Fantasy Ranking Philosophy: Inside-Out vs. Outside-In (1 Viewer)

[Tick]

Good to see switz back around.

 

[Bri]

I often lean toward the philosophy Jeff uses.

I gotta mention that most people that use a talent evaluation based ranking system of sorts don't take into account that they might be wrong. Those guys couldn't explain Vinatieri or Warner and that'd be a top 2 or 3 FF player for a few years and a top K for a long time. Further what about Trent Green and Favre as backups to start and.....after a while there's alot of guys that become real hard to explain for talent based folks.

 

[nygiants56]

I think Jeff and Marc are both right in their ways.

seriously, TJ was in a bad situation last year, yet excelled. Many believed Benson would win that job during training camp, but he didn't. TJ now gets his chance as the starting RB for the Jets. TJ is VERY talented. He catches the ball extremely well. Being with the Jets and especially Chad Pennington, this is a great situation for TJ to be in, simply because the Jets love to use play-action and RB screen passes, and because, frankly, Pennington can't throw the deep ball, so they'll likely keep things short , 3-6 yard passes to TJ in the flats, and let him run wild.

Conversely, Ronnie Brown is said to be one of the most talented RB's in the NFL, Bellichick called him the best RB in the league after LT. everyone lumps praise on him. He stumbled into the PERFECT situation last season,with the Ricky Williams suspension, Yet , for the most part, Ronnie Brown looked very ordinary as Miami's starting RB. Again, he had a PERFECT situation , and really didn't take advantage of it. Now, we can debate whether or not that's purely the fault of a porous O-line, ( it probably is), but for all the talent he supposedly has, he still looks like Keith Byars, he doesn't come across as a starting RB, at least not to me..

Colston was in a perfect storm - the Stallworth Saga and the decline of Joe Horn meant that N.O. needed to get another guy involved on offense.

Chad Pennington had a solid year in 2006, he's not nearly as talented as some other QB's ranked ahead of him.

Damon Huard was a bench warming bum, until Trent Green went down. Then Huard came in and reeled off a 60.7 comp %, 11 td's to just 1 int. Is he talented like Eli supposedly is? heck no. is he another VY? NO no no.

but in the situation he was in, he excelled. He's likely to be a top 12-15 QB selected on most fantasy drafts this season, if he is the starting QB ( he should easily beat out Croyle)

Michael Bennett has world-class speed, literally, he could be a track and field star, an Olympian..

Put him behind a makeshift line in Minnesota , on lousy artificial turf, and he'll consistently get hurt and just flat out stink up the joint. He has more 'talent' that 99.9% of the rest of the NFL...Willie Gault had world-class speed and was an Olympic-wannabe in 1980..but like Renaldo Nehemiah, that 'talent' didn't translate to NFL success...

what you see over and over, is the guys who work the hardest, usually perform at the highest levels.Jordan had a crazy work ethic. Tiger woods does. Jeter does. Peyton Manning's film studies are said to be legendary. Bart Starr had that great work ethic. So did/does Roger Staubach, the guy is still doing it with his real estate development firms..

Stephon Marbury has loads of talent, but seems like he's a slacker. Moss has tons of talent, he's a slacker.

Lamont Jordan is not a great RB by any stretch, but , for that one season with Norv Turner as Oakland's OC, he excelled. Terry Allen had twice blown knees, and Turner made him an All-pro in Washington.

this season, Gore has a load of talent,coming off a great season, but he has an Oc who is a first-time NFL offensive coordinator. there are certain to be many road bumps along the way for Gore in 2007, because of the coaching change.

 

[Bri]

Edge was not used well at all in Arizona. Take away his dump passes in Indy and he wouldn't have ALOT of stats from there too. I expect an improvement in 07

 

[radballs]

If it helps Mark, go back and read the example of my fourth grade teacher again.

She was so certain about how to solve the problem, that she insisted my method was wrong, even when she could clearly see that I got the same result. You are doing the same thing.

You've assumed Bloom starts a list on talent, then adjusts to situation, and Jeff starts a list based on situation, and then adjusts to talent. If in the end their lists are similar, then obviously BOTH methods are effective and valid.

The assumption that this is how they do it is based strictly on their commentary. Bloom is a top-notch talent scout, it's natural for him to explain himself based on talent. Jeff is a little bit more analytical, and it's easier for him to explain big picture stuff, so that's where he naturally goes to explain his rankings.

