Expert Rankings - rookies (1 Viewer)

[SayWhat?]

First off, I'm extremely appreciative to all the staffers that take a considerable amount of time to rank redraft, dynasty and rookies. It's beneficial to see how others view the players based on each format as situations change.

That being said, I think it's time to add a feature that allows you to filter not by date each expert last submitted their rankings, but by which experts you'd like to include/exclude.

It's just brutal pulling up the rookie rankings and seeing someone rank Meachem (a talented first-round WR in a pass-happy offense) #24 overall. Yes, that's behind the likes of Paul Williams (no doubt a WR with talent, but likely stuck on a run oriented offense for the forseeable future, and thats if he ever cracks the lineup) and Garrett Wolfe (do I even need to comment here?) to name a couple.

I appreciate out of the box thinking, as it makes you re-evaluate and think about certain players. But there comes a certain point when the inclusion of rankings by some "experts" skews the work the others have done.

:endofrant:

 

[Jason Wood]

If you use Excel, it's super easy to do just what you're looking for...copy/paste and then delete the columns of the staff you don't vibe with.

That said, it sounds like you're looking more for CONSENSUS rankings versus something a bit more differentiated. And that's not what we're tasked with as a group. In the redraft rankings, by virtue of there being so many staffers participating, the aggregate often turns out to be a pretty good view of the consensus, but in a smaller subset like the dynasty, IDP or rookie rankings; I would think the value is in those outliers versus getting a snapshot of what everyone else is thinking.

 

[SayWhat?]

Thanks for the reply Jason. I understand the copy and paste bit...and yes, I've done it before.

No, I'm not necessarily looking for CONCENSUS rankings. Just rankings that aren't RIDICULOUS. I'd love to hear the argument why a certain staffer would take Wolfe over Meachem if both were the highest remaining prospects in the 2nd round of a rookie draft (based on his rankings).

And yes, it does help when the amount of staffers submitting rankings is greater...but not so much for rookies, dynasty and IDP as you say. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I don't feel like cutting, pasting, subtotaling, sorting, etc into an excel spreadsheet. I'd think adding a feature on FBG along the lines of a checkbox above each staffer as to which to include wouldn't be all that difficult to add?

 

[Jason Wood]

Thanks for the reply Jason. I understand the copy and paste bit...and yes, I've done it before. No, I'm not necessarily looking for CONCENSUS rankings. Just rankings that aren't RIDICULOUS. I'd love to hear the argument why a certain staffer would take Wolfe over Meachem if both were the highest remaining prospects in the 2nd round of a rookie draft (based on his rankings). And yes, it does help when the amount of staffers submitting rankings is greater...but not so much for rookies, dynasty and IDP as you say. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I don't feel like cutting, pasting, subtotaling, sorting, etc into an excel spreadsheet. I'd think adding a feature on FBG along the lines of a checkbox above each staffer as to which to include wouldn't be all that difficult to add?

Well, I don't participate in the dynasty rankings so I can't speak to the individual rankings you have a disagreement with. I do know, however, that some of the rankings that people usually take the most grief for tend to look pretty darn good in retrospect.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't know in my case if I should be glad or disappointed with my redraft rankings, as I normally get tons of nasty comments, PMs, and emails and no one has said a peep this year.

 

[SayWhat?]

In all honesty guys, it's not about being nasty with posts, emails or PMs.

And I'm not trying to pick on one staffer, although I undoubtedly have. But I've been over my specific example 20 times in my mind and can't for the life of me deduce how one could arrive at Meachem at #24 for rookies with Garrett Wolfe in front of him.

