Dodd's DEF projections held undue powers of persuasion over me (1 Viewer)

[BigJim®]

Link to you thanking FBG for the projections that worked out for you? TIA

 

[fsufan]

FWIW, I never look at the weekly projections. No disrespect to Dodds and Norton, but I have found in the past that more often than not I end up pissed off because a) I change my lineup due to the projections and it bites me in the ###, or b) I ignore the projections and it bites me in the a**. I prefer to win or lose because of my own instinct. It's more fulfilling and less aggravating.

i do not use the projections for my starting line ups. I almost stopped paying the fee last year, glad i didn't, came in 2nd in the 35K contest. to the OP. this MB is the best site for FF info and it is free. as a FF player set your line up based off of your options and live with it. if you have to use a FF site for a tough decision do not cry when it does not work out

 

[Challenge Everything]

OK, I can understand nudging Denver's DEF up a little this week playing the Raiders at home, but how do you make them a top 5 DEF play for the week? I got the VIKS on my bench with 26 and the Bills with 15. I start Denver because I was in a must win situation and I get -4. Granted, I was stupid for starting Denver's DEF and it's my own fault, but when you are staring at them as the 3rd best DEF in your scoring system according to Lineup Dominator, it's hard to ignore.

You agreed with Dodds enough before the game to start em! Don't whine now.<--- coming from a guy that benched Min's Def (26 points) for Denver's (-1 point) and it may cost me a playoff spot as well.



If you wanted Dodds to make all your decisions for ya, why even play the game?

I love morons who make these statements.I pay because I have no time to make my own spreadsheets. I own a business and work a fulltime job.

THAT'S why you pay, so you don't have to sit down for hours each week and do the work. A lot of people have very busy lives and pay the fee and expect good results. This year has been a bad year for FBG projections.

If I buy a radio I expect it to work, not have to tinker with it for hours at a time to get it to work.

What? FBG is working as a prediction site ala projections and at best they are a 3rd party if not 4th or 5th because of the lack of "insider" information. People complaining about the accuracy of projections probably sued Miss Cleo as well.

 

[Wu-banger]

maybe some of the paid content should be open to more discussion on how the thought process and decision was made for the rankings ...

and some accountablity or "man-ing up" from some of the predictors could be helpful after such a irrational projection fall flat. .

Also , Does not seem right that someone gets burned by the projections and then gets destroyed in the thread... even though using the projections blindly without thought is fool-hearted.... seems some of you guys feel the need to defend Dodds and whoever like teachers pets.

 

[Mr.Pack]

OK, I can understand nudging Denver's DEF up a little this week playing the Raiders at home, but how do you make them a top 5 DEF play for the week? I got the VIKS on my bench with 26 and the Bills with 15. I start Denver because I was in a must win situation and I get -4. Granted, I was stupid for starting Denver's DEF and it's my own fault, but when you are staring at them as the 3rd best DEF in your scoring system according to Lineup Dominator, it's hard to ignore.

You agreed with Dodds enough before the game to start em! Don't whine now.<--- coming from a guy that benched Min's Def (26 points) for Denver's (-1 point) and it may cost me a playoff spot as well.



If you wanted Dodds to make all your decisions for ya, why even play the game?

I love morons who make these statements.I pay because I have no time to make my own spreadsheets. I own a business and work a fulltime job.

THAT'S why you pay, so you don't have to sit down for hours each week and do the work. A lot of people have very busy lives and pay the fee and expect good results. This year has been a bad year for FBG projections.

If I buy a radio I expect it to work, not have to tinker with it for hours at a time to get it to work.

What? FBG is working as a prediction site ala projections and at best they are a 3rd party if not 4th or 5th because of the lack of "insider" information. People complaining about the accuracy of projections probably sued Miss Cleo as well.

You're right to a point, but still, you are paying money and you should expect decent results. All I'm saying is the results this year are definitely not very good. Check out my record.

 

[roadkill1292]

maybe some of the paid content should be open to more discussion on how the thought process and decision was made for the rankings ...and some accountablity or "man-ing up" from some of the predictors could be helpful after such a irrational projection fall flat. .Also , Does not seem right that someone gets burned by the projections and then gets destroyed in the thread... even though using the projections blindly without thought is fool-hearted.... seems some of you guys feel the need to defend Dodds and whoever like teachers pets.