Just because they use different terms to explain their rankings does NOT by any stretch mean that they have VALUED situation or talent differently from each other.

Your point is well-taken, but there are some cases where Jeff and I differ and it really comes down to talent vs. situation. I have always had Michael Turner significantly higher than Jeff because I weight his talent very heavily, Jeff weighs the uncertainty of his future situation heavily. Vince Young is another example where our approaches cause us to come up with very different results.On the whole, I think you're correct, but Faletti's point about the 10% where we differ maybe being the difference between winning and losing is also correct.

I understand and respect that. But the simple truth is neither of you will be useing him in your league this year, barring an LT injury or an emergency fill-in. My last post illustrated my point on this. Neither of you is right or wrong based on the limited information. But what if you need an every week RB this year? Is Turner still your RB of choice over a less talented, but better positioned player? Are you talking about winning and losing this year, or next year? IN 3 years? The needs of your roster, and the league rules would need to be taken into account. A dynasty league with a 17 man roster is different then one with a 22 man roster. At 17 men, Turner's value is far less because you simply don't have enough flexibility to let him rot on the bench for years as a high pick. At 22 men, you would have that luxury, and his value would be much higher because of his future stud potential.What I'm getting at is when you and Jeff do have significant differences of opinion that are clearly based on the priority of situation vs. talent, you may BOTH be right, depending on the league he's applied to. Neither method is invalidated.

Out of curiousity, and both Bloom and Jeff need to answer this, do your dynasty rankings take roster sizes and limitations into account? On an unlimited roster size (or ridiculously large size), I could see Turner as a top ten pick. With a severely limited roster size, he could easily fall into the 20's or even lower.

renesauz,Great post. I was just about to say that this logic hasn't really been applied to this thread up to this point. League scoring rules and roster sizes have a huge affect on how someone ranks dynasty players.

Another big point is that it depends on the person's timeline who is constructing the team. Are you someone who wants to win now with relatively no factoring of long term performance or the exact opposite? In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong here), the guys who really get into evaluating up and coming talent (like rookies) are also more likely to build dynasty teams for the future versus the alternative.

But, I tend to think that people who focus more closely on what's happening now in dynasty leagues are not only more likely to win their league this year, but also have much less difficulty rebuilding after their vets are no longer productive than most people think. In other words, too many people put way too much emphasis on incoming rookies or younger players. How it leads to dynasty league success this year and in future years should be the question you're trying to answer and too many people write off vets too soon, imo.

 

[radballs]

Good to see switz back around.

 

[Biabreakable]

I start by ranking how many Fantasy Points that player will score in Year 1, then adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.).

To go back to the math analogy - as the # of years shrinks and approaches 1, the rankings should == redraft rankings.

So why not start from there and work towards Dynasty?

Rank Year 1, add factors for Years 2-4.

As Ruffrodys05 would say, "wa-la". (That's his best French for "Voila").

Perhaps this is another method that should be added to my question here http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= if it could be more clearly defined?It does seem to be another way of creating rankings than the win now, 3 year, 4 year and 5 year methods. Which also have different approaches. Some use projections others do not. Some use projections based off of averages of past performance and other based on a players age in a curve.

Your method does appear to use a projection at least for year one. Then you say "adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.)."

What kind of adjustment(s)?

Do you adjust the year one projection? Create a new projection for the following year? Or do you adjust by making year one projections for all players, then ranking all players before adjusting them for dynasty?

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

Maybe this is another way of ranking. Do you use projections when ranking players by talent? I am curious about how to rank players purely based on talent before moving them up or down based on situation. Not sure exactly how you do that.

I can see ranking rookies based purely on talent. They do not have any NFL stats to use as comparison or for a projection yet. And I know people rank rookies compared to veteran players without any statistical information to draw upon yet especialy before those rookies have a NFL team for some basis of a projection.

I rank rookies based on percieved talent before the NFL draft and for rookie players only I give much more empasis on this ranking than I give my considerations of thier situation once drafted. And I do keep that ranking in mind regardless of how those rookies perform in thier 1st year in the NFL. However once those players do have a year of performance in the NFL to draw upon I then will factor that performance into a 3 year projection for them. Or you could apply one of the other methods. A lot of differing factors go into a projection such as the 18 factors listed 1st by Driver that I added to. The pre-NFL draft ranking of talent is an important one and that can lead to a projection that does not have a lot of basis in terms of thier 1st year performance. However it still will have to fit into the team projection for me.