Regardless, maybe it is difficult to add a feature to include/exclude which rankings you'd like to see summed and sorted? I just know that I'm not the only one that would appreciate such an addition to the site.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

It's just brutal pulling up the rookie rankings and seeing someone rank Meachem (a talented first-round WR in a pass-happy offense) #24 overall. Yes, that's behind the likes of Paul Williams (no doubt a WR with talent, but likely stuck on a run oriented offense for the forseeable future, and thats if he ever cracks the lineup) and Garrett Wolfe (do I even need to comment here?) to name a couple. I appreciate out of the box thinking, as it makes you re-evaluate and think about certain players. But there comes a certain point when the inclusion of rankings by some "experts" skews the work the others have done. :endofrant:

prior to this past season when he put up 71 rec for 1298 yards and 11 TD...Meachem had never put up 30 receptions, 500 yards, or 5 TDs in a season.maybe Chris thinks his numbers last year were a fluke and he'll be a bust in New Orleans. I'm sure he'll be happy to discuss/defend his rankings.

 

[David Yudkin]

In all honesty guys, it's not about being nasty with posts, emails or PMs. And I'm not trying to pick on one staffer, although I undoubtedly have. But I've been over my specific example 20 times in my mind and can't for the life of me deduce how one could arrive at Meachem at #24 for rookies with Garrett Wolfe in front of him. Regardless, maybe it is difficult to add a feature to include/exclude which rankings you'd like to see summed and sorted? I just know that I'm not the only one that would appreciate such an addition to the site.

I think many of us have developed thick skin and are used to taking the heat if we have opinions far down stream from out colleagues and popular opinion.As Jason suggested the quick fix of a spreadsheet would serve your purpose. Just create a column with the average ranking, multiply it by the number of staffers included, copy and paste the column you want to exclude, subtract that from the first column and divide it by the number of remaining staffers, and you have your new rankings.

 

[SayWhat?]

Guys, I know that I can export into excel. I've done it before. It just becomes a hassle if staffer rankings are updated semi-frequently like they are during the offseason.

I've said my peace and this wasn't intended to be about any one staffer's rankings.

But I wold love to hear the discussion about why one would take 23 other rookies over Meachem in a rookie draft, including Wolfe.

 

[David Yudkin]

Guys, I know that I can export into excel. I've done it before. It just becomes a hassle if staffer rankings are updated semi-frequently like they are during the offseason. I've said my peace and this wasn't intended to be about any one staffer's rankings. But I wold love to hear the discussion about why one would take 23 other rookies over Meachem in a rookie draft, including Wolfe.

Might I suggest PMing whichever staffer has rankings that seem "out there" . . . that's usually a good way to get a direct answer rather than asking an open-ended question where no one else can really speak FOR that person.

 

[SayWhat?]

Might I suggest PMing whichever staffer has rankings that seem "out there" . . . that's usually a good way to get a direct answer rather than asking an open-ended question where no one else can really speak FOR that person.

I don't really care about his justifications and I shouldn't have even brought that example up (but that's the one that finally set me off...and yes, it is absurd). The point of my post, as I've stated before, was an observation/inquiry as to how difficult it would be to add a feature that allows the FBG users to simply check/uncheck which expert's rankings they'd like included.

 

[The Houston Stallions]

I understand that drafting rookies is a crap shoot and maybe that's the reason behind it. But it does seem odd that he's ranked so low by only one member. Also seems odd that Jacoby Jones is only ranked by 2 members and they are 2nd round rankings. All others did not rank him at all!

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

The point of my post, as I've stated before, was an observation/inquiry as to how difficult it would be to add a feature that allows the FBG users to simply check/uncheck which expert's rankings they'd like included.

this is something that has definitely been discussed in the past. if it was an easy change to make, it probably would have been done by now but I'm sure it's on a long list of things to consider adding at some point.

 

[switz]

The point of my post, as I've stated before, was an observation/inquiry as to how difficult it would be to add a feature that allows the FBG users to simply check/uncheck which expert's rankings they'd like included.

An answer for your question, re: programming capability. It's really simple, but would require a gen-5 browser to do it nicely. Otherwise it's still pretty easy but would require reloading the page to refresh the results.

 

[switz]

The point of my post, as I've stated before, was an observation/inquiry as to how difficult it would be to add a feature that allows the FBG users to simply check/uncheck which expert's rankings they'd like included.

this is something that has definitely been discussed in the past. if it was an easy change to make, it probably would have been done by now but I'm sure it's on a long list of things to consider adding at some point.