We're not defending Dodds. (Which one is Dodds, again?) Hell, most of us probably don't even subscribe.

 

[Marvin88]

maybe some of the paid content should be open to more discussion on how the thought process and decision was made for the rankings ...and some accountablity or "man-ing up" from some of the predictors could be helpful after such a irrational projection fall flat. .Also , Does not seem right that someone gets burned by the projections and then gets destroyed in the thread... even though using the projections blindly without thought is fool-hearted.... seems some of you guys feel the need to defend Dodds and whoever like teachers pets.

Yes, and I can take the heat. The bashers can post ad naseau in lieu of my original sort of kneejerkish post, but I just want the logic behind the projections.

 

[Twilight]

OK Let's just break down just how unreasonable the projection was:

6 Denver Broncos DEN vs OAK 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 306 15 9.7

2.4 Sacks - Definitely not unreasonable against that Oakland D-line

1.1 Fumble Recoveries - Somewhat unreasonable. Den's tied for 22nd in FF's, but Oak is 4th in fumbling.

.7 INTs - Considering how bad Russell has played the past few weeks, this is underrating the possibility.

.2 TD - TD's are a crapshoot on D.

306 yards against - Well ABOVE Oak's season average (257 per game) , but well below Den's 386 per game. Seems about right to split the difference.

15 PA - Above Oak's 12.8 average, well below Den's 24.8 average. Considering in Denver, not unreasonable.

Obviously this is just a basic analysis, but there is nothing out of line about his projection. It seems a pretty standard Dodds projection. General prediction of average scores by all the teams. Denver playing a bad team made it look much better in relation to the others. His # 1 team only was predicted to score 1.8 pts more. That is WAY WAY to close a margin to "jump" on Denver's D over another established D, IMO. Definitely a moment.

 

[Black]

it's hard to ignore.

What's hard to ignore, is that I can only think of about 4 defenses I would consider WORSE than DEN's DEF this year...DET, KC, CIN...Ok, I could think of only 3.Here's what to take away from this...don't get too cute with your lineups. Look back at the team you play now and the one you drafted. You'll probably see that the best guys on your team were drafted in the top 6 or so rounds (redraft) and maybe you picked up 1-2 guys off waivers that now have a history of doing well over a few weeks. Your DEF have 12 weeks of history now. Don't get risky.Projections (for offensive positions esp) are usually separated by 'guessing' if a guy will get a TD. For DEF, again...it's a crapshoot.

 

[H Jass]

No, I'm with you. The rankings have been pretty awful this year.

 

[Marvin88]

it's hard to ignore.

What's hard to ignore, is that I can only think of about 4 defenses I would consider WORSE than DEN's DEF this year...DET, KC, CIN...Ok, I could think of only 3.Here's what to take away from this...don't get too cute with your lineups. Look back at the team you play now and the one you drafted. You'll probably see that the best guys on your team were drafted in the top 6 or so rounds (redraft) and maybe you picked up 1-2 guys off waivers that now have a history of doing well over a few weeks. Your DEF have 12 weeks of history now. Don't get risky.Projections (for offensive positions esp) are usually separated by 'guessing' if a guy will get a TD. For DEF, again...it's a crapshoot.

I NEVER take into consideration the TD's. I focus mainly on sacks. I believe they were projected at 2.4 just like MINN.

 

[Marvin88]

it's hard to ignore.

What's hard to ignore, is that I can only think of about 4 defenses I would consider WORSE than DEN's DEF this year...DET, KC, CIN...Ok, I could think of only 3.Here's what to take away from this...don't get too cute with your lineups. Look back at the team you play now and the one you drafted. You'll probably see that the best guys on your team were drafted in the top 6 or so rounds (redraft) and maybe you picked up 1-2 guys off waivers that now have a history of doing well over a few weeks. Your DEF have 12 weeks of history now. Don't get risky.Projections (for offensive positions esp) are usually separated by 'guessing' if a guy will get a TD. For DEF, again...it's a crapshoot.

I NEVER take into consideration the TD's. I focus mainly on sacks. I believe they were projected at 2.4 just like MINN.

Correction -he only had MINN with 1.9 sacks.

 

[Burning Sensation]

it's hard to ignore.

What's hard to ignore, is that I can only think of about 4 defenses I would consider WORSE than DEN's DEF this year...DET, KC, CIN...Ok, I could think of only 3.

