FBG Rankings - Discussion (1 Viewer)

[poopdawg]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

 

[jurb26]

I find it odd that Adam is pretty much the only one in here defending the rankings when it's not even his rankings that are being questioned. I mean, why aren't staffers defending their own rankings?

 

[Bri]

As an aside, I don't see much difference between ranking Gronk as, say, TE7 and taking Gronk off the board entirely. Either ranking essentially translates to "there is absolutely no way in hell this guy will ever wind up on any of my teams", although the first option allows for far more face-saving if you're wrong.

You are a master of convoluted logic, but this may top everything. If this is seriously your position, you shouldn't be ranking.What you've just put forth is that there is no difference in the positions of, "Given the risk I wouldn't take Gronkowski before the 7th round." and "If Gronkowski were there in the 15th round I still wouldn't draft him." If you, or any other staff member, equate those two positions, which is exactly what you've done in your statement above, then you simply should not be ranking for a pay site. There's just no way around that.

.

TE7 is seventh ranked TE not seventh round TE

 

[Bri]

No, I'm saying Dodds has a better accuracy than the other rankers because he's simply better at ranking than the other rankers. There's a lot of science to creating great projections, normalizing to league history, finding the trends in the data, and accurately projecting them forward. There's a lot of art to creating great projections, too; you have to anticipate changes before they happen, imagine the impact of personnel moves in chaotic systems with untold possibilities. It's a very difficult balancing act to pull off, and historically, few have been as good at it as David Dodds.

This is all you really need to know fellas.

no. God Bless David and he is fantastic, but your league mates are probably looking at DDs rankings as well and thus you have no advantage at this point. I think the best way to drink in a consensus ranking is consider why player X is ranked oh so differently by someone. Maybe Carlton is a mad genius scientist in a football lab, maybe Jeff T watched personal workouts, maybe Matt watched too many tapes to see anything but greatness, maybe Adam is a fiercely loyal bronco fan and you're not sure (with Peyton) if that's a good or bad thing....find something different and dig into the why.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round?

I would imagine that he doesn't think that. you might want to rethink about what rankings are. hint: they aren't picking what the adp is.

 

[cdubz]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I find it odd that Adam is pretty much the only one in here defending the rankings when it's not even his rankings that are being questioned. I mean, why aren't staffers defending their own rankings?

Lots of staffers aren't on the forums much. Participation in the pool is neither encouraged nor discouraged- we're all given pretty free reign to do whatever we feel works best for us, in terms of fantasy routine. Some guys on staff have found Twitter fits in better with their routine and have migrated in that direction, others were never on the forums in the first place, still others just don't have the same kind of time they used to. I get it- I could probably get a lot more accomplished if I spent less time browsing/posting and more time writing, but the forums are too big of a part of who I am as a fantasy owner / writer.

Besides, Wimer already defended his rankings. Few guys on staff have been as thorough when it comes to adding player commentary to any ranking that deviates from the norm. He's got 8 sentences on why he has McCoy ranked 14th- he thinks Philly is going to scale back his workload to keep him fresh for the postseason, he thinks Sproles is going to cannibalize his receptions, he thinks McCoy's production has been historically difficult to repeat, and he thinks McCoy will be more of a top-5 candidate than a top-2 lock (and since his rankings are WR-heavy, his #5 RB happens to fall at #14 overall). His comment on McCoy is by far the most thorough among the staff. He's commented on Cameron- he thinks the QB situation will really hold that offense back, but he's open to revising his opinion if they look competent during the preseason. The problem here isn't that Wimer's not defending his rankings. It's that people don't agree with his defense.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

Just because hes ranked at 14 doesnt mean he expects anyone to get him there. The ranking is where they expect him to perform. he thinks sproles will cut into this numbers.... it could happen

 

[Bri]

I find it odd that Adam is pretty much the only one in here defending the rankings when it's not even his rankings that are being questioned. I mean, why aren't staffers defending their own rankings?

Lots of staffers aren't on the forums much. Participation in the pool is neither encouraged nor discouraged- we're all given pretty free reign to do whatever we feel works best for us, in terms of fantasy routine. Some guys on staff have found Twitter fits in better with their routine and have migrated in that direction, others were never on the forums in the first place, still others just don't have the same kind of time they used to.

The result don't indicate this at all. There is a crystal clear history of FBG hiring people from here (and/or RSFF) and them becoming almost quiet after their hiring.

I am not saying DD or JB say don't participate-I don't know what transpires exactly, but the regulars definitely participate in the pool less

 

[Adam Harstad]

I find it odd that Adam is pretty much the only one in here defending the rankings when it's not even his rankings that are being questioned. I mean, why aren't staffers defending their own rankings?

Lots of staffers aren't on the forums much. Participation in the pool is neither encouraged nor discouraged- we're all given pretty free reign to do whatever we feel works best for us, in terms of fantasy routine. Some guys on staff have found Twitter fits in better with their routine and have migrated in that direction, others were never on the forums in the first place, still others just don't have the same kind of time they used to.

The result don't indicate this at all. There is a crystal clear history of FBG hiring people from here (and/or RSFF) and them becoming almost quiet after their hiring.

I am not saying DD or JB say don't participate-I don't know what transpires exactly, but the regulars definitely participate in the pool less

Yeah, like I said, lots of new time demands. Plus I kind of get the sense that a lot of people wind up making staff while at a similar point in their life, and then family and kids come along, and all of a sudden they're having to decide how best to spend the time they have. I know most of my old buddies who I've been playing fantasy with forever don't spend nearly as much time on it today as they did a dozen years ago. Lots of other long-time fixtures are seeing their names pop up a lot less frequently these days on the forums, too. But if Shark Pool participation were frowned upon, I'm pretty sure that me and Magaw would be out on the street by now.

I won't try to read too much into anyone else's motivations. I can say for me, personally, that if I cut out the forums I could probably get another half-dozen articles done. I wouldn't do that, though, because I really appreciate the free-form nature of the forums and think these discussions often wind up taking me down trails I never would have anticipated. I think the Shark Pool makes me a better fantasy owner, and I think the active discussion and the challenges and the pushback really helps clarify my thoughts and arguments sometimes, and can make me better at the stuff I do write. Some people never used it as a place to challenge and be challenged in return- for some, it was a source of news, and for about 5-8 years, the Shark Pool really was *THE* place for fantasy football related news, before Twitter rose to prominence. Twitter's kind of a crazy platform, very chaotic and hectic and a hard place to hear yourself think, but that frenetic pace makes it the place to be for instant updates and analysis. Me, I still love me some long-form journalism. Other people don't, or never did. Different strokes for different folks.

I've been here so long that there are a lot of people who I consider good friends, or casual friends, or friendly acquaintances; the pace of this place has become comfortingly familiar over the years, and to me it's too much a part of fantasy football for me to try to separate one from the other. But that's a personal decision, and everyone else is going to have their own lives and routines and processes. I know I've been incredibly blessed in my personal circumstances where I've been able to retain fantasy football as a leisure activity while at the same time getting an opportunity to view it as something more serious, too. I think it's a rare place to be in the fantasy space, and I do not take it for granted.