Not saying my method or any other is the best or better than other methods. Just curious if you can expand upon your method of ranking that uses talent as the primary basis?

 

[rascal]

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

1 year can create that much of a difference?To ignore the fact that edge went from a great supporting cast to an average one with a horrific line is not logical.

 

[Marc Faletti]

Great post. I was just about to say that this logic hasn't really been applied to this thread up to this point. League scoring rules and roster sizes have a huge affect on how someone ranks dynasty players. Another big point is that it depends on the person's timeline who is constructing the team. Are you someone who wants to win now with relatively no factoring of long term performance or the exact opposite? In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong here), the guys who really get into evaluating up and coming talent (like rookies) are also more likely to build dynasty teams for the future versus the alternative. But, I tend to think that people who focus more closely on what's happening now in dynasty leagues are not only more likely to win their league this year, but also have much less difficulty rebuilding after their vets are no longer productive than most people think. In other words, too many people put way too much emphasis on incoming rookies or younger players. How it leads to dynasty league success this year and in future years should be the question you're trying to answer and too many people write off vets too soon, imo.

I'm sorry you don't see the logic of the argument, but I think there's a big difference between disagreeing and claiming there's no logic.At any given point in a draft, you are faced with a multitude of choices. On occasion, you will have to choose whether or not to take a player who has a great situation but you aren't sure is _that_ good versus a guy who you think is pretty darn good but has a dicey situation. I am arguing that you should err on the side of talent. I'm also arguing that downgrading a talented player in dynasty because of uncertainty in his situation may be unwise because 1) situations change, and 2) even stable situations can be tough to analyze year to year. Most FF analysis talks about situations and situational change, but oftentimes we fail to actually discuss whether a player is talented or HOW he's talented and whether that's enough. Again, I understand going the other way and being situational, I just don't think it's as reliable. I think it makes you draft Carr as a "sleeper" and Edge as a guy who can still help, while making it hard for you to distinguish between backups later in the draft (like my Cassel vs. Rodgers point earlier). We all rely on both talent AND situation. I'm just arguing for one having more weight than the other in dynasty. If this is illogical (as opposed to something you disagree with), I'd be interested to hear why. I know renesauz thinks that you wind up in the same place regardless of approach, but even Bloom pointed out that's not true for him and Jeff at crucial points in their rankings.

 

[Marc Faletti]

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

1 year can create that much of a difference?To ignore the fact that edge went from a great supporting cast to an average one with a horrific line is not logical.

He looked fried to me the year before in Indy. Much less burst and quickness. He seemed like Edge in slo-mo to me, even that last year in Indy. Did you feel he was still an impressive runner?

 

[rascal]

Bash others? I bashed you? Did I call you names? Did I make fun of your mom? I thought all I did was break down FBG content (The Audible) to stimulate meaningful discussion on how to approach dynasty FF. Is it bashing you if I break down your commentary on The Audible and disagree with it? I'm surprised you're telling me this post doesn't belong in the Shark Pool.

Jeff doesn't need defending, but your posts were anything but innocent.See your post about needing to teach him an english lesson as an example.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

http://podcast.footballguys.com/Footballgu...2007-Vol49a.mp3

Jeff Pasquino and me go over news and notes from around the league. Enjoy!

I think we all would like to hear a Pasquino vs Falletti showdown on whether situation or talent is more important. Can you arrange?

already done my friend. DYNASTY PHILOSOPHY show scheduled for next Wednesday!

In this corner....

 

[rascal]

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

1 year can create that much of a difference?To ignore the fact that edge went from a great supporting cast to an average one with a horrific line is not logical.

He looked fried to me the year before in Indy. Much less burst and quickness. He seemed like Edge in slo-mo to me, even that last year in Indy. Did you feel he was still an impressive runner?