Here's what to take away from this...don't get too cute with your lineups. Look back at the team you play now and the one you drafted. You'll probably see that the best guys on your team were drafted in the top 6 or so rounds (redraft) and maybe you picked up 1-2 guys off waivers that now have a history of doing well over a few weeks. Your DEF have 12 weeks of history now. Don't get risky.

Projections (for offensive positions esp) are usually separated by 'guessing' if a guy will get a TD. For DEF, again...it's a crapshoot.

I would take the Bengals defense over the Broncos.

 

[Marvin88]

it's hard to ignore.

What's hard to ignore, is that I can only think of about 4 defenses I would consider WORSE than DEN's DEF this year...DET, KC, CIN...Ok, I could think of only 3.Here's what to take away from this...don't get too cute with your lineups. Look back at the team you play now and the one you drafted. You'll probably see that the best guys on your team were drafted in the top 6 or so rounds (redraft) and maybe you picked up 1-2 guys off waivers that now have a history of doing well over a few weeks. Your DEF have 12 weeks of history now. Don't get risky.Projections (for offensive positions esp) are usually separated by 'guessing' if a guy will get a TD. For DEF, again...it's a crapshoot.

I NEVER take into consideration the TD's. I focus mainly on sacks. I believe they were projected at 2.4 just like MINN.

Correction -he only had MINN with 1.9 sacks.

In my scoring system, he had DEN at 3rd and MINN at 15th!

 

[phthalatemagic]

OK, I can understand nudging Denver's DEF up a little this week playing the Raiders at home, but how do you make them a top 5 DEF play for the week? I got the VIKS on my bench with 26 and the Bills with 15. I start Denver because I was in a must win situation and I get -4. Granted, I was stupid for starting Denver's DEF and it's my own fault, but when you are staring at them as the 3rd best DEF in your scoring system according to Lineup Dominator, it's hard to ignore.

You agreed with Dodds enough before the game to start em! Don't whine now.<--- coming from a guy that benched Min's Def (26 points) for Denver's (-1 point) and it may cost me a playoff spot as well.



If you wanted Dodds to make all your decisions for ya, why even play the game?

I love morons who make these statements.I pay because I have no time to make my own spreadsheets. I own a business and work a fulltime job.

THAT'S why you pay, so you don't have to sit down for hours each week and do the work. A lot of people have very busy lives and pay the fee and expect good results. This year has been a bad year for FBG projections.

If I buy a radio I expect it to work, not have to tinker with it for hours at a time to get it to work.

What? FBG is working as a prediction site ala projections and at best they are a 3rd party if not 4th or 5th because of the lack of "insider" information. People complaining about the accuracy of projections probably sued Miss Cleo as well.

Incorrect. FBG has inside sources. Also, how close do you want to make the Miss Cleo comparison to FBG?

 

[Howie]

THAT'S why you pay, so you don't have to sit down for hours each week and do the work. A lot of people have very busy lives and pay the fee and expect good results. This year has been a bad year for FBG projections.

I only subscribe to FBG, so I am curious to learn from those that track such things...has any other service- free or pay- had a year projection-wise vaulting them ahead of FBG?

 

[thatguy]

FWIW, I never look at the weekly projections. No disrespect to Dodds and Norton, but I have found in the past that more often than not I end up pissed off because a) I change my lineup due to the projections and it bites me in the ###, or b) I ignore the projections and it bites me in the a**. I prefer to win or lose because of my own instinct. It's more fulfilling and less aggravating.

Again, I accept any and all criticism here for my original post. But does anyone want to opine as to what Dodds might have been thinking?

Don't expect any explanations, all these kids know how to do is bash you. They have no clue......

I didn't bash him in my post. I simply told him what I do, because I've had similar experiences of going with the projections and being burned - call it advice if you want, but the last thing I'm doing is bashing him. Perhaps he should pick and choose which posts he decides to reply to more carefully, because, while I'm not on his side, I'm not against him either.As for the explanation he seeks, it's quite simple. Dodds was thinking what a lot of other FF players were thinking. I mean, there was a whole thread devoted to calling the Denver D the "Shark Move", whatever that means. He started the Denver D knowing full well that they've been awful all year, so he clearly understood, at least to some degree, the reasoning behind the ranking.