As I said, when I joined the staff, David made it crystal clear to me that there were no expectations one way or another when it comes to participation in the Pool. He let me know that he knew I had been active here, and if I wanted to remain so, that was totally fine with them. He also made it clear to me they weren't hiring me as some sort of Pool representative, and if I didn't have the time, energy, or desire to remain active in the Pool with my new writing responsibilities, that was okay with them, too. They've done a great job of making it clear that there's no pressure on me to participate or not participate in any specific way. If I would violate my rule against guessing motivations for just a second, though, I've always gotten the impression that they were secretly glad I decided to stick around. Joe and David really love and value the Shark Pool. So do guys like Wood and Bloom and Chase and Haseley and Rudniki who came up through the forums, and guys like Yudkin and Tremblay and Russell who are still around. I don't think the Shark Pool is just a savvy marketing tool or a useful business asset to any of them. I really think that all of them have a lot of love for it, and maybe a little sense of nostalgia for a time when they were just younger guys hanging out with their friends chatting about fantasy football instead of grown-ups with kids and families and jobs and obligations and too much to do and too little time to do it.

But, you know, that's just me guessing at motivations I have no specific knowledge of against my own better judgment.

 

[Tau837]

As for participation in the forums, I wish more FBG staff members participated more often. I appreciate those like Adam who are active. But I also remember when Chase, Jason, Maurile, and others were more active, and the forums were better with their participation.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

As for participation in the forums, I wish more FBG staff members participated more often. I appreciate those like Adam who are active. But I also remember when Chase, Jason, Maurile, and others were more active, and the forums were better with their participation.

Im all for them participating and do miss it. However, its likely they are spending that free time doing analysis for the many insightful articles that they make so id much rather they put that focus into studying game tape, watching training camp and relaying that info to me.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

As for participation in the forums, I wish more FBG staff members participated more often. I appreciate those like Adam who are active. But I also remember when Chase, Jason, Maurile, and others were more active, and the forums were better with their participation.

Im all for them participating and do miss it. However, its likely they are spending that free time doing analysis for the many insightful articles that they make so id much rather they put that focus into studying game tape, watching training camp and relaying that info to me.

I think they participated here to get on staff and now they have no incentive to do that.

I just wish they would comment on their rankings especially the ones that are different than ADP.

 

[jurb26]

I find it odd that Adam is pretty much the only one in here defending the rankings when it's not even his rankings that are being questioned. I mean, why aren't staffers defending their own rankings?

Lots of staffers aren't on the forums much. Participation in the pool is neither encouraged nor discouraged- we're all given pretty free reign to do whatever we feel works best for us, in terms of fantasy routine. Some guys on staff have found Twitter fits in better with their routine and have migrated in that direction, others were never on the forums in the first place, still others just don't have the same kind of time they used to. I get it- I could probably get a lot more accomplished if I spent less time browsing/posting and more time writing, but the forums are too big of a part of who I am as a fantasy owner / writer.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Nobody is saying staffers need to participate in the forums regularly, though I'm sure many would like to see it as it could add solid material. This isn't about browsing the forums for content and posting consistently, requiring a big time commitment. It's simply about transparency to player rankings. It would take hardly any time at all for a staffer to come into a thread like this and simply clear the air. When the forums are such a HUGE portion of what this site offers I'm really not sure how that isn't required.

Then again maybe the comments in the rankings provide enough clarity and additions have been made, it seems not given threads like this are up every year. I wouldn't know seeing I haven't used the rankings in at least 7 years.

 

[poopdawg]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

Those are dynasty rankings. I guarantee you that this board has a TON of dynasty owners who wouldn't draft a RB in the 1st round of a dynasty start-up. Those owners would find 13 guys to take before any RB, I guarantee you, it's just a roster building philosophy. That's why he has all the WR's so high. You can't look at them like universal redraft rankings. They are dynasty rankings that reflect how he builds his teams.

 

[Marauder]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

Those are dynasty rankings. I guarantee you that this board has a TON of dynasty owners who wouldn't draft a RB in the 1st round of a dynasty start-up. Those owners would find 13 guys to take before any RB, I guarantee you, it's just a roster building philosophy. That's why he has all the WR's so high. You can't look at them like universal redraft rankings. They are dynasty rankings that reflect how he builds his teams.

No, it's redraft rankings. Wimer doesn't even have any dynasty rankings posted.

 

[cdubz]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

There are definitely 13 players I would consider taking before AP in PPR, just as insane?

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

Those are dynasty rankings. I guarantee you that this board has a TON of dynasty owners who wouldn't draft a RB in the 1st round of a dynasty start-up. Those owners would find 13 guys to take before any RB, I guarantee you, it's just a roster building philosophy. That's why he has all the WR's so high. You can't look at them like universal redraft rankings. They are dynasty rankings that reflect how he builds his teams.

No, it's redraft rankings. Wimer doesn't even have any dynasty rankings posted.

Oh, my bad. I was looking at the wrong page entirely then.

 

[poopdawg]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

There are definitely 13 players I would consider taking before AP in PPR, just as insane?

Absolutely. List me your 13 players you take before him then in a redraft.

 

[cdubz]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of rankings. That is not saying that is where he expects to get McCoy, just that he would generally take 13 players ahead of him.

There are some rankings that I find controversial/questionable, such as Cameron outside the top 20 TEs, ranking any RB (given the volatility of the position) in the early 2nd is not one of them.

Fair enough. But it's half dozen to one and 6 to the other. I will rephrase it. I guarantee that there is not one person on this board (or in America for that mater) that would consider taking 13 players before McCoy. That's insane...

There are definitely 13 players I would consider taking before AP in PPR, just as insane?

Absolutely. List me your 13 players you take before him then in a redraft.

Notice what you are asking for is not exactly what I offered up. I probably take AP before then due to RB scarceness, but there are 13 I would consider taking before him.

I will do you one better though, here are players that David Dodds thinks will be more valuable than AP this year if you use worst starter method for VBD.

***Note I am using Dodds' numerical projections here, but these are not his rankings of how he would take them, also I pulled this data about 3 weeks ago so he may have made changes***

I was calculating baselines based on FPC/FFPC format (1.5 ppr for TE)- so it might be different for PPR but think it would be very similar.

Charles

Forte

LeSean

Calvin

Demaryius

Dez

Green

Marshall

Julio

Antonio Brown

Graham

Gronk

So using that methodology, in FPC there are 12 players that Dodds is straight-up projecting to outscore Peterson. When you throw in overall RB volatility, I don't think it is crazy to consider Alshon or Jordy or Julius in 1.5 over him.

Again, I might not end up taking him that low - but the point is that ranking Peterson or McCoy 14th does not meet my definition of insane.

 

[Leonidas]

Wimer's draft rankings finished 130th out of the 132 submitted last year. You'd have done almost as well flipping a coin to make decisions as you would have using his rankings.

This does not surprise me. Actually, it does. Two did WORSE? Holy cow, that's awful.

But I can now leave this thread, having read as far as this post.

 

[Warrior]

Just going through some of the redraft rankings, I have to really question the legitimacy of a few staffers' rankings. For the record, overall I think they're great. And most of the FBGs obviously really know their stuff. But there are a couple that I just can't get over.

One in particular has James Jones ranked higher in PPR than Jordy Nelson and Montee Ball. In fact, both of those two aren't even in his overall top 60. The one that put me over the edge was the ranking of Logan Paulsen over Rob Gronkowski. Those are just a few examples.

My question is this...does anyone on the staff look at the results of these rankings year over year and judge performance, then decide whether or not certain staffers even deserve to be included? I know subscribers can filter them in whatever way we choose, but seriously? What value is added when equal default weighting is given to a staffer that really puts forth effort in their rankings and a guy who is advocating that you place a higher value on James Jones and Fred Jackson than Montee Ball and Jordy Nelson? To me, it really dilutes the value of the collective FBG "expert" rankings.