Not nearly what he was in prior years which was exactly my point. Like I said, he went from a great supporting cast to a sub-par one. And that resulted in him dropping an average from #5 to #20 depending on your scoring. In redraft leagues the importance of surrounding cast is much more important.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Out of curiosity, and both Bloom and Jeff need to answer this, do your dynasty rankings take roster sizes and limitations into account? On an unlimited roster size (or ridiculously large size), I could see Turner as a top ten pick. With a severely limited roster size, he could easily fall into the 20's or even lower.

This is a great point, and I'll start by saying that my Dynasty Draft Pick Calculator takes this into account (roster size vs. league size vs. bench depth).Check it out if you haven't yet. I'm extremely proud of it and I've yet to see anything like it elsewhere.

But to your point / question, which is a very good one, I believe that the value of these players is based upon overall value and not a willingness to stash them on your bench.

My natural inclinations to these rankings are:

4-year scope
FBG Scoring
12 teams
FBG Standard Starters (QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, TE, K, D)
Roster size - roughly the norm (3x your skill players and 2 spots for K and D) - That's 25We need to put this at the heading of the rankings, as this comes up every time.

You are absolutely correct that a roster of 20 is much more difficult to stash "projects" than a roster of 24-27.

 

[Family Matters]

http://podcast.footballguys.com/Footballgu...2007-Vol49a.mp3

Jeff Pasquino and me go over news and notes from around the league. Enjoy!

I think we all would like to hear a Pasquino vs Falletti showdown on whether situation or talent is more important. Can you arrange?

already done my friend. DYNASTY PHILOSOPHY show scheduled for next Wednesday!

In this corner....

 

[AB in DC]

Jeff doesn't need defending, but your posts were anything but innocent.

FWIW, I didn't see anything inflammatory in Marc's post, and I think Jeff P. has shown some seriously thin skin.It seemed obvious to me that the point of this thread was to look at talent vs. situation in close calls. Instead, Jeff P. turned the entire thread into a question of whether Marc described his position accurately or not. This turned what could have been a very promising discussion into little more than a FFA-worthy parade of accusations and countercharges.Jeff, the rest of us couldn't care less how well Marc portrayed your views. He was just using a few of your comments as a launching pad to discuss a larger issue. There was really no need for you to be so defensive and hijack the thread the way you did. The Shark Pool is supposed to be a resource for all of us to discuss ff, not just for staff members to stand on a soapbox and launch attacks on anyone who misunderstands their written or spoken word.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Jeff doesn't need defending, but your posts were anything but innocent.

FWIW, I didn't see anything inflammatory in Marc's post, and I think Jeff P. has shown some seriously thin skin.It seemed obvious to me that the point of this thread was to look at talent vs. situation in close calls. Instead, Jeff P. turned the entire thread into a question of whether Marc described his position accurately or not. This turned what could have been a very promising discussion into little more than a FFA-worthy parade of accusations and countercharges.Jeff, the rest of us couldn't care less how well Marc portrayed your views. He was just using a few of your comments as a launching pad to discuss a larger issue. There was really no need for you to be so defensive and hijack the thread the way you did. The Shark Pool is supposed to be a resource for all of us to discuss ff, not just for staff members to stand on a soapbox and launch attacks on anyone who misunderstands their written or spoken word.

How can you hijack a thread when you're on the subject line of the same thread and named repeatedly in Post 1?If you were misquoted and misrepresented repeatedly, including having your viewpoints and rankings called hypocritical, you would respond. Marc could have made his points in a different manner and had the same discussions kicked off. I was never on a soapbox preaching - I was defending my viewpoints against Marc's comments.We've buried the hatchet since, but you really are well off base here.

 

[NorrisB]

Bash others? I bashed you? Did I call you names? Did I make fun of your mom? I thought all I did was break down FBG content (The Audible) to stimulate meaningful discussion on how to approach dynasty FF. Is it bashing you if I break down your commentary on The Audible and disagree with it? I'm surprised you're telling me this post doesn't belong in the Shark Pool.

Jeff doesn't need defending, but your posts were anything but innocent.See your post about needing to teach him an english lesson as an example.

Jeff doesnt need to be taught an english lesson, he went to Caltech, which is the best science school in the world. They only take the elite of the elite.

