Do FBG rankings have value anymore? (1 Viewer)

[shuke]

Exactly. Vick was the top (or near the top based on league scoring rules) fantasy QB through 13 weeks, and TB presents one of the best FF matchups for QBs. I don't see why he wouldn't have been ranked #1.

Hi Shuke,I'm a big fan of your newsletter and you make some great points. My question to you is does a generic weekly ranking make sense given the fact that there are so many different leagues, rules, scoring systems, and other scenarios out there that don't get factored in to a generic player ranking?Thanks GB

Every week's ranking can be seen in the custom cheatsheets which are based on rule parameters that you enter.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

It is my opinion that if projections are calculated using a formula, they should not be tweaked in any way - by adjusting computer-generated projections, you are adding subjectivity to what was a purely objective analysis. As good-intentioned as they might be, there is a chance that the adjuster may subconsciously bump up people on their own fantasy team, bump down people they don't particularly like ... you get the idea. Obviously, projections cannot be 100% accurate, otherwise there would be no reason to even play the games; the beauty of the NFL is that any given week a team like Arizona can down the Seahawks and a rookie named Young can lead his team over the Juggernaut that is Indiannapolis.

So asking someone to adjust Brees above Vick after his program generated rankings is to ask them to apply subjectivity to an objective analysis - it should not be done. The projections are there as a guide - personally I use projections mainly for receiver help (do I start Braylon Edwards or Reche Caldwell). If you bench an unbenchable stud like Brees because a computer grinded numbers through an algorithm and spit out Vick = 1, then the blame is not on the computer. You may question the parameters and the algorithm, but don't abandon common sense.

My personal opinion

Ni

 

[culdeus]

I've always thought the cheatsheets ranking players 1 to n were the weakest portion of the content this board gives. Reading the rushing/passing matchups writeup every week gives 10x more information that you would need to decide WDIS stuff. I made it a point to not open the cheatsheets at all this year and it's helped.

I'd pay if only for the updated DD during the preseason as I'm too lazy to enter my own data and those number s give a good jumping off point.

 

[mozzy84]

still though vick #1? I mean come on now thats pretty bad....following it is bad enough, but really there is no excuse for that ranking. I use weekly rankings to make decisions sometimes just not the ones on this site.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The #3 ranked fantasy QB against a defense that's been terrible this season. Why is that so bad that he was ranked #1 for the week? Try and actually give a REASON.

I have to give a reason but FBG doesn't have to give a reason, O.K....The homerism on this site is ridiculous. Funny the site I use for my rankings had him ranked as the 11th qb this past week....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

 

[shuke]

still though vick #1? I mean come on now thats pretty bad....following it is bad enough, but really there is no excuse for that ranking. I use weekly rankings to make decisions sometimes just not the ones on this site.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The #3 ranked fantasy QB against a defense that's been terrible this season. Why is that so bad that he was ranked #1 for the week? Try and actually give a REASON.

I have to give a reason but FBG doesn't have to give a reason, O.K....The homerism on this site is ridiculous. Funny the site I use for my rankings had him ranked as the 11th qb this past week....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

Link?

 

[mozzy84]

still though vick #1? I mean come on now thats pretty bad....following it is bad enough, but really there is no excuse for that ranking. I use weekly rankings to make decisions sometimes just not the ones on this site.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The #3 ranked fantasy QB against a defense that's been terrible this season. Why is that so bad that he was ranked #1 for the week? Try and actually give a REASON.

I have to give a reason but FBG doesn't have to give a reason, O.K....The homerism on this site is ridiculous. Funny the site I use for my rankings had him ranked as the 11th qb this past week....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

Link?