Seriously...Logan Paulsen over Gronk.

Update: Gronkowski has scored more fantasy points than Logan Paulsen.

55/734/9 versus 9/46/0 (with both Jordan Reed and Niles Paul missing time)

In fact, Gronk is on pace to shatter Paulsen's personal record this season. Not Paulsen's best season...his entire career.

 

[Ted Mullins]

Why in the hell would this same staffer rank McCoy as the #14 player off the board??!!!!!! Are you telling me that he expects to get him in the second round? Some can't even expect to get him at the second pick. I always take him off my rankings anyhow and I hate to pile on, but why in the hell is he still on staff on a pay site? He's terrible.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Just going through some of the redraft rankings, I have to really question the legitimacy of a few staffers' rankings. For the record, overall I think they're great. And most of the FBGs obviously really know their stuff. But there are a couple that I just can't get over.

One in particular has James Jones ranked higher in PPR than Jordy Nelson and Montee Ball. In fact, both of those two aren't even in his overall top 60. The one that put me over the edge was the ranking of Logan Paulsen over Rob Gronkowski. Those are just a few examples.

My question is this...does anyone on the staff look at the results of these rankings year over year and judge performance, then decide whether or not certain staffers even deserve to be included? I know subscribers can filter them in whatever way we choose, but seriously? What value is added when equal default weighting is given to a staffer that really puts forth effort in their rankings and a guy who is advocating that you place a higher value on James Jones and Fred Jackson than Montee Ball and Jordy Nelson? To me, it really dilutes the value of the collective FBG "expert" rankings.

Seriously...Logan Paulsen over Gronk.

Update: Gronkowski has scored more fantasy points than Logan Paulsen.

55/734/9 versus 9/46/0 (with both Jordan Reed and Niles Paul missing time)

In fact, Gronk is on pace to shatter Paulsen's personal record this season. Not Paulsen's best season...his entire career.

Not that Wimer needs me to defend him, but in case this comes up next season with someone wondering about Wimer's way-out-of-consensus rankings, it would be nice to have a bit of a recap to see how Wimer did with some of his more... unusual... predictions.

Looking at the staff consensus top-24 TEs, Wimer was the lowest ranker on Gronk (who was at TE8- and, it should be noted, well above Logan Paulsen), Pitta, Ertz, and Gates. He was the highest ranker on Witten, Bennett, and Garrett Graham. Pretty mixed bag.

Wide receiver was a different matter entirely. Wimer was the lowest staffer on both Bears WRs, Keenan Allen, Pierre Garcon, Michael Floyd (at WR44, 20 spots lower than the next-lowest!), Percy Harvin, Cordarrelle Patterson (WR54, 23 spots lower than the next-lowest ranker!), Reuben Randle, Riley Cooper, and Justin Hunter (all three unranked, the only staffer to do so with any of those WRs). He was the highest staffer on T.Y. Hilton (his WR13), Sammy Watkins (WR21), Golden Tate (WR22), Kelvin Benjamin (WR24), and Mike Evans (WR27). If that's the advice you followed, you're probably loving Wimer today. Of course, Wimer was also the highest staffer on Vincent Jackson, Andre Johnson, Michael Crabtree, and Eric Decker and he was the lowest staffer on DeSean Jackson. On the whole though, Mark Wimer pretty much straight-up murdered all of his calls at WR. I don't think there's anyone who would have done a better job steering you through that minefield this year.

Running back wasn't as pretty. His low positions on McCoy and Montee Ball were already mentioned in this thread, and those are definitely two calls that look great with hindsight. He was also the lowest on Forte, Lacy, and Le'Veon, which offsets any of those gains. He was really high on Doug Martin, Reggie Bush, Frank Gore, Ben Tate, DeAngelo Williams... other than Lamar Miller, it's pretty much been a bloodbath for the RBs he liked this year.

Quarterback's also not too pretty. High on Ryan, low on Luck. High on Romo, low on Brady. His biggest outlier was Dalton at 7, which hasn't exactly worked out. He faded Foles and Griffin, which has been good so far, but by and large not a great hit rate at quarterback.

His overall rankings were a mixed bag. Calvin and Demaryius were both well above consensus (#1 and #2 overall for him), though Calvin probably deserves an injury pass. He had Peyton Manning at #3, which is going to depend on how you feel about drafting QBs in the first, but Manning certainly hasn't been a bust. (Wimer was also the top ranker on Rodgers and Brees, indicating he just philosophically likes grabbing early QBs). Interestingly, Wimer must have changed his mind big-time about Jordy Nelson, because he showed up at 13th overall, higher than any other ranker had him. The rest of his overall rankings just kind of reinforce his positional rankings. Lynch high = good. Martin high = bad. Fading Ball = good. Fading Bell = bad. He was the only ranker to include either Watkins or Golden Tate in his top 60. Some hits. Some misses.

All-in-all, Wimer's rankings were a mixed bag. Bad at running back and quarterback, mixed at tight end, but pretty epic at wide receiver. A lot of the calls that people were questioning in the preseason wound up looking prescient. Others... not so much. I did two staff mocks with him this offseason, and we let the leagues play out best-ball style. In one, he's third (Stafford, Dalton, Bush, Lynch, Ryan Matthews, Sproles, Crowell, Calvin, Hilton, Maclin, Martavis, Stills, Wheaton, Dwayne Allen, Witten, Martellus). In the other, he's third-from-last (Rodgers, Dalton, Ryan Mathews, Ben Tate, West, Blue, Crowell, Khiry, Green, Watkins, Boldin, Cotchery, Stedman, Stills, Mike Williams, Cameron, LaDarius, Toilolo). I think those two rosters pretty much perfectly encapsulate Mark Wimer. He's a high-variance guy. When things work out, they can really work out. When things go bad, they can go really bad.

I'll let people draw their own conclusions, I just wanted to present the hard data now that the results are starting to come in.

 

[Louche]

As an FYI, I sent Chad Parsons an IM to see if he is willing to confirm his overall dynasty rankings. He has Davante Adams at 27 and Allen Robinson at 28, with Aaron Dobson not far behind at 32 - overall. Seems a bit high for those guys.

Parsons is very youth-centric and doesn't discount much for future seasons. Notice he has both Watkins and Evans in his top 10, Cooks at 13, and Moncrief at at 22. He has Jordan Matthews at 25, though I've actually managed to top him on that one (I've got him at 24). He's also got Michael, Sankey, and Hyde among his top 12 RBs. I'd be surprised if those particular rankings you noticed were not intentional, that's just his philosophy- pay premium prices for quality youth and ride them for their entire prime.

Might seem insane to some (Tefertiller and I are probably the next most youth-centric staffers, and he's still several standard deviations beyond either of us), but I'm sure if you asked he'd share links to some of his dynasty teams. Those high rankings backfire a lot, but when they hit, they can build some insanely talented dynasty squads. And I do think that he and Pasquino are probably the most consistent rankers. They both have a super clear strategy, and I think they're both fantastic at actually following it through.