 

[renesauz]

Great post. I was just about to say that this logic hasn't really been applied to this thread up to this point. League scoring rules and roster sizes have a huge affect on how someone ranks dynasty players. Another big point is that it depends on the person's timeline who is constructing the team. Are you someone who wants to win now with relatively no factoring of long term performance or the exact opposite? In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong here), the guys who really get into evaluating up and coming talent (like rookies) are also more likely to build dynasty teams for the future versus the alternative. But, I tend to think that people who focus more closely on what's happening now in dynasty leagues are not only more likely to win their league this year, but also have much less difficulty rebuilding after their vets are no longer productive than most people think. In other words, too many people put way too much emphasis on incoming rookies or younger players. How it leads to dynasty league success this year and in future years should be the question you're trying to answer and too many people write off vets too soon, imo.

I'm sorry you don't see the logic of the argument, but I think there's a big difference between disagreeing and claiming there's no logic.At any given point in a draft, you are faced with a multitude of choices. On occasion, you will have to choose whether or not to take a player who has a great situation but you aren't sure is _that_ good versus a guy who you think is pretty darn good but has a dicey situation. I am arguing that you should err on the side of talent. I'm also arguing that downgrading a talented player in dynasty because of uncertainty in his situation may be unwise because 1) situations change, and 2) even stable situations can be tough to analyze year to year. Most FF analysis talks about situations and situational change, but oftentimes we fail to actually discuss whether a player is talented or HOW he's talented and whether that's enough. Again, I understand going the other way and being situational, I just don't think it's as reliable. I think it makes you draft Carr as a "sleeper" and Edge as a guy who can still help, while making it hard for you to distinguish between backups later in the draft (like my Cassel vs. Rodgers point earlier). We all rely on both talent AND situation. I'm just arguing for one having more weight than the other in dynasty. If this is illogical (as opposed to something you disagree with), I'd be interested to hear why. I know renesauz thinks that you wind up in the same place regardless of approach, but even Bloom pointed out that's not true for him and Jeff at crucial points in their rankings.

Actually, I'm not disagreeing to the extent you might think. I'm simply stating that which has more importance will change depending on your unique team situation/needs and league rules. Your initial argument was STRONGLY arguing that talent should always be the prevailing factor, and proceeded to try to prove that premise. You used Bloom and Jeff as extreme examples of two philosophies that you assumed were contradictory.My argument was that the two philosophies are NOT truly contradictory, but simply two different methods which will USUALLY lead to similar conclusions (rankings). I argued that because they will usually lead to the same conclusions, neither was inherently more right then the other, as you had argued in your very first post.Yourself and Bloom then pointed to a couple of extreme examples that showed occassions where the prevailing/starting point of ranking could lead to wide disparities in ranking...specificly in the case of Turner..Here is where we may have to agree to disagree. We could agree on Turner's talent (very high) AND his situation (very poor) and still vary widely on his rank. (The very high and very poor make Turner a perfect example). Like Jeff, I would rank Turner much lower then you and Bloom because I just can't see him helping much this year, and see at least 10 other RB's who not only can help this year, but should remain significant contributors for several more years. IF YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT Turner's talent (and you likely are), and he lands in a better situation (Starter on a team with at least an average line), Turner will almost certainly outperform those ten or so RB's Jeff and I would rank ahead of him in 2008, 09, and 2010. I can't argue with that logic, IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE ROSTER SLOT, and no way would I consider you wrong for doing so.The problem I see, and I think Jeff sees, is that he still doesn't help THIS YEAR. Add the fact that RB's are far more likely to suffer career threatening injuries then other positions, and that he still will need at least a mediocre situation to significantly outperform most of those ten RB's, and that RB careers are usually short anyway....and the risk just doesn't make a ton of sense to us.NOW....I can see the argument easily with Turner, because it's easy to see his talent. But in dynasty drafts, where most of the prospects are rookies with ZERO NFL time, sprinkle in the generally poor success rates for evaluating talent BEFORE seeing them in the NFL, and it seems to me that you are far safer to give a priority to situation before percieved talent for any player less obvious then a Reggie Bush/AD type.Even if you evaluate the talent correctly, a talented back drafted to the wrong squad could be doomed to no better then a RB2 or 3 on your squad for several years. IF YOU'RE A SUPERB EVALUATOR, you may come out a little ahead in the long run, but I'd rather win now, TYVM.

 

[Marc Faletti]

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

1 year can create that much of a difference?To ignore the fact that edge went from a great supporting cast to an average one with a horrific line is not logical.