Not sure if this is what your looking for.....its a pay site like this one.Rank Quarterbacks Fant. Role Passing YD Rush YD Pass TD Run TD INT Comments1 Peyton Manning at JAC #1 290 0 2 0 1 Not an easy matchup but he’ll have to throw as you can't run on them.2 Tony Romo vs. No #1 260 10 2 0 1 Solid home matchup.3 Jon Kitna vs. Min #1 260 5 2 0 2 No one runs against Minnesota so they'll have to pass.4 Carson Palmer vs. Oak #1 255 0 2 0 1 Faces the top ranked secondary but they also haven't faced a QB like this.5 Tom Brady at MIA #1 250 0 2 0 1 Faces a suspect secondary.6 Drew Brees at DAL (d) #1 250 0 2 0 2 Horn is probably out.7 Matt Leinart vs. Sea #1 245 5 2 0 1 Good home matchup against an underachieving secondary.8 Matt Hasselbeck at ARI #1 230 5 2 0 1 Only problem is you can run all day against Arizona.9 Brett Favre at SF #1 220 0 2 0 2 Good away matchup against a young secondary.10 Jeff Garcia at WAS #1 220 10 2 0 1 Hopefully they'll throw down field again.11 Michael Vick at TB #1 160 60 1 0 1

 

[Gamblor]

still though vick #1? I mean come on now thats pretty bad....following it is bad enough, but really there is no excuse for that ranking. I use weekly rankings to make decisions sometimes just not the ones on this site.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The #3 ranked fantasy QB against a defense that's been terrible this season. Why is that so bad that he was ranked #1 for the week? Try and actually give a REASON.

I have to give a reason but FBG doesn't have to give a reason, O.K....The homerism on this site is ridiculous. Funny the site I use for my rankings had him ranked as the 11th qb this past week....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

Do you bother looking at stats - or just make assumptions?Although you will probably ignore the facts, Ill give them to you regardless. On the road this year Vick has a better QB rating, better completion %, more yards passing, more TDs, fewer interceptions and fewer fumbles. The only thing Vick has been better at while at home is rushing.

 

[posty]

All of this proves that fantasy football (and all fantasy sports) is ALL luck... You don't know what will happen and you just make a guess...

 

[videoguy505]

All of this proves that fantasy football (and all fantasy sports) is ALL luck... You don't know what will happen and you just make a guess...

I guess then you're one of the people on here who hasn't paid for a subscription?

 

[Joe T]

Exactly. Vick was the top (or near the top based on league scoring rules) fantasy QB through 13 weeks, and TB presents one of the best FF matchups for QBs. I don't see why he wouldn't have been ranked #1.

Hi Shuke,I'm a big fan of your newsletter and you make some great points. My question to you is does a generic weekly ranking make sense given the fact that there are so many different leagues, rules, scoring systems, and other scenarios out there that don't get factored in to a generic player ranking?Thanks GB

Every week's ranking can be seen in the custom cheatsheets which are based on rule parameters that you enter.

What are the parameters entered to get Vick > Brees?Looks like either a formula flaw or a ranking error.

 

[Capella]

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.

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

 

[H.K.]

OP should start a poll about how many people actually use the rankings.

I doubt 50% of the people here need them or even look at them.

However, I am still peeved at FBG for missing the boat on terrorism, Katrina, and Britney's marriage break-up. They should have seen them coming.

 

[Joe T]

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

which portion?

 

[Capella]

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

which portion?

all of it

 

[Joe T]

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

which portion?

all of it

Joe B's post too?

 

[mozzy84]

still though vick #1? I mean come on now thats pretty bad....following it is bad enough, but really there is no excuse for that ranking. I use weekly rankings to make decisions sometimes just not the ones on this site.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The #3 ranked fantasy QB against a defense that's been terrible this season. Why is that so bad that he was ranked #1 for the week? Try and actually give a REASON.

I have to give a reason but FBG doesn't have to give a reason, O.K....The homerism on this site is ridiculous. Funny the site I use for my rankings had him ranked as the 11th qb this past week....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

Do you bother looking at stats - or just make assumptions?Although you will probably ignore the facts, Ill give them to you regardless. On the road this year Vick has a better QB rating, better completion %, more yards passing, more TDs, fewer interceptions and fewer fumbles. The only thing Vick has been better at while at home is rushing.

his fantasy stats are better at home than they have been on the road, that might have something to do with the rushing stats you spoke off, which is the only thing that even makes him startable

 

[Capella]

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

which portion?

all of it

Joe B's post too?

Well I certainly would not have extended the same offer he did.

