  254 2848   15   12   17	33	 1	5 199.9 10 QB  Manning,Eli		   NYG 12  398  235 2615   19   15   16	16	 0	2 193.7

 

[steviey]

It's kind of like going to a web site that specializes in providing sports betting information and then complaining because they don't make you into a millionaire. A reality check is in order here fella. I'm willing to bet that the FBGs would whip your ### in a fantasy league. But that doesn't mean that they're supposed to know everything or that they are some kind of deity. All I know is that in the 2 years I've been a subscriber I've finished at the top of my league in the regular season both years with the most points both years. Won it all last year and I guess we'll see this year. I understand that the Shark Pool isn't for talking about your individual fantasy team but I felt it was warranted in this case.

 

[Couch Potato]

Guys who can't deal with unpredictability should eithera) learn enough about statistical analysis to understand variability in small (one game) sample sizesorb) get out of fantasy football.

I wouldn't have put it quite like that , but ...

I tend to be a little blunt sometimes especially when people who don't deserve to be (FBG) are getting bashed and are required to take the high road because of their position. Maybe 'b) get out of fantasy football' was a little too over the top, but some people's expectations need to get in line with reality, not the other way around.

 

[BassNBrew]

Hi mnsv,I wish we could guarantee totally accurate projections. I can promise you that will never happen. What I can promise you is that we'll work as hard as we possibly can to bring you the best projections we can. We saw Vick scoring a couple more fantasy points than Hasselbeck. That projetion came after a ton of thought and research and number crunching and injury info and matchup analysis and lots more. Obviously, we won't be right every time.All we can do is try to provide our readers information that feel is worth the $25 subscription cost and give them information from August until the Super Bowl.We have the best guarantee in the business offering people a money back guarantee up until the end of September to see if they think what we give them is worth the money. In your case, I'll extend that up till this week if you like and refund your money if you're not happy with the subscription purchase. Thanks for subscribing in the past but if you'd rather get your money back and cancel, no hard feelings.J

Well, as I said, I don't expect you to be right all the time or even the great majority of the time. That being said, the rankings are the only reason I get a paid subscription, and since I've been unhappy with them and since you're offering a money-back guarantee, sure, I'll take you up on it.

Sure thing. PM me your info and I'll take care of it for you. Sorry it didn't work out.J

You can apply the appropriate percentage of my subscription to cover the bandwidth cost resolving this matter.

 

[ThisGuy]

There are 3 major problems here:

1) FBG's messed up big time by allowing Vick to be ranked #1 this week. IF he were the only QB playing, I could see it, but doesn't the staff at FBG's have an individual or team to ensure things like "Mike Vick is never ranked the #1 QB"?!? It is my mantra.

If Joe includes an apology this week in Random Shots for allowing Vick to be ranked #1, all is forgiven.

2) The whiner has Michael Vick on his team and he started him in a playoff game. He deserves to lose, IMO.

3) Getting your $$ back after using the site for 14+ weeks is ridiculous. Joe is doing the right thing for making the offer, but accepting it is awful.