He looked fried to me the year before in Indy. Much less burst and quickness. He seemed like Edge in slo-mo to me, even that last year in Indy. Did you feel he was still an impressive runner?

Not nearly what he was in prior years which was exactly my point. Like I said, he went from a great supporting cast to a sub-par one. And that resulted in him dropping an average from #5 to #20 depending on your scoring. In redraft leagues the importance of surrounding cast is much more important.

I meant that I noticed a drop off even in Indy and asked if you saw the same, but it sounds like you didn't feel he was off in his last year as a Colt despite his numbers. It looked to me like he was, and I felt anyone who paid for him, no matter how good their line was, would regret it.

 

[renesauz]

I meant that I noticed a drop off even in Indy and asked if you saw the same, but it sounds like you didn't feel he was off in his last year as a Colt despite his numbers. It looked to me like he was, and I felt anyone who paid for him, no matter how good their line was, would regret it.

I agree with you on this one. I didn't expect him to struggle quite as badly as he did, but I certainly didn't expect RB1 numbers from him in ARI. I saw his talent a little decreased, and his situation significantly decreased.See, we aren't that far apart!

 

[rascal]

Edge in Indy vs. Edge in AZ

That has much more to do with age than situation

1 year can create that much of a difference?To ignore the fact that edge went from a great supporting cast to an average one with a horrific line is not logical.

He looked fried to me the year before in Indy. Much less burst and quickness. He seemed like Edge in slo-mo to me, even that last year in Indy. Did you feel he was still an impressive runner?

Not nearly what he was in prior years which was exactly my point. Like I said, he went from a great supporting cast to a sub-par one. And that resulted in him dropping an average from #5 to #20 depending on your scoring. In redraft leagues the importance of surrounding cast is much more important.

I meant that I noticed a drop off even in Indy and asked if you saw the same, but it sounds like you didn't feel he was off in his last year as a Colt despite his numbers. It looked to me like he was, and I felt anyone who paid for him, no matter how good their line was, would regret it.

So did you post your RB rankings like Jeff and others did?

 

[s_ezy]

Speaking of Dynasty Rankings were you going to update yours Jeff?i do enjoy seeing where both you and Bloom have certain players rankedthx in advance

Click my sig, the link is there.I don't know if I will update between now and the draft. maybe.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Speaking of Dynasty Rankings were you going to update yours Jeff?i do enjoy seeing where both you and Bloom have certain players rankedthx in advance

Click my sig, the link is there.I don't know if I will update between now and the draft. maybe.

I updated the WRs the other night.I don't think much changed at other positions, but let me know if something looks wrong.

 

[Biabreakable]

I start by ranking how many Fantasy Points that player will score in Year 1, then adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.).

To go back to the math analogy - as the # of years shrinks and approaches 1, the rankings should == redraft rankings.

So why not start from there and work towards Dynasty?

Rank Year 1, add factors for Years 2-4.

As Ruffrodys05 would say, "wa-la". (That's his best French for "Voila").

Perhaps this is another method that should be added to my question here http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= if it could be more clearly defined?It does seem to be another way of creating rankings than the win now, 3 year, 4 year and 5 year methods. Which also have different approaches. Some use projections others do not. Some use projections based off of averages of past performance and other based on a players age in a curve.

Your method does appear to use a projection at least for year one. Then you say "adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.)."

What kind of adjustment(s)?

Do you adjust the year one projection? Create a new projection for the following year? Or do you adjust by making year one projections for all players, then ranking all players before adjusting them for dynasty?

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

Maybe this is another way of ranking. Do you use projections when ranking players by talent? I am curious about how to rank players purely based on talent before moving them up or down based on situation. Not sure exactly how you do that.

I can see ranking rookies based purely on talent. They do not have any NFL stats to use as comparison or for a projection yet. And I know people rank rookies compared to veteran players without any statistical information to draw upon yet especialy before those rookies have a NFL team for some basis of a projection.