 

[Capella]

A few thoughts on this thread:1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

 

[John Mamula]

This argument begs the questionoes it make sense to manipulate your lineup each week based on matchups?I've never done the study, but my experience has been that it is better to stick with a somewhat constant lineup rather than adjusting your lineup each week based on matchups, weather, etc.

playing matchups is for people who don't project well (or at all) and don't understand a long term approach.knee jerking week to week is no way to go through life.

 

[cracKer]

5 Tom Brady at MIA #1 250 0 2 0 1 Feces a suspect secondary.

6 Drew Brees at DAL (d) #1 250 0 2 0 2 Horn is probably out.

fixedFBG had Brees at 5 and Brady at 11.

 

[cracKer]

This argument begs the questionoes it make sense to manipulate your lineup each week based on matchups?I've never done the study, but my experience has been that it is better to stick with a somewhat constant lineup rather than adjusting your lineup each week based on matchups, weather, etc.

playing matchups is for people who don't project well (or at all) and don't understand a long term approach.knee jerking week to week is no way to go through life.

Matchups are factored into projections, as are other variables that you'd disregard. Unless your in a league where all of your players are "#1's" at their respective positions, it'd be tough to go through the entire season without having to make a lineup decision.

 

[Joe T]

A few thoughts on this thread:1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

ok

 

[Capella]

A few thoughts on this thread:1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

ok

 

[John Mamula]

A few thoughts on this thread:1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

ok

what?

 

[Capella]

A few thoughts on this thread:1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

ok

what?

 

[Limp Ditka]

Did JB do the right thing in offering the guy his money back? Sure he did.

But the old saying "a fool and his money are soon parted" just speaks volumes here if the OP actually bought a subscription for just the projections.

 

[Joe T]

Matchups are factored into projections, as are other variables that you'd disregard. Unless your in a league where all of your players are "#1's" at their respective positions, it'd be tough to go through the entire season without having to make a lineup decision.

has anyone ever proven that playing matchups gives you any advantage at all?I'd be willing to bet it doesn't. And I'd go as far as to say if it means you are starting guys like Vick over guys like Brees based on matchups you are losing points long run.

 

[John Mamula]

i think the only time i have ever played a matchup was for a WR3.

 

[BeTheMatch]

A few thoughts on this thread:

1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.

2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.

3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

Actually, I felt like Joe's offer to take my money back was an insult. That's the only reason I took it. I never came on here looking to get my money back. Instead of maybe simply explaning why FBG had Vick rated higher than Hasselbeck last week, he just decided to step in and give me an ultimatum. Either stop your whining or take your money back, in essence. I didn't think that was an appropriate response. The questions I asked were legitimate ones and didn't deserve that type of response.How does questioning the rankings lead to a knee-jerk reaction to just take my money back? So if Joe wants to ignore my question by instead offering to send me on my way with my money back, fine. I was just looking for a little honest discussion on what goes into the weekly rankings and wanted to hear from people on their success or lack thereof using them.

And of course the ensuing name-calling and belittling that followed was highly predictable. I guess it makes people feel better about themselves. But I also found it interesting that while all these people ripping me were definitely in violation of Joe's code of conduct for this board, he has chosen to let all the name-calling continue at my expense.

 

[Gamblor]

still though vick #1? I mean come on now thats pretty bad....following it is bad enough, but really there is no excuse for that ranking. I use weekly rankings to make decisions sometimes just not the ones on this site.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The #3 ranked fantasy QB against a defense that's been terrible this season. Why is that so bad that he was ranked #1 for the week? Try and actually give a REASON.

I have to give a reason but FBG doesn't have to give a reason, O.K....The homerism on this site is ridiculous. Funny the site I use for my rankings had him ranked as the 11th qb this past week....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

Do you bother looking at stats - or just make assumptions?Although you will probably ignore the facts, Ill give them to you regardless. On the road this year Vick has a better QB rating, better completion %, more yards passing, more TDs, fewer interceptions and fewer fumbles. The only thing Vick has been better at while at home is rushing.

his fantasy stats are better at home than they have been on the road, that might have something to do with the rushing stats you spoke off, which is the only thing that even makes him startable

OK - Ill play. Going into last weeks game when you assumed Vick was not a good start despite being the #3 Fantasy QB against one of the worst Ds, Vick was averaging about 21.5 pts at home and 19.5 pts on the road using FBG scoring. Thats the low end. Many scoring methods (6 pts per passing TD) have Vick with a higher avg on the road. Regardless though, assuming 4 pts per passing TD, you think a difference of 21.5 vs 19.5 makes a QB alot better at home then on the road?