 

[live54]

I agree with most...its your choice to decide who to start, but on a side note, the FBG weekly projections this year have been god awful...I started to notice this in their preseason rankings, when there were a few highly ranked players that made no sense to me. Luckily I use this site as a tool, kind of a "stink check" to make sure my assumptions are in line, but there have been weeks when I really thought their picks were terrible..

All in all, I also agree that if you are paying for a service, you should get something better than the rest.. I have been a subscriber for 3 years and this year it seems the guys have had more issues than in the past... I find that the projections on FFtoday and even CBS are just as good, and in some cases better.

I think the guys here need to go into a little more depth about why and how they project certain players, i.e a WR facing a weak corner due to injury, or a RB that should get more touches due to a strong pass D and terrible rush D.

It seems they have some model that cranks out the numbers..but I also hate the 1.6 td crap..just call it 1 td or 2, there is no such thing as 1.6, and what winds up happening is that you have 15 players ranked within a point or 2 of each other, which makes the rankings useless. I'd rather them rate players in tiers each week, than give me arbitrary garbage numbers...

Luckily FBG has enough other content to keep me as a subscriber, but their projections are not the highlight of their content, in fact its probably the biggest area that needs work.

 

[Eminence]

Honestly... this is proof people need to start playing who they want to play.

Also you put yourself into your whole Playoff contention being based on a Defense.

Deal with it.

Seriously though, if all you're going to do is listen to what other people tell you:

You're not playing fantasy football, they are playing fantasy football through you.

 

[Da Guru]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

 

[Eminence]

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

But we all pretend like we can.

 

[Nugget]

I ACCEPT everything you guys are saying and dishing out. That's what I get for posting whilst the pain is fresh.

But somebody tell me the logic of DENVER's DEF being ranked as a top five DEF EVER?

I am finding CBS just as accurate in player rankings this year and that is my other concern. Why pay twice for inferior projections?

It's less about Denver's D and more about Oaklands vaunted offense.12.8 Pts/Game

 

[phthalatemagic]

This is funny to me, but I best it's funniest to Joe and David who have indoctrinated you guys to the point where they can be flat out wrong about something and you will flock to their defense like a maiden in distress. Hilarious!

 

[Marvin88]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

Yes, but it's alot easier to understand why someone is ranked high that usually scores high but then scores little, as well as someone who is ranked low and usually scores low, but then has an abnormally high game. It's hard to understand a team that normally scores very low, gets ranked very high, and then scores very low. Again, why so high of a ranking?

 

[Eminence]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

Yes, but it's alot easier to understand why someone is ranked high that usually scores high but then scores little, as well as someone who is ranked low and usually scores low, but then has an abnormally high game. It's hard to understand a team that normally scores very low, gets ranked very high, and then scores very low. Again, why so high of a ranking?

Dude Marvin. You should have asked yourself, "Why is Denver ranked so high?" Before you started them, instead of after. Since you admit yourself you couldn't find a reason, you could have saved yourself.

 

[Marvin88]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

Yes, but it's alot easier to understand why someone is ranked high that usually scores high but then scores little, as well as someone who is ranked low and usually scores low, but then has an abnormally high game. It's hard to understand a team that normally scores very low, gets ranked very high, and then scores very low. Again, why so high of a ranking?

Dude Marvin. You should have asked yourself, "Why is Denver ranked so high?" Before you started them, instead of after. Since you admit yourself you couldn't find a reason, you could have saved yourself.

A lesson learned the hard way. Still doesn't answer my question though.

 

[ourmanflint]

Or just title it 'feeding frenzy' since it seems to be a thread where everyone comes to try out their best witty replies. Though many threads on here could be called that. Maybe that's the true reason it's called the "shark pool." Soon as someone finds an easy target to attack, suddenly many others swarm to the thread trying to one-up the other, just like sharks smelling blood and swarming on a tasty whale.Seriously.. 31 members reading this thread right now?

 

[ourmanflint]

I ACCEPT everything you guys are saying and dishing out. That's what I get for posting whilst the pain is fresh.

But somebody tell me the logic of DENVER's DEF being ranked as a top five DEF EVER?

I am finding CBS just as accurate in player rankings this year and that is my other concern. Why pay twice for inferior projections?

This is very true this year. IMHO this has been a very bad year for FBG projections.