Jeff Tefertiller's current dynasty rankings are hilarious. Some highlights from his rankings uploaded Nov 22nd:

Teddy Bridgewater QB6

Blake Bortles QB7

RG3 QB8

Johnny Manziel QB9

Matt Ryan QB18

Brock Osweiler QB22

Logan Thomas QB24

Ryan Tannehill QB31

Christine Michael RB10

James White RB23

Alfred Morris RB27

Knowshon Moreno RB31

Lamar Miller RB36

Denard Robinson unranked

Martavis Bryant WR56

Mike Wallace WR65

Eric Decker WR67

Anquan Boldin unranked

Odell Bekcham Jr unranked

I can appreciate that rankers follow their own opinions and that there are different strategies/mindsets, but it gets a bit silly when the variance is so large that one ranker has OBJ unranked and another one has him as WR #3 and they have both uploaded their rankings at some point during the last four days. Apparently Tefertiller feels Shaq Evans and Jared Abbrederis are better dynasty assets than Odell Beckham Jr. And I don't understand what kind of horizon he is working on with his QB rankings. QB landscape anno 2027?

 

[steveski]

As an FYI, I sent Chad Parsons an IM to see if he is willing to confirm his overall dynasty rankings. He has Davante Adams at 27 and Allen Robinson at 28, with Aaron Dobson not far behind at 32 - overall. Seems a bit high for those guys.

Parsons is very youth-centric and doesn't discount much for future seasons. Notice he has both Watkins and Evans in his top 10, Cooks at 13, and Moncrief at at 22. He has Jordan Matthews at 25, though I've actually managed to top him on that one (I've got him at 24). He's also got Michael, Sankey, and Hyde among his top 12 RBs. I'd be surprised if those particular rankings you noticed were not intentional, that's just his philosophy- pay premium prices for quality youth and ride them for their entire prime.

Might seem insane to some (Tefertiller and I are probably the next most youth-centric staffers, and he's still several standard deviations beyond either of us), but I'm sure if you asked he'd share links to some of his dynasty teams. Those high rankings backfire a lot, but when they hit, they can build some insanely talented dynasty squads. And I do think that he and Pasquino are probably the most consistent rankers. They both have a super clear strategy, and I think they're both fantastic at actually following it through.

Jeff Tefertiller's current dynasty rankings are hilarious. Some highlights from his rankings uploaded Nov 22nd:

Teddy Bridgewater QB6

Blake Bortles QB7

RG3 QB8

Johnny Manziel QB9

Matt Ryan QB18

Brock Osweiler QB22

Logan Thomas QB24

Ryan Tannehill QB31

Christine Michael RB10

James White RB23

Alfred Morris RB27

Knowshon Moreno RB31

Lamar Miller RB36

Denard Robinson unranked

Martavis Bryant WR56

Mike Wallace WR65

Eric Decker WR67

Anquan Boldin unranked

Odell Bekcham Jr unranked

I can appreciate that rankers follow their own opinions and that there are different strategies/mindsets, but it gets a bit silly when the variance is so large that one ranker has OBJ unranked and another one has him as WR #3 and they have both uploaded their rankings at some point during the last four days. Apparently Tefertiller feels Shaq Evans and Jared Abbrederis are better dynasty assets than Odell Beckham Jr. And I don't understand what kind of horizon he is working on with his QB rankings. QB landscape anno 2027?

Hmm...never heard of him.

 

[Adam Harstad]

As an FYI, I sent Chad Parsons an IM to see if he is willing to confirm his overall dynasty rankings. He has Davante Adams at 27 and Allen Robinson at 28, with Aaron Dobson not far behind at 32 - overall. Seems a bit high for those guys.

Parsons is very youth-centric and doesn't discount much for future seasons. Notice he has both Watkins and Evans in his top 10, Cooks at 13, and Moncrief at at 22. He has Jordan Matthews at 25, though I've actually managed to top him on that one (I've got him at 24). He's also got Michael, Sankey, and Hyde among his top 12 RBs. I'd be surprised if those particular rankings you noticed were not intentional, that's just his philosophy- pay premium prices for quality youth and ride them for their entire prime.

Might seem insane to some (Tefertiller and I are probably the next most youth-centric staffers, and he's still several standard deviations beyond either of us), but I'm sure if you asked he'd share links to some of his dynasty teams. Those high rankings backfire a lot, but when they hit, they can build some insanely talented dynasty squads. And I do think that he and Pasquino are probably the most consistent rankers. They both have a super clear strategy, and I think they're both fantastic at actually following it through.

Jeff Tefertiller's current dynasty rankings are hilarious. Some highlights from his rankings uploaded Nov 22nd:

Teddy Bridgewater QB6

Blake Bortles QB7

RG3 QB8

Johnny Manziel QB9

Matt Ryan QB18

Brock Osweiler QB22

Logan Thomas QB24

Ryan Tannehill QB31

Christine Michael RB10

James White RB23

Alfred Morris RB27

Knowshon Moreno RB31

Lamar Miller RB36

Denard Robinson unranked

Martavis Bryant WR56

Mike Wallace WR65

Eric Decker WR67

Anquan Boldin unranked

Odell Bekcham Jr unranked

I can appreciate that rankers follow their own opinions and that there are different strategies/mindsets, but it gets a bit silly when the variance is so large that one ranker has OBJ unranked and another one has him as WR #3 and they have both uploaded their rankings at some point during the last four days. Apparently Tefertiller feels Shaq Evans and Jared Abbrederis are better dynasty assets than Odell Beckham Jr. And I don't understand what kind of horizon he is working on with his QB rankings. QB landscape anno 2027?

If you ever notice that a ranker has a super-obvious player unranked, I can pretty much guarantee you that it's the result of human error on the back end (maybe something as innocuous as a misspelled name). Easiest way to get those fixed if you notice them is to shoot the staffer in question a quick heads-up email. Every staffer can be reached at <LastName>@footballguys.com. (I just sent him an email letting him know, so I expect it'll be corrected shortly.)

Other than Beckham and Robinson, I'm not really seeing what's all that controversial about the rest of the rankings. All of them are outside consensus, but not insane. Bridgewater, Bortles, Griffin, Manziel are aggressive and youth-centric rankings, but my philosophy at QB is that low-end QB1 production is super-cheap to acquire at any time (hey, Kyle Orton and Josh McCown and Mark Sanchez), so you might as well swing for the fences, so I have no problem with those. Matt Ryan has been barely startable (or not startable) for a couple years now, and it's not like Gonzo is coming back or Roddy is getting younger. Nothing at all wrong with the Osweiler or Thomas rankings- I would much rather own a complete unknown over a known junker like Eli Manning or Alex Smith. My opinion is that if you don't have any backup QBs in your top 25 in dynasty, you're probably doing it wrong.

Christine Michael at 10 is a reflection of the RB position right now. He's a talented, highly-drafted back who is sitting because he happens to share a team with an All Pro. It's not like talented backups stuck behind stars have never amounted to anything. See: Michael Turner. Realistically, what's the difference between Christine Michael and Carlos Hyde, who is ranked top 12 by every single ranker at FBGs and all but one ranker at DLF with no one batting an eye? James White is a dart throw based on the fact that Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley are FAs. If White earns the Vereen role next year, that 23rd ranking might look like a steal. Moreno outplayed Miller this year and relegated him to the bench when healthy- I think there's a good chance Lamar Miller just isn't a very good RB.

Martavis Bryant is a rookie 4th rounder on a hot streak. He has 16 career receptions. Is it really crazy that someone is skeptical of him, still? Really? Eric Decker is WR47 this year and tied to a dumpster-fire of an offense long-term. He'll probably finish better than WR67 over the next three years, but if you told me a guy was guaranteed to finish 50th every year for a decade, I would have him a heck of a lot lower than WR50 in my rankings.