I rank rookies based on percieved talent before the NFL draft and for rookie players only I give much more empasis on this ranking than I give my considerations of thier situation once drafted. And I do keep that ranking in mind regardless of how those rookies perform in thier 1st year in the NFL. However once those players do have a year of performance in the NFL to draw upon I then will factor that performance into a 3 year projection for them. Or you could apply one of the other methods. A lot of differing factors go into a projection such as the 18 factors listed 1st by Driver that I added to. The pre-NFL draft ranking of talent is an important one and that can lead to a projection that does not have a lot of basis in terms of thier 1st year performance. However it still will have to fit into the team projection for me.

Not saying my method or any other is the best or better than other methods. Just curious if you can expand upon your method of ranking that uses talent as the primary basis?

I guess neither want to expand on the methodology they use.I at least have some understanding of how Jeff is creating his rankings. 4 year projection based off of year one. What weighting he uses or other factors I am still unsure of.

As far as Marc ranking based on "talent" I am much less clear how this is done. The only time I do that is when players are rookies before I have any data to draw upon.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I start by ranking how many Fantasy Points that player will score in Year 1, then adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.).

To go back to the math analogy - as the # of years shrinks and approaches 1, the rankings should == redraft rankings.

So why not start from there and work towards Dynasty?

Rank Year 1, add factors for Years 2-4.

As Ruffrodys05 would say, "wa-la". (That's his best French for "Voila").

Perhaps this is another method that should be added to my question here http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= if it could be more clearly defined?It does seem to be another way of creating rankings than the win now, 3 year, 4 year and 5 year methods. Which also have different approaches. Some use projections others do not. Some use projections based off of averages of past performance and other based on a players age in a curve.

Your method does appear to use a projection at least for year one. Then you say "adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.)."

What kind of adjustment(s)?

Do you adjust the year one projection? Create a new projection for the following year? Or do you adjust by making year one projections for all players, then ranking all players before adjusting them for dynasty?

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

Maybe this is another way of ranking. Do you use projections when ranking players by talent? I am curious about how to rank players purely based on talent before moving them up or down based on situation. Not sure exactly how you do that.

I can see ranking rookies based purely on talent. They do not have any NFL stats to use as comparison or for a projection yet. And I know people rank rookies compared to veteran players without any statistical information to draw upon yet especialy before those rookies have a NFL team for some basis of a projection.

I rank rookies based on percieved talent before the NFL draft and for rookie players only I give much more empasis on this ranking than I give my considerations of thier situation once drafted. And I do keep that ranking in mind regardless of how those rookies perform in thier 1st year in the NFL. However once those players do have a year of performance in the NFL to draw upon I then will factor that performance into a 3 year projection for them. Or you could apply one of the other methods. A lot of differing factors go into a projection such as the 18 factors listed 1st by Driver that I added to. The pre-NFL draft ranking of talent is an important one and that can lead to a projection that does not have a lot of basis in terms of thier 1st year performance. However it still will have to fit into the team projection for me.

Not saying my method or any other is the best or better than other methods. Just curious if you can expand upon your method of ranking that uses talent as the primary basis?

I guess neither want to expand on the methodology they use.I at least have some understanding of how Jeff is creating his rankings. 4 year projection based off of year one. What weighting he uses or other factors I am still unsure of.

As far as Marc ranking based on "talent" I am much less clear how this is done. The only time I do that is when players are rookies before I have any data to draw upon.

Biabreakable, let's spin this off from this thread - no need to proliferate the argumentative tone in here.

 

[Marc Faletti]

I start by ranking how many Fantasy Points that player will score in Year 1, then adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.).

To go back to the math analogy - as the # of years shrinks and approaches 1, the rankings should == redraft rankings.

So why not start from there and work towards Dynasty?

Rank Year 1, add factors for Years 2-4.

As Ruffrodys05 would say, "wa-la". (That's his best French for "Voila").

Perhaps this is another method that should be added to my question here http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= if it could be more clearly defined?It does seem to be another way of creating rankings than the win now, 3 year, 4 year and 5 year methods. Which also have different approaches. Some use projections others do not. Some use projections based off of averages of past performance and other based on a players age in a curve.

Your method does appear to use a projection at least for year one. Then you say "adjust for other factors related to Dynasty (age, situation, injury history, team, coaches, etc.)."

What kind of adjustment(s)?