 

[ourmanflint]

FWIW, I never look at the weekly projections. No disrespect to Dodds and Norton, but I have found in the past that more often than not I end up pissed off because a) I change my lineup due to the projections and it bites me in the ###, or b) I ignore the projections and it bites me in the a**. I prefer to win or lose because of my own instinct. It's more fulfilling and less aggravating.

Again, I accept any and all criticism here for my original post. But does anyone want to opine as to what Dodds might have been thinking?

Don't expect any explanations, all these kids know how to do is bash you. They have no clue......

Was thinking the same thing.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

You're bolded part is absolutely true, but in the past FBG has done a really good job with their projections and have consistently been very good.This year, not so much.

 

[Judge Smails]

Raiders can run the ball. Denver can't stop the run. Raiders actually didn't play that badly on O last week at Miami, Russell seems to be maturing. I see the OP's point. I would rank Denver's D high against the little sisters of the poor. They are that bad.

 

[Howie]

Luckily FBG has enough other content to keep me as a subscriber, but their projections are not the highlight of their content, in fact its probably the biggest area that needs work.

Disturbing trend...

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

Yes, but it's alot easier to understand why someone is ranked high that usually scores high but then scores little, as well as someone who is ranked low and usually scores low, but then has an abnormally high game. It's hard to understand a team that normally scores very low, gets ranked very high, and then scores very low. Again, why so high of a ranking?

Dude Marvin. You should have asked yourself, "Why is Denver ranked so high?" Before you started them, instead of after. Since you admit yourself you couldn't find a reason, you could have saved yourself.

A lesson learned the hard way. Still doesn't answer my question though.

Post #58 looks like it tries to answer you (not Dodds but someone trying to point out why) but so far you have ignored it. Was that not a good enough post to even respond to?

 

[Da Guru]

Rankings are like the futures market.

Farve was ranked something like 29 this week and ended up with 2 TDs and over 200 yards passing.

Delhomme had almost 300 yards passing and a TD, plus ran a TD in and he was ranked around 25 or so.

NOBODY>>>can predict what is going to happen in NFL games.

You're bolded part is absolutely true, but in the past FBG has done a really good job with their projections and have consistently been very good.This year, not so much.

I used to do a FF show in AnnArbor in the late 90s.Today for example..Warrick Dunn had around 140 total yards and a TD against the Lions. I would have ranked Dunn as a Top 10 RB this week. We are not reinventing the wheel.

Look at the matchups..then make you own rankings..believe me they will not be too far off what the experts predict.

When I helped out on a radio show I learned that people only want rankings to confirm or not to confirm their own beliefs in what is going to happen.

 

[[scooter]]

OP would have got a lot more mileage out of this thread if the title had been FBG DEF projections are way off.

 

[Marvin88]

OK Let's just break down just how unreasonable the projection was:6 Denver Broncos DEN vs OAK 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 306 15 9.72.4 Sacks - Definitely not unreasonable against that Oakland D-line1.1 Fumble Recoveries - Somewhat unreasonable. Den's tied for 22nd in FF's, but Oak is 4th in fumbling..7 INTs - Considering how bad Russell has played the past few weeks, this is underrating the possibility..2 TD - TD's are a crapshoot on D.306 yards against - Well ABOVE Oak's season average (257 per game) , but well below Den's 386 per game. Seems about right to split the difference.15 PA - Above Oak's 12.8 average, well below Den's 24.8 average. Considering in Denver, not unreasonable.Obviously this is just a basic analysis, but there is nothing out of line about his projection. It seems a pretty standard Dodds projection. General prediction of average scores by all the teams. Denver playing a bad team made it look much better in relation to the others. His # 1 team only was predicted to score 1.8 pts more. That is WAY WAY to close a margin to "jump" on Denver's D over another established D, IMO. Definitely a moment.

Even tough most of this might seem reasonable (EXCEPT I completely disagree with the 15 PA argument), something is still amiss when you have DEN 3rd overall and MINN 15th.