It's really easy.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

The point of my post, as I've stated before, was an observation/inquiry as to how difficult it would be to add a feature that allows the FBG users to simply check/uncheck which expert's rankings they'd like included.

this is something that has definitely been discussed in the past. if it was an easy change to make, it probably would have been done by now but I'm sure it's on a long list of things to consider adding at some point.

It's really easy.

if so, then there's probably a reason why it hasn't been added that I can't remember.

 

[Chris Smith]

First off, I'm extremely appreciative to all the staffers that take a considerable amount of time to rank redraft, dynasty and rookies. It's beneficial to see how others view the players based on each format as situations change. That being said, I think it's time to add a feature that allows you to filter not by date each expert last submitted their rankings, but by which experts you'd like to include/exclude. It's just brutal pulling up the rookie rankings and seeing someone rank Meachem (a talented first-round WR in a pass-happy offense) #24 overall. Yes, that's behind the likes of Paul Williams (no doubt a WR with talent, but likely stuck on a run oriented offense for the forseeable future, and thats if he ever cracks the lineup) and Garrett Wolfe (do I even need to comment here?) to name a couple. I appreciate out of the box thinking, as it makes you re-evaluate and think about certain players. But there comes a certain point when the inclusion of rankings by some "experts" skews the work the others have done. :endofrant:

Not really sure what happened in my rookie rankings (I have Meachem ranked just behind Gonzalez in my dynasty rankings but somehow he was misplaced in the rookie rankings. I'll correct it (and yes I agree with you that if Meachem is ranked 24th... that's

 

[Chris Smith]

I understand that drafting rookies is a crap shoot and maybe that's the reason behind it. But it does seem odd that he's ranked so low by only one member. Also seems odd that Jacoby Jones is only ranked by 2 members and they are 2nd round rankings. All others did not rank him at all!

Jacoby Jones wasn't in the database when some of us submitted our rookie picks. I'm sure he'll jump into the picture now.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I don't know in my case if I should be glad or disappointed with my redraft rankings, as I normally get tons of nasty comments, PMs, and emails and no one has said a peep this year.

Didn't you say this last year as well?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I understand that drafting rookies is a crap shoot and maybe that's the reason behind it. But it does seem odd that he's ranked so low by only one member. Also seems odd that Jacoby Jones is only ranked by 2 members and they are 2nd round rankings. All others did not rank him at all!

Jacoby Jones wasn't in the database when some of us submitted our rookie picks. I'm sure he'll jump into the picture now.

This is correct.Mind you, when you're the first one (or one of a few) with rankings out there, there's going to be mistakes.Sometimes you miss a player. When there are a few more up, it helps to spot what players got missed (you hate to see that * in the box in the Top 30 - major error there) but you get the idea.I believe Drinen is working on a "My Rankings", but I'll defer to him on that.

 

[tec79]

some discussion out of the viQueens Rookie camp yesterday indicating that if AD's collarbone doesnt heal correctly it may require surgery....

Does this give anyone pause to think that maybe there is some risk associated with drafting him at 1.1 or 1.2? or is this just something not to worry about? i dont know much about collarbone injuries and their impact on football players.

thanks

tex

 

[Patoons]

First off, I'm extremely appreciative to all the staffers that take a considerable amount of time to rank redraft, dynasty and rookies. It's beneficial to see how others view the players based on each format as situations change. That being said, I think it's time to add a feature that allows you to filter not by date each expert last submitted their rankings, but by which experts you'd like to include/exclude. It's just brutal pulling up the rookie rankings and seeing someone rank Meachem (a talented first-round WR in a pass-happy offense) #24 overall. Yes, that's behind the likes of Paul Williams (no doubt a WR with talent, but likely stuck on a run oriented offense for the forseeable future, and thats if he ever cracks the lineup) and Garrett Wolfe (do I even need to comment here?) to name a couple. I appreciate out of the box thinking, as it makes you re-evaluate and think about certain players. But there comes a certain point when the inclusion of rankings by some "experts" skews the work the others have done. :endofrant:

You may have also said this about someone ranking Terrell outside the top 20.