Boldin's already 34, and slow receivers don't age particularly well. I wouldn't be completely shocked if he only has five games left in his career. I expect him to come back next year, but there have only been sixteen WRs in history to post 100+ fantasy points at age 35. The end is very, very close for Boldin. Tefertiller just happens to think it's closer than most. Is it really that weird for a guy to have a 34-year-old receiver ranked 76th or later instead of, say, 57th, 66th, or 71st (where the other three rankers have him)?

I think the Tannehill, Morris, and Wallace rankings are aggressive, and I strongly disagree with them. There's not a ranker on any site anywhere who doesn't have some aggressive rankings that I strongly disagree with. I'm sure a lot of people would take issue with me ranking Theo Riddick at 34 (I'm the only staffer who has him ranked). Or with me having Steven Jackson unranked (the only staffer to do so). A lot of people gave me grief over having Harvin at WR6 over the offseason (fairly- I was wrong on that one). A lot of people gave me grief over having Rob Gronkowski as my #1 TE and #5 overall player (that one's kind of working out pretty well for me, thank you very much).

Point is, if I wanted a set of wholly uncontroversial rankings, I'd use ADP data. If we're going to get mad at experts for having opinions about players, what's the point of having experts? Tefertiller's rankings are outside consensus, but especially in dynasty leagues, the whole concept of "consensus" is nebulous and ill-suited, given the huge number of different approaches and philosophies different owners can employ. It looks to me like Tefertiller has a clearly articulated strategy that is both consistently applied to and readily apparent from his rankings. As a dynasty ranker, that's the gold standard- when people disagree, they should be able to tell whether the disagreement stems from philosophy differences or evaluation differences. And with Tefertiller, it's usually pretty clear. Other than human error on Robinson and Beckham, his rankings look fine to me.

 

[jurb26]

Adam, seriously, why are you the only one who is defending rankings here? Especially other people's. I'm genuinely shuked.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I also wanted to mention that Tefertiller is one of the easiest-to-approach guys around here. He doesn't come on the forums anymore, but he's very active on Twitter (@JeffTefertiller) and quick to respond, and he does multiple Google Hangouts every week talking about the week's NFL action, its fantasy implications, who he likes, and why. Most weeks I do a Google Hangout with him and Dan Hindery discussing dynasty values. It's typically up on Thursdays, but I think with the holiday weekend they're doing it tonight, instead, (I won't be able to make it, but I think it's still on). Completed episodes are hosted on his Youtube channel, and there are few rankers on the internet who have spent more time explaining why they have people ranked where they do. If you have any questions about his rankings or philosophy, you can always tweet them at him and he'll answer them on the air.

Also, he emailed back and confirmed that Beckham's name got deleted in his last update. So I expect that will be fixed soon.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam, seriously, why are you the only one who is defending rankings here? Especially other people's. I'm genuinely shuked.

Because other than me, Greg, Rudnicki, and Maurile, most of the staff isn't on the forums on a regular basis. If it's someone I've talked to about something (like Jeff, who I chat dynasty with every week and feel like I have a pretty good handle on his process), I'll offer insight where I can. And as someone who makes a lot of bold rankings and receives a lot of criticism for making bold rankings, I'll defend the right to rank boldly just as a general concept.

 

[Louche]

As an FYI, I sent Chad Parsons an IM to see if he is willing to confirm his overall dynasty rankings. He has Davante Adams at 27 and Allen Robinson at 28, with Aaron Dobson not far behind at 32 - overall. Seems a bit high for those guys.

Parsons is very youth-centric and doesn't discount much for future seasons. Notice he has both Watkins and Evans in his top 10, Cooks at 13, and Moncrief at at 22. He has Jordan Matthews at 25, though I've actually managed to top him on that one (I've got him at 24). He's also got Michael, Sankey, and Hyde among his top 12 RBs. I'd be surprised if those particular rankings you noticed were not intentional, that's just his philosophy- pay premium prices for quality youth and ride them for their entire prime.

Might seem insane to some (Tefertiller and I are probably the next most youth-centric staffers, and he's still several standard deviations beyond either of us), but I'm sure if you asked he'd share links to some of his dynasty teams. Those high rankings backfire a lot, but when they hit, they can build some insanely talented dynasty squads. And I do think that he and Pasquino are probably the most consistent rankers. They both have a super clear strategy, and I think they're both fantastic at actually following it through.

Jeff Tefertiller's current dynasty rankings are hilarious. Some highlights from his rankings uploaded Nov 22nd:

Teddy Bridgewater QB6

Blake Bortles QB7

RG3 QB8

Johnny Manziel QB9

Matt Ryan QB18

Brock Osweiler QB22

Logan Thomas QB24

Ryan Tannehill QB31

Christine Michael RB10

James White RB23

Alfred Morris RB27

Knowshon Moreno RB31

Lamar Miller RB36

Denard Robinson unranked

Martavis Bryant WR56

Mike Wallace WR65

Eric Decker WR67

Anquan Boldin unranked

Odell Bekcham Jr unranked

I can appreciate that rankers follow their own opinions and that there are different strategies/mindsets, but it gets a bit silly when the variance is so large that one ranker has OBJ unranked and another one has him as WR #3 and they have both uploaded their rankings at some point during the last four days. Apparently Tefertiller feels Shaq Evans and Jared Abbrederis are better dynasty assets than Odell Beckham Jr. And I don't understand what kind of horizon he is working on with his QB rankings. QB landscape anno 2027?

If you ever notice that a ranker has a super-obvious player unranked, I can pretty much guarantee you that it's the result of human error on the back end (maybe something as innocuous as a misspelled name). Easiest way to get those fixed if you notice them is to shoot the staffer in question a quick heads-up email. Every staffer can be reached at <LastName>@footballguys.com. (I just sent him an email letting him know, so I expect it'll be corrected shortly.)

Other than Beckham and Robinson, I'm not really seeing what's all that controversial about the rest of the rankings. All of them are outside consensus, but not insane. Bridgewater, Bortles, Griffin, Manziel are aggressive and youth-centric rankings, but my philosophy at QB is that low-end QB1 production is super-cheap to acquire at any time (hey, Kyle Orton and Josh McCown and Mark Sanchez), so you might as well swing for the fences, so I have no problem with those. Matt Ryan has been barely startable (or not startable) for a couple years now, and it's not like Gonzo is coming back or Roddy is getting younger. Nothing at all wrong with the Osweiler or Thomas rankings- I would much rather own a complete unknown over a known junker like Eli Manning or Alex Smith. My opinion is that if you don't have any backup QBs in your top 25 in dynasty, you're probably doing it wrong.

Christine Michael at 10 is a reflection of the RB position right now. He's a talented, highly-drafted back who is sitting because he happens to share a team with an All Pro. It's not like talented backups stuck behind stars have never amounted to anything. See: Michael Turner. Realistically, what's the difference between Christine Michael and Carlos Hyde, who is ranked top 12 by every single ranker at FBGs and all but one ranker at DLF with no one batting an eye? James White is a dart throw based on the fact that Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley are FAs. If White earns the Vereen role next year, that 23rd ranking might look like a steal. Moreno outplayed Miller this year and relegated him to the bench when healthy- I think there's a good chance Lamar Miller just isn't a very good RB.

Martavis Bryant is a rookie 4th rounder on a hot streak. He has 16 career receptions. Is it really crazy that someone is skeptical of him, still? Really? Eric Decker is WR47 this year and tied to a dumpster-fire of an offense long-term. He'll probably finish better than WR67 over the next three years, but if you told me a guy was guaranteed to finish 50th every year for a decade, I would have him a heck of a lot lower than WR50 in my rankings.