 

[joffer]

please don't get this locked. it's worth too many laughs

 

[Challenge Everything]

OK Let's just break down just how unreasonable the projection was:6 Denver Broncos DEN vs OAK 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 306 15 9.72.4 Sacks - Definitely not unreasonable against that Oakland D-line1.1 Fumble Recoveries - Somewhat unreasonable. Den's tied for 22nd in FF's, but Oak is 4th in fumbling..7 INTs - Considering how bad Russell has played the past few weeks, this is underrating the possibility..2 TD - TD's are a crapshoot on D.306 yards against - Well ABOVE Oak's season average (257 per game) , but well below Den's 386 per game. Seems about right to split the difference.15 PA - Above Oak's 12.8 average, well below Den's 24.8 average. Considering in Denver, not unreasonable.Obviously this is just a basic analysis, but there is nothing out of line about his projection. It seems a pretty standard Dodds projection. General prediction of average scores by all the teams. Denver playing a bad team made it look much better in relation to the others. His # 1 team only was predicted to score 1.8 pts more. That is WAY WAY to close a margin to "jump" on Denver's D over another established D, IMO. Definitely a moment.

Even tough most of this might seem reasonable (EXCEPT I completely disagree with the 15 PA argument), something is still amiss when you have DEN 3rd overall and MINN 15th.

The only thing amiss is you lost today due to your poor decision. You now have the benefit of 20/20 and wish you played it differently. You messed up, so what, don't blame others for their "predictions" when you agreed with them before. [/thread]

 

[Marvin88]

OK Let's just break down just how unreasonable the projection was:6 Denver Broncos DEN vs OAK 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 306 15 9.72.4 Sacks - Definitely not unreasonable against that Oakland D-line1.1 Fumble Recoveries - Somewhat unreasonable. Den's tied for 22nd in FF's, but Oak is 4th in fumbling..7 INTs - Considering how bad Russell has played the past few weeks, this is underrating the possibility..2 TD - TD's are a crapshoot on D.306 yards against - Well ABOVE Oak's season average (257 per game) , but well below Den's 386 per game. Seems about right to split the difference.15 PA - Above Oak's 12.8 average, well below Den's 24.8 average. Considering in Denver, not unreasonable.Obviously this is just a basic analysis, but there is nothing out of line about his projection. It seems a pretty standard Dodds projection. General prediction of average scores by all the teams. Denver playing a bad team made it look much better in relation to the others. His # 1 team only was predicted to score 1.8 pts more. That is WAY WAY to close a margin to "jump" on Denver's D over another established D, IMO. Definitely a moment.

Even tough most of this might seem reasonable (EXCEPT I completely disagree with the 15 PA argument), something is still amiss when you have DEN 3rd overall and MINN 15th.

The only thing amiss is you lost today due to your poor decision. You now have the benefit of 20/20 and wish you played it differently. You messed up, so what, don't blame others for their "predictions" when you agreed with them before. [/thread]

Dude, you need to read the entire thread before making assinine comments. I am not blaming anyone. I just want to know the logic behind a #3 DEF ranking for the week.

 

[gregjcross]

I ACCEPT everything you guys are saying and dishing out. That's what I get for posting whilst the pain is fresh.

But somebody tell me the logic of DENVER's DEF being ranked as a top five DEF EVER?

I am finding CBS just as accurate in player rankings this year and that is my other concern. Why pay twice for inferior projections?

By starting the Denver D, you made it clear that you know the answer to this question. If you hadn't seen the logic in the ranking, you'd have ignored it.

I agree with this to some extent, but the better argument through the thread is that I am an idiot who gets what he deserves if I have to depend on someone else's rankings.

If you say "no logic in DEN being in the top 5 ever" Then What the hell are they doing on your roster? I played MINN today, and would never sit them for anything, most automatict thing in my life next to Steve Smith at WR.

 

[Das Boot]

OK Let's just break down just how unreasonable the projection was:6 Denver Broncos DEN vs OAK 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 306 15 9.72.4 Sacks - Definitely not unreasonable against that Oakland D-line1.1 Fumble Recoveries - Somewhat unreasonable. Den's tied for 22nd in FF's, but Oak is 4th in fumbling..7 INTs - Considering how bad Russell has played the past few weeks, this is underrating the possibility..2 TD - TD's are a crapshoot on D.306 yards against - Well ABOVE Oak's season average (257 per game) , but well below Den's 386 per game. Seems about right to split the difference.15 PA - Above Oak's 12.8 average, well below Den's 24.8 average. Considering in Denver, not unreasonable.Obviously this is just a basic analysis, but there is nothing out of line about his projection. It seems a pretty standard Dodds projection. General prediction of average scores by all the teams. Denver playing a bad team made it look much better in relation to the others. His # 1 team only was predicted to score 1.8 pts more. That is WAY WAY to close a margin to "jump" on Denver's D over another established D, IMO. Definitely a :X moment.