 

[culdeus]

A few thoughts on this thread:

1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.

2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.

3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

Actually, I felt like Joe's offer to take my money back was an insult. That's the only reason I took it. I never came on here looking to get my money back. Instead of maybe simply explaning why FBG had Vick rated higher than Hasselbeck last week, he just decided to step in and give me an ultimatum. Either stop your whining or take your money back, in essence. I didn't think that was an appropriate response. The questions I asked were legitimate ones and didn't deserve that type of response.How does questioning the rankings lead to a knee-jerk reaction to just take my money back? So if Joe wants to ignore my question by instead offering to send me on my way with my money back, fine. I was just looking for a little honest discussion on what goes into the weekly rankings and wanted to hear from people on their success or lack thereof using them.

And of course the ensuing name-calling and belittling that followed was highly predictable. I guess it makes people feel better about themselves. But I also found it interesting that while all these people ripping me were definitely in violation of Joe's code of conduct for this board, he has chosen to let all the name-calling continue at my expense.

 

[suchislife]

....you're telling me you would have rather started Vick than say Manning, Brees, Palmer or even a qb with decent matchups last week like Kitna, Farve or Hasselbeck. Vick plays alot better at home than he does on the road to, just another reason.

Ha ha...this is the exact reason this thread even got my attention. Had PManning in my starting lineup all week. Sunday morning I check the final cheatsheet rankings and saw FBGs had Vick #1, Manning #7. So I made the switch with the reasoning that hey, I'm paying for this advice...how can I justify leaving the #1 ranked QB on my bench? Minutes later I came to my senses and thought... "What am I doing?? I can't bench Payton" and quickly reversed my decision.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A few thoughts on this thread:

1. I didn't see the rankings, but I DO question the ranking of Vick #1. Why would Drew Brees not be the #1 ranked QB every week based on the year he is having? Matchups do not matter when you are hot as this guy. Anyone advocating starting any other QB in the league over Brees is giving bad advice. It's called over analysis paralysis or trying to get too cute with the rankings. I think FBG falls into this trap a lot.

2. I like how everyone comes in here and bashes the guy for taking his money back after 14 weeks. The guy didn't ask for his money back, Joe offered it back. If someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $20 for nothing, I'd take it.

3. The real underlying question I have coming out of this thread is does micromanaging your lineup every week make sense? My opinion is that the answer is no. I don't know the real answer, but I think if you asked Aaron Rudnicki about playing matchups every week and watching the weather may not be as big of a help as you'd expect.

Agree with #1 and 3, disagree with 2. The guy paid $25 for a service that he used for 14 weeks. In exchange, Joe promised to give him a ton of material, a set of admittedly imperfect weekly rankings and other info. He made no promises on how accurate the info was. Now the guy agrees to take his money back after all of that? I know Joe offered, but that doesn't make this guy any less of a tool for taking it back.

Actually, I felt like Joe's offer to take my money back was an insult. That's the only reason I took it. I never came on here looking to get my money back. Instead of maybe simply explaning why FBG had Vick rated higher than Hasselbeck last week, he just decided to step in and give me an ultimatum. Either stop your whining or take your money back, in essence. I didn't think that was an appropriate response. The questions I asked were legitimate ones and didn't deserve that type of response.How does questioning the rankings lead to a knee-jerk reaction to just take my money back? So if Joe wants to ignore my question by instead offering to send me on my way with my money back, fine. I was just looking for a little honest discussion on what goes into the weekly rankings and wanted to hear from people on their success or lack thereof using them.

And of course the ensuing name-calling and belittling that followed was highly predictable. I guess it makes people feel better about themselves. But I also found it interesting that while all these people ripping me were definitely in violation of Joe's code of conduct for this board, he has chosen to let all the name-calling continue at my expense.

Very sorry you feel that way mnesvig. I certainly didn't mean to "insult" you by offering to extend the money back guarantee. You're probably right about the conduct and name calling thing. Let's end this one here. Again, sorry it didn't work out and best wishes in all you're doing.

J