Boldin's already 34, and slow receivers don't age particularly well. I wouldn't be completely shocked if he only has five games left in his career. I expect him to come back next year, but there have only been sixteen WRs in history to post 100+ fantasy points at age 35. The end is very, very close for Boldin. Tefertiller just happens to think it's closer than most. Is it really that weird for a guy to have a 34-year-old receiver ranked 76th or later instead of, say, 57th, 66th, or 71st (where the other three rankers have him)?

I think the Tannehill, Morris, and Wallace rankings are aggressive, and I strongly disagree with them. There's not a ranker on any site anywhere who doesn't have some aggressive rankings that I strongly disagree with. I'm sure a lot of people would take issue with me ranking Theo Riddick at 34 (I'm the only staffer who has him ranked). Or with me having Steven Jackson unranked (the only staffer to do so). A lot of people gave me grief over having Harvin at WR6 over the offseason (fairly- I was wrong on that one). A lot of people gave me grief over having Rob Gronkowski as my #1 TE and #5 overall player (that one's kind of working out pretty well for me, thank you very much).

Point is, if I wanted a set of wholly uncontroversial rankings, I'd use ADP data. If we're going to get mad at experts for having opinions about players, what's the point of having experts? Tefertiller's rankings are outside consensus, but especially in dynasty leagues, the whole concept of "consensus" is nebulous and ill-suited, given the huge number of different approaches and philosophies different owners can employ. It looks to me like Tefertiller has a clearly articulated strategy that is both consistently applied to and readily apparent from his rankings. As a dynasty ranker, that's the gold standard- when people disagree, they should be able to tell whether the disagreement stems from philosophy differences or evaluation differences. And with Tefertiller, it's usually pretty clear. Other than human error on Robinson and Beckham, his rankings look fine to me.

Regarding QBs...I don't know. If you play in shallow leagues then sure, you can find a startable QB cheap and Matt Ryan who is around QB10-11 this season (depending on scoring) is "not startable" as you put it. I don't mind people taking a stand on a young QB and pushing him up the rankings, but Tefertiller's rankings seem to be high on all of the young QBs. Besides the ones I mentioned he has Mallett at #25 and Garoppolo at #23. Is it really possible to be high on all these young QBs that have yet to show anything in the league? Well, not all young QBs, he certainly doesn't like Tannehill. He has Kyle Orton, Alex Smith and Eli Manning ahead of Tannehill - even though Tanny is a mid QB1 this season and is starting to develop into a dual threat QB. I'm sure he'll hit on one or two of these young backups but it seems like a shotgun approach where he is ranking all the young unproven QBs high and I'm pretty sure he's going to miss a lot more than he hits. It would be valuable if he was high on a couple of these young QBs. That would actually say something. But when he ranks all of them that high I don't think people really come away with any useable information. And for any poor rookie dynasty owners that might use his rankings for evaluating trades....yiiikes.

I'm not going to touch on every single player to debate their value as there are too many pages on those discussions already and I doubt it's going to lead anywhere. But I feel that you're stretching on some of those assessments. I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate, if you're trying to defend his rankings simply to defend them, or if those are actually your opinions. You seem to be twisting your philosophy back and forth. In one paragraph you're defending the young unproven talent with a high ceiling, but in the next paragraph you're perfectly okay with ranking James Jones ahead of Martavis Bryant.

I don't think readers come to the FBG rankings to see dart throws. I think people come to see how the dynasty player value market is changing and it's interesting to see rankings instead of ADP as you'll see different strategies and philosophies. But I think there's a certain degree of hesitation when a ranker moves so far off the norm that it causes you to question how valuable his rankings, and consequently the average FBG rankings, actually are. Yes, one can go check ADP instead but does there exist a good source for reliable and relevant dynasty ADP where you don't have to see Peyton Manning in the top 5? I guess the closest is the mock drafts that Ryan does over at DLF, but while I commend him for what he is doing with that, the sample size is quite small as he's only doing four mocks every edition. Another weakness with ADP is that you're not seeing an average of where people would pick a player, you're seeing where the person that is the highest on that particular player chose to jump in and get his guy - so the more controversial players will go higher since the C-Mike fan is always going to go and get him early. Or the guy that's really high on Knowshon Moreno post his second torn ACL instead of the 23 year old post-hype RB who's averaging 4.9 yards per carry, is a borderline fantasy RB1 this season, and seems to have a firm hold on a starting gig.

I prefer to gauge dynasty value by looking at dynasty rankings across a few different frequently updated sites that I trust and compile them to an average ranking. But when someone doesn't even rank an RB that has put up 414 yds and 4 TDs over the past five weeks but is ranking James White at RB23, and there are so many other players that are controversially ranked then I don't know if the information I'm getting is good information. But I'll go check out his YouTube channel and take a peek inside his head. I'll give it a chance.

 

[jurb26]

Adam, seriously, why are you the only one who is defending rankings here? Especially other people's. I'm genuinely shuked.

Because other than me, Greg, Rudnicki, and Maurile, most of the staff isn't on the forums on a regular basis. If it's someone I've talked to about something (like Jeff, who I chat dynasty with every week and feel like I have a pretty good handle on his process), I'll offer insight where I can. And as someone who makes a lot of bold rankings and receives a lot of criticism for making bold rankings, I'll defend the right to rank boldly just as a general concept.

Which brings us back to this post earlier. I'm sorry but as much as I value your information and opinion I still feel this is a weak answer and way of handling things as a whole. These guys are paid to produce their rankings and having a 3rd party translator defend their position and rational on the very site that pays them just doesn't make sense IMO. It really isn't that hard to come in here and offer something. Especially when you are paid to do this.

I find it odd that Adam is pretty much the only one in here defending the rankings when it's not even his rankings that are being questioned. I mean, why aren't staffers defending their own rankings?

Lots of staffers aren't on the forums much. Participation in the pool is neither encouraged nor discouraged- we're all given pretty free reign to do whatever we feel works best for us, in terms of fantasy routine. Some guys on staff have found Twitter fits in better with their routine and have migrated in that direction, others were never on the forums in the first place, still others just don't have the same kind of time they used to. I get it- I could probably get a lot more accomplished if I spent less time browsing/posting and more time writing, but the forums are too big of a part of who I am as a fantasy owner / writer.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Nobody is saying staffers need to participate in the forums regularly, though I'm sure many would like to see it as it could add solid material. This isn't about browsing the forums for content and posting consistently, requiring a big time commitment. It's simply about transparency to player rankings. It would take hardly any time at all for a staffer to come into a thread like this and simply clear the air. When the forums are such a HUGE portion of what this site offers I'm really not sure how that isn't required. Then again maybe the comments in the rankings provide enough clarity and additions have been made, it seems not given threads like this are up every year. I wouldn't know seeing I haven't used the rankings in at least 7 years.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What is the etiquette on this whole thing?

Are we able to discuss FBG rankings the week of? Or not?

Seems to me when I first got on this site (which I think was before my official registration date for some reason IIRC it was right after Katrina, maybe under a different login I probably lost...) I recall there being more talk about projections around here, which I loved. Were the articles and projections free back then? It's a real slippery slope to avoid WDIS and then also revealing product that people have paid for (I do), but still isn't that what we're doing every week, estimating that Player x will be getting y yards and z TDs?

Last week Trent Richardson was predicted to be in the No. 8-11 range on all three rankings I saw. Meanwhile there's tons of talk during the week about the possible impact of Herron in two different threads. Definitely not a criticism, just a happy customer and reader and think it would be interesting if not useful/profitable even to discuss these things.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What is the etiquette on this whole thing?