Even tough most of this might seem reasonable (EXCEPT I completely disagree with the 15 PA argument), something is still amiss when you have DEN 3rd overall and MINN 15th.

The only thing amiss is you lost today due to your poor decision. You now have the benefit of 20/20 and wish you played it differently. You messed up, so what, don't blame others for their "predictions" when you agreed with them before. [/thread]

Dude, you need to read the entire thread before making assinine comments. I am not blaming anyone. I just want to know the logic behind a #3 DEF ranking for the week.

What was your logic in believing FBGs ranking?Or did you just blindly follow it? No problem if you did, that's a legit answer too.

 

[ourmanflint]

OK Let's just break down just how unreasonable the projection was:6 Denver Broncos DEN vs OAK 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.2 306 15 9.72.4 Sacks - Definitely not unreasonable against that Oakland D-line1.1 Fumble Recoveries - Somewhat unreasonable. Den's tied for 22nd in FF's, but Oak is 4th in fumbling..7 INTs - Considering how bad Russell has played the past few weeks, this is underrating the possibility..2 TD - TD's are a crapshoot on D.306 yards against - Well ABOVE Oak's season average (257 per game) , but well below Den's 386 per game. Seems about right to split the difference.15 PA - Above Oak's 12.8 average, well below Den's 24.8 average. Considering in Denver, not unreasonable.Obviously this is just a basic analysis, but there is nothing out of line about his projection. It seems a pretty standard Dodds projection. General prediction of average scores by all the teams. Denver playing a bad team made it look much better in relation to the others. His # 1 team only was predicted to score 1.8 pts more. That is WAY WAY to close a margin to "jump" on Denver's D over another established D, IMO. Definitely a moment.

Even tough most of this might seem reasonable (EXCEPT I completely disagree with the 15 PA argument), something is still amiss when you have DEN 3rd overall and MINN 15th.

The only thing amiss is you lost today due to your poor decision. You now have the benefit of 20/20 and wish you played it differently. You messed up, so what, don't blame others for their "predictions" when you agreed with them before. [/thread]

Did you read his post? At all? Did you even bother to read his post at all? ANY OF IT?

 

[chook]

THAT'S why you pay, so you don't have to sit down for hours each week and do the work. A lot of people have very busy lives and pay the fee and expect good results. This year has been a bad year for FBG projections.

I only subscribe to FBG, so I am curious to learn from those that track such things...has any other service- free or pay- had a year projection-wise vaulting them ahead of FBG?

Not sure, but MANY others rated Denver a lot lower.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

The fee I am paying in for projections? I always just paid it for the enjoyment I get out of the forums. What the heck is this fantasy football everyone is talking about? Does it involve naked wimmen?

 

[MaddHatter]

You are a terrible general manager, that's why. You suck and are trying to blame someone else.

Boo-Hoo.

Take your ball and go home.

Thanks FBGs, I am 10-2 in one league!

 

[coolnerd]

:X

Marking as there is legitimate discussion conerning the usefulness of projections (by anyone) or at least how to properly incorporate projections into your FF thought process. Hopefully, this thread moves into that direction.

 

[AngryGorilla]

I ACCEPT everything you guys are saying and dishing out. That's what I get for posting whilst the pain is fresh. But somebody tell me the logic of DENVER's DEF being ranked as a top five DEF EVER?I am finding CBS just as accurate in player rankings this year and that is my other concern. Why pay twice for inferior projections?

wtf?! you have MIN and BUF and start DEN? this has nothing to do with FBGs, or CBS, just you. Your bad.

 

[JohnnyU]

Sorry you had a bad day with your defense, but it's embarrassing blaming someone else for your bad decision, isn't it?

 

[timschochet]

I agree with the OP! I could care less how they rank the QBs, RBs, WRs, etc., but if they are not completely accurate ranking the defenses and the kickers, the whole thing is a sham!

 

[ourmanflint]

Marking as there is legitimate discussion conerning the usefulness of projections (by anyone) or at least how to properly incorporate projections into your FF thought process. Hopefully, this thread moves into that direction.

Yes hopefully.

You are a terrible general manager, that's why. You suck and are trying to blame someone else.Boo-Hoo.Take your ball and go home.Thanks FBGs, I am 10-2 in one league!

But I don't hold out too much hope.