FBG Dynasty rankings (1 Viewer)

[Colts Win]

Of the 5 guys that do there rankings who has the best?

 

[Chachi]

Of the 5 guys that do there rankings who has the best?

No preference really, I just make sure to filter out Pasquino with IDP dynasty rankings, some of those are totally bogus.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Of the 5 guys that do there rankings who has the best?

No preference really, I just make sure to filter out Pasquino with IDP all dynasty rankings, some of those are totally bogus.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It seems like Pasquino is the outlier on an awful lot of rankings. That's cool, because I don't come to FBG to hear everybody agree with each other, but it would be nice to see some write-ups as to why his rankings are so dissimilar to the rest of the staff. Even if I didn't agree with his rankings, I'd probably benefit from seeing a contrarian viewpoint.

 

[Couch Potato]

I don't think I'd want to simply rely on anyone, but use the rankings as an excellent head start in forming your own opinions and rankings. Each guy will place a different emphasis on age, experience, talent vs opportunity, how many years he looks forward, surrounding offense, etc. Each may have special insight or intuition with particular players. Homerism or other positive or negative biases (however unintentional) may come into play with some players.

I think the thing to do is to compare the rankings on a player by player basis rather than rely on any single guy's rankings. Note where there is general agreement and where opinions are all over the map. Use the rankings, and particularly the variances, to dig in and research on your own, forming your own opinion on a player, deciding for yourself where that player belongs in your own mind. If a staff member is an outlier with regard to a player, try to find out where he is coming from while doing your research, even if you still disagree with his conclusion. Maybe he's ahead of the curve on the player and you can learn why. Maybe he's behind the curve and isn't seeing what others are seeing. Or maybe he just sees things turning out differently than the others do.

See what staff rankings on the redraft side look like, particularly from those you know are putting in significant time developing their rankings because they are posting projections for the main site. Also, go beyond FBG for other opinions (that's blasphemy, I know, but do it anyway). I think it's possible for groupthink to seep into rankings -- though I do want to give these guys a lot of credit for being pretty good about not doing that -- so dig around and see what Fear & Loathing and others not connected to FBG think. See what others you respect on the message board think.

Then distill it all down and your own rankings will come. You may not even be able to explain why you prefer Player A to Player B, just that you do. And remember that your roster mix is important, that whether you'd want to own a 1st round rookie or a 28 year old vet will depend on more than a simple ranking of players no matter whose rankings they are. Your roster is a mosaic you want to put together piece by piece, and what pieces best fit at a single point in time will depend to some degree on the other pieces already in place.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

It seems like Pasquino is the outlier on an awful lot of rankings. That's cool, because I don't come to FBG to hear everybody agree with each other, but it would be nice to see some write-ups as to why his rankings are so dissimilar to the rest of the staff. Even if I didn't agree with his rankings, I'd probably benefit from seeing a contrarian viewpoint.

I don't mind being the outlier - but we're working on more commentary avenues. You guys are the 1% of the FBG populus who reads the Shark Pool - in May, no less. We'll work on some periodic articles to explain the "why" of the rankings.Mine are more geared towards the "now" vs. the "future", as I've said several times before - but I understand if you've not seen me say this before. That's fine, it's hard to read everything here. This place is huge.Either way, this site is unique in that we wear our comments, rankings, articles, etc. on our sleeves, and we actually usually address comments on each and all if someone asks. I'm not sure if other sites would do that - but that's their prerogative.As for my rankings, they are what they are - my opinion of things at the time I wrote them. Now, it is 100% possible that I miss something. It happens. I am not married to any given ranking nor am I steadfast in each one, so feel free as always to comment and question them. Don't like a player at a given spot? Ask me about it - or better yet, convince me to move it. I'll listen. Either I will counter your argument with mine and you'll see where I'm coming from, or I'll reassess and tweak the rankings.Either way, we're both better off.-JP

 

[Fighting Noles]

I respect the win "now" mentality in your rankings and I think it helps to have those in there along with those of the "build for the future" view....It gives the overall rankings a more balanced approach IMO.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I respect the win "now" mentality in your rankings and I think it helps to have those in there along with those of the "build for the future" view....It gives the overall rankings a more balanced approach IMO.