It's fine to discuss rankings or projections of one or two players. Just don't post a whole list of them.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Regarding QBs...I don't know. If you play in shallow leagues then sure, you can find a startable QB cheap and Matt Ryan who is around QB10-11 this season (depending on scoring) is "not startable" as you put it. I don't mind people taking a stand on a young QB and pushing him up the rankings, but Tefertiller's rankings seem to be high on all of the young QBs. Besides the ones I mentioned he has Mallett at #25 and Garoppolo at #23. Is it really possible to be high on all these young QBs that have yet to show anything in the league? Well, not all young QBs, he certainly doesn't like Tannehill. He has Kyle Orton, Alex Smith and Eli Manning ahead of Tannehill - even though Tanny is a mid QB1 this season and is starting to develop into a dual threat QB. I'm sure he'll hit on one or two of these young backups but it seems like a shotgun approach where he is ranking all the young unproven QBs high and I'm pretty sure he's going to miss a lot more than he hits. It would be valuable if he was high on a couple of these young QBs. That would actually say something. But when he ranks all of them that high I don't think people really come away with any useable information. And for any poor rookie dynasty owners that might use his rankings for evaluating trades....yiiikes.

I'm not going to touch on every single player to debate their value as there are too many pages on those discussions already and I doubt it's going to lead anywhere. But I feel that you're stretching on some of those assessments. I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate, if you're trying to defend his rankings simply to defend them, or if those are actually your opinions. You seem to be twisting your philosophy back and forth. In one paragraph you're defending the young unproven talent with a high ceiling, but in the next paragraph you're perfectly okay with ranking James Jones ahead of Martavis Bryant.

I don't think readers come to the FBG rankings to see dart throws. I think people come to see how the dynasty player value market is changing and it's interesting to see rankings instead of ADP as you'll see different strategies and philosophies. But I think there's a certain degree of hesitation when a ranker moves so far off the norm that it causes you to question how valuable his rankings, and consequently the average FBG rankings, actually are. Yes, one can go check ADP instead but does there exist a good source for reliable and relevant dynasty ADP where you don't have to see Peyton Manning in the top 5? I guess the closest is the mock drafts that Ryan does over at DLF, but while I commend him for what he is doing with that, the sample size is quite small as he's only doing four mocks every edition. Another weakness with ADP is that you're not seeing an average of where people would pick a player, you're seeing where the person that is the highest on that particular player chose to jump in and get his guy - so the more controversial players will go higher since the C-Mike fan is always going to go and get him early. Or the guy that's really high on Knowshon Moreno post his second torn ACL instead of the 23 year old post-hype RB who's averaging 4.9 yards per carry, is a borderline fantasy RB1 this season, and seems to have a firm hold on a starting gig.

I prefer to gauge dynasty value by looking at dynasty rankings across a few different frequently updated sites that I trust and compile them to an average ranking. But when someone doesn't even rank an RB that has put up 414 yds and 4 TDs over the past five weeks but is ranking James White at RB23, and there are so many other players that are controversially ranked then I don't know if the information I'm getting is good information. But I'll go check out his YouTube channel and take a peek inside his head. I'll give it a chance.

I'm perfectly okay with someone ranking James Jones ahead of Martavis Bryant, and I'm perfectly okay with someone ranking Jimmy Garoppolo over Kyle Orton. I don't even think it's necessarily inconsistent- QB and WR are different positions with different needs. Most leagues start 12 QBs a week, but anywhere from 36-48 WRs. As a result, a high floor is a lot less valuable at one position than the other. I'm not necessarily saying that Tefertiller's rankings are always *RIGHT* (obviously I don't think they are, because my own rankings are different), I'm just saying that Tefertiller's rankings are the result of a conscious, reasonable, consistent philosophy and fall well within the range of reasonable fantasy opinion. Or, in other words, I think they're wrong but not unreasonable.

Mostly, I just think it's odd that Tefertiller was singled out here, since between his weekly hangouts and his twitter presence there are few dynasty rankers around who have spent more time and effort explaining their rankings and their philosophy. Don't like them? That's okay, but they're not dart throws. I disagree with Tefertiller on philosophy. We argue a lot about player values. But even in the instances where we're the furthest apart, I don't think he's an amateur, or just throwing darts, or whatever he's accused of being. He's a good dynasty owner who spends a lot of time thinking about the hobby with whom I happen to disagree.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, too, but I also am not a fan of the calls to homogenize rankings more. I don't know what anyone else's dynasty experience is like, but in my leagues I see a ton of moves and transactions that fall way, way outside of the very narrowly-defined expert consensus opinion. Further tightening that consensus by silencing dissenting voices only serves to leave it even more divorced from the reality that I see on a day-to-day basis in my dynasty leagues.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam, seriously, why are you the only one who is defending rankings here? Especially other people's. I'm genuinely shuked.

Because other than me, Greg, Rudnicki, and Maurile, most of the staff isn't on the forums on a regular basis. If it's someone I've talked to about something (like Jeff, who I chat dynasty with every week and feel like I have a pretty good handle on his process), I'll offer insight where I can. And as someone who makes a lot of bold rankings and receives a lot of criticism for making bold rankings, I'll defend the right to rank boldly just as a general concept.

Which brings us back to this post earlier. I'm sorry but as much as I value your information and opinion I still feel this is a weak answer and way of handling things as a whole. These guys are paid to produce their rankings and having a 3rd party translator defend their position and rational on the very site that pays them just doesn't make sense IMO. It really isn't that hard to come in here and offer something. Especially when you are paid to do this.

The reality is that the forums are a huge time sink. I maintain an active presence here, but it eats up a massive percentage of the time I have to devote to fantasy football. That's okay for me, because I'm a stay-at-home dad and I have a lot of time to spare, so I can spend time in the pool and still have enough left over to handle everything else. But if I were still working a 9-to-5, you'd barely see me around here. I love the Shark Pool, but there's only one of me, and only so many hours in the day. I just wouldn't have much time, and the Shark Pool would fall pretty low on my priority list for what little I had (#1- family; #2- real job; #3- paid FBGs responsibilities; #4- respond to direct inquiries over email/twitter; #5- non-football-related hobbies / free time; #6- browse the Shark Pool looking for something interesting to burn an hour thinking/writing about).

I've never had trouble getting in contact with any staff member if I have ever had questions, even back before I made staff when I was just a random subscriber / poster in the shark pool. And if anyone really wanted to get a hold of Tefertiller to ask him about his rankings, I doubt they'd have much of a problem with it. He responds quickly to email. He's active on Twitter. He's an easy guy to reach and in my experience has always been happy to defend his rankings and offer his rationale. So far as I know, I'm the only guy who's actually shot him an email since the discussion about him started, and he got back to me within 15 minutes.

It makes sense for FBGs to ask that every staff member be reachable and able to defend or justify their opinions, but I don't think it's all that reasonable for them to mandate universal staff participation in specific mediums (other than email: like I said, every staff member is always reachable at <lastname>@footballguys.com). It also goes against the primary way FBGs handles its content production, which typically is "hire talented, motivated people and let them largely decide which direction to focus their own efforts".

For me, that direction includes the Shark Pool. For others, it doesn't. It's true that only a small percentage of the staff actually maintains an active presence here. It's also true that only a small percentage of FBGs subscribers maintain an active presence here, too. But like I said, if any subscribers have a problem with any of the staff members' rankings that they'd like addressed, email should have a near-100% success rate. And if they just want to discuss the philosophy of rankings in general, I'm always down for a good discussion or two. Even if it is a pretty big time sink.