Do you adjust the year one projection? Create a new projection for the following year? Or do you adjust by making year one projections for all players, then ranking all players before adjusting them for dynasty?

also, it's about how you start your rankings. i start by ranking guys based on talent and then move them up or down a bit on situations. i think this helps me avoid confusion, because when you're breaking down situations, you can talk yourself in circles. i've done that before, haven't you? but when you focus first and primarily on talent, i believe you become a clearer FF thinker, especially in dynasty. and i think that helps you win.

Maybe this is another way of ranking. Do you use projections when ranking players by talent? I am curious about how to rank players purely based on talent before moving them up or down based on situation. Not sure exactly how you do that.

I can see ranking rookies based purely on talent. They do not have any NFL stats to use as comparison or for a projection yet. And I know people rank rookies compared to veteran players without any statistical information to draw upon yet especialy before those rookies have a NFL team for some basis of a projection.

I rank rookies based on percieved talent before the NFL draft and for rookie players only I give much more empasis on this ranking than I give my considerations of thier situation once drafted. And I do keep that ranking in mind regardless of how those rookies perform in thier 1st year in the NFL. However once those players do have a year of performance in the NFL to draw upon I then will factor that performance into a 3 year projection for them. Or you could apply one of the other methods. A lot of differing factors go into a projection such as the 18 factors listed 1st by Driver that I added to. The pre-NFL draft ranking of talent is an important one and that can lead to a projection that does not have a lot of basis in terms of thier 1st year performance. However it still will have to fit into the team projection for me.

Not saying my method or any other is the best or better than other methods. Just curious if you can expand upon your method of ranking that uses talent as the primary basis?

I guess neither want to expand on the methodology they use.I at least have some understanding of how Jeff is creating his rankings. 4 year projection based off of year one. What weighting he uses or other factors I am still unsure of.

As far as Marc ranking based on "talent" I am much less clear how this is done. The only time I do that is when players are rookies before I have any data to draw upon.

I was waiting for someone to mention that! I will be writing a followup piece on talent-ranking as I approach it and how it changed the way I watch the game and prepared me for my work at nfldraftguys.com.

 

[switz]

To illustrate that final statement with another math problem, consider this...

43

X

4278596

4278596

X

43

Give a child the first example of the SAME PROBLEM, and he'll almost certainly start by taking 6 times 3, and then times 4, then 90 times 3, etc. He'll do 14 small multiplications, and use half his paper to add up 7 different sums.

The wise man knows that by inverting the problem, he will get the same result. He'll still do 14 small multiplications, but have only TWO SUMS to add....and therefore will complete the problem faster with more accuracy.

Neither are wrong. Both are valid.

(PS: I actually had a teacher in fourth grade mark a math question wrong when I inverted like this...It took me an hour to convince her that it was the same problem. She couldn't understand how I got the right answer! )

Complete tangent, but I once had a math teacher in an advance class penalize me for using mathematical techniques that were a level above what he was teaching. I argued with him, and his premise for penalizing me was because "I wasn't a team player, and would make other kids feel bad, even though it was accurate methodology."Teachers -

 

[switz]

Jeff, why are you so certain he's wrong and you're right? It's not like you have many people in this thread taking your POV...Maybe his initial tone seemed argumentative to you, but I thought the foundation of this discussion is a good one, and it seems many in here again, share that point of view. Talent, like cream, rises to the top.

Why does Talent like LT (whom I would assume many would rank as the #1 RB) credit his line for the records he got this year? Talented Players will succeed, but the supporting cast can make you or break you.

Bad example - before LT, that was the WORST line in the league, LT made it look much better. Of course they have improved the linemen over a few years and it has helped LT be even better, BUT - HIS TALENT made the line better BEFORE the line made him better.

 

[switz]

Talent vs. Situation is typified by Addai in my mind, as 12 months ago we were debating the Top 5 RBs for 2006.Most had 3 or 4 RBs ahead of him (Maroney, DeAngelo, LenDale, and of course Bush). Now, in 2006, we saw each of their productivity. MJD and Norwood were a tier below.

Last year I had Bush 1, Addai 2, Maroney 3, White 4, DWill 5, MJD 6 before they were ever drafted. The only one where situation had a huge impact was really White. But that's an EXTREME situation.

 

[switz]

Jeff doesnt need to be taught an english lesson, he went to Caltech, which is the best science school in the world. They only take the elite of the elite.

Then why didn't I go there??

 

[switz]

Good to see switz back around.

Thanks guys!!