Understand for clarity's sake, I give it about 3-4 years max outlook. In the current NFL, anything beyond that horizon will get you in trouble, IMHO. There's a belief that talent > opportunity. I take the view that opportunity means just as much and possibly more. Most would agree that Michael Turner was the #1 backup RB in the NFL. But would other backs have helped you more than Turner in the past 3 years? Definitely. Now, if you can stomach him on your bench for 3 years, great - but many can't wait that long. Plus there is no guarantee that he will be in a better situation come next contract.I still like youth as upside over "steady" vets that have no place to go but down (Joe Jurevicius> hi), but I still look about 40% this season, 30% next year and 20% year 3 (10% year 4).

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I respect the win "now" mentality in your rankings and I think it helps to have those in there along with those of the "build for the future" view....It gives the overall rankings a more balanced approach IMO.

Understand for clarity's sake, I give it about 3-4 years max outlook. In the current NFL, anything beyond that horizon will get you in trouble, IMHO. There's a belief that talent > opportunity. I take the view that opportunity means just as much and possibly more. Most would agree that Michael Turner was the #1 backup RB in the NFL. But would other backs have helped you more than Turner in the past 3 years? Definitely. Now, if you can stomach him on your bench for 3 years, great - but many can't wait that long. Plus there is no guarantee that he will be in a better situation come next contract.I still like youth as upside over "steady" vets that have no place to go but down (Joe Jurevicius> hi), but I still look about 40% this season, 30% next year and 20% year 3 (10% year 4).

the thing that cracks me up in start up dynasty leagues is that people ignore tons value. Now Im not saying to totally ignore youth, but IMO the first couple of years count for cash too and while alot of people always tend to draft all these younger and uproven players, I like to grab a good blend and win now and not be hurt too badly in the coming years.

 

[Beetlejuice]

I tend to follow what Bloom has the most and probably Pasquino next. When it comes to rookies in particular I really like Bloom.

Not a fan of Norton's rankings.

 

[PranksterJD]

I tend to follow what Bloom has the most and probably Pasquino next. When it comes to rookies in particular I really like Bloom.

This seems a bit like saying you like apples first, and oranges second.Both guys have their place, but they tend to be on drastically different sides of the coin a lot of the time. Seems to me, Pasquino is a ranking system to base yours on if you've got a title contender, and Bloom's is one to use for rebuilding ( LT and Westbrook differences are simple illustrations ). Of course I'm not saying a rebuilder can't find JP's rankings useful or that a contender can't use Bloom's, but the values that each use in their rankings tend to align them with different philosophies, with Bloom looking so much further ahead and weighting youth much more heavily while Pasquino puts most of his weight on the next 1-2 years.

 

[Beetlejuice]

I tend to follow what Bloom has the most and probably Pasquino next. When it comes to rookies in particular I really like Bloom.

This seems a bit like saying you like apples first, and oranges second.Both guys have their place, but they tend to be on drastically different sides of the coin a lot of the time. Seems to me, Pasquino is a ranking system to base yours on if you've got a title contender, and Bloom's is one to use for rebuilding ( LT and Westbrook differences are simple illustrations ). Of course I'm not saying a rebuilder can't find JP's rankings useful or that a contender can't use Bloom's, but the values that each use in their rankings tend to align them with different philosophies, with Bloom looking so much further ahead and weighting youth much more heavily while Pasquino puts most of his weight on the next 1-2 years.

You're right, Pasquino's ranking of LT #2 overall and Bloom's as #3 is a simple illustration of the apples to oranges philosophy between the two of them.....what was I thinking?

 

[Colts Win]

bump