 

[Louche]

I'm perfectly okay with someone ranking James Jones ahead of Martavis Bryant, and I'm perfectly okay with someone ranking Jimmy Garoppolo over Kyle Orton. I don't even think it's necessarily inconsistent- QB and WR are different positions with different needs. Most leagues start 12 QBs a week, but anywhere from 36-48 WRs. As a result, a high floor is a lot less valuable at one position than the other. I'm not necessarily saying that Tefertiller's rankings are always *RIGHT* (obviously I don't think they are, because my own rankings are different), I'm just saying that Tefertiller's rankings are the result of a conscious, reasonable, consistent philosophy and fall well within the range of reasonable fantasy opinion. Or, in other words, I think they're wrong but not unreasonable.

Mostly, I just think it's odd that Tefertiller was singled out here, since between his weekly hangouts and his twitter presence there are few dynasty rankers around who have spent more time and effort explaining their rankings and their philosophy. Don't like them? That's okay, but they're not dart throws. I disagree with Tefertiller on philosophy. We argue a lot about player values. But even in the instances where we're the furthest apart, I don't think he's an amateur, or just throwing darts, or whatever he's accused of being. He's a good dynasty owner who spends a lot of time thinking about the hobby with whom I happen to disagree.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, too, but I also am not a fan of the calls to homogenize rankings more. I don't know what anyone else's dynasty experience is like, but in my leagues I see a ton of moves and transactions that fall way, way outside of the very narrowly-defined expert consensus opinion. Further tightening that consensus by silencing dissenting voices only serves to leave it even more divorced from the reality that I see on a day-to-day basis in my dynasty leagues.

I think you missed my point about his QB rankings. His philosophy seems to be to rank every unknown very highly in the hope that they offer a high ceiling. But when he does that with 10 of them, which one does he propose that we run out and get? The reality is that most of these young QBs are likely going to either be mediocre dynasty QBs or never really be a startable QB at all. They will get washed out and forgotten as new young QBs get drafted into the league and his rankings will likely toss out the Malletts and the Garoppolos and push up the new young shiny things. Should we allocate roster space and spend trade resources to acquire all these young QBs that he currently ranks highly in the hope that one of them will have a high ceiling? Will this help my fantasy teams? Is this good process?

Sure, it's possible to lay forward an argument as to why you would rank Kyle Orton ahead of Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater ahead of Peyton Manning and Matthew Stafford, Nick Foles ahead of Matt Ryan, Andy Dalton ahead of Jay Cutler, Charles Sims ahead of Alfred Morris, James White ahead of Lamar Miller, Knowshon Moreno ahead of Jerick McKinnon, Maurice Jones-Drew ahead of Denard Robinson, Denarius Moore ahead of Mike Wallace, Jared Abbrederis ahead of Eric Decker, Hakeem Nicks ahead of John Brown, and James Jones ahead of Martavis Bryant. Are they "reasonable"? Well, I guess you can put forward a rational argument so they're not unreasonable in that sense. But to put it in other words; then I just think his rankings flat out suck. They're bad rankings. One thing that seems to pop up again and again is that he seems to disregard current production. I understand that we're talking dynasty and that you would want the rankings to reflect the future value of a player and the personal view of the ranker on a player's long term value needs to be reflected in the rankings, but some of these rankings just seem to be stubborn views. Like he is refusing to change his position on a lot of these players based on what happens on the field. For a rebuiliding team that needs to focus on what happens three years down the road and hit on some long shots, maybe that has some value. But to me it's bad process. What's the chance of Jared Abbrederis ever having a better season than what Mike Wallace is having this season? What's the chance of James White ever having a better fantasy season than Lamar Miller is having this season? When Tannehill is a mid QB1 this season; even if you don't believe in him long term shouldn't that fact alone be enough to rank him higher than QB31? Why are we playing fantasy? Is it not to win games?

Yes, I agree with you, there are a ton of moves and transactions out there that fall way outside of the "narrowly-defined expert concensus opinion". But transactions don't take place in a vacuum, they take place because of need, priorities and team situation. And there are a lot of bad owners out there, and there are a lot of good owners that make bad decisions from time to time. But does that mean that expert rankings should reflect the wide variety of transactions that goes on in dynasty leagues? Should expert rankings include bad decision making? I guess it boils down to; based on Tefertiller's rankings I don't think he is very good at ranking players for dynasty so I need to disregard his rankings. And since the ranking tool at FBG does not give me the ability to deselect his rankings I can't use the FBG average rankings and will need to look to other sources.

 

[Adam Harstad]

And since the ranking tool at FBG does not give me the ability to deselect his rankings I can't use the FBG average rankings and will need to look to other sources.

Underneath the drop-down menus (where you select which position you want rankings for and how far back you want to search for rankings) is a row of checkboxes labeled "Exclude?" Click the checkbox and hit "go" to get an individual set of rankings excluded from the consensus.

See attached image:

 

[Cheesedawg]

Adam, seriously, why are you the only one who is defending rankings here? Especially other people's. I'm genuinely shuked.

Because other than me, Greg, Rudnicki, and Maurile, most of the staff isn't on the forums on a regular basis. If it's someone I've talked to about something (like Jeff, who I chat dynasty with every week and feel like I have a pretty good handle on his process), I'll offer insight where I can. And as someone who makes a lot of bold rankings and receives a lot of criticism for making bold rankings, I'll defend the right to rank boldly just as a general concept.

Which brings us back to this post earlier. I'm sorry but as much as I value your information and opinion I still feel this is a weak answer and way of handling things as a whole. These guys are paid to produce their rankings and having a 3rd party translator defend their position and rational on the very site that pays them just doesn't make sense IMO. It really isn't that hard to come in here and offer something. Especially when you are paid to do this.

The reality is that the forums are a huge time sink. I maintain an active presence here, but it eats up a massive percentage of the time I have to devote to fantasy football. That's okay for me, because I'm a stay-at-home dad and I have a lot of time to spare, so I can spend time in the pool and still have enough left over to handle everything else. But if I were still working a 9-to-5, you'd barely see me around here. I love the Shark Pool, but there's only one of me, and only so many hours in the day. I just wouldn't have much time, and the Shark Pool would fall pretty low on my priority list for what little I had (#1- family; #2- real job; #3- paid FBGs responsibilities; #4- respond to direct inquiries over email/twitter; #5- non-football-related hobbies / free time; #6- browse the Shark Pool looking for something interesting to burn an hour thinking/writing about).

I've never had trouble getting in contact with any staff member if I have ever had questions, even back before I made staff when I was just a random subscriber / poster in the shark pool. And if anyone really wanted to get a hold of Tefertiller to ask him about his rankings, I doubt they'd have much of a problem with it. He responds quickly to email. He's active on Twitter. He's an easy guy to reach and in my experience has always been happy to defend his rankings and offer his rationale. So far as I know, I'm the only guy who's actually shot him an email since the discussion about him started, and he got back to me within 15 minutes.

It makes sense for FBGs to ask that every staff member be reachable and able to defend or justify their opinions, but I don't think it's all that reasonable for them to mandate universal staff participation in specific mediums (other than email: like I said, every staff member is always reachable at <lastname>@footballguys.com). It also goes against the primary way FBGs handles its content production, which typically is "hire talented, motivated people and let them largely decide which direction to focus their own efforts".

For me, that direction includes the Shark Pool. For others, it doesn't. It's true that only a small percentage of the staff actually maintains an active presence here. It's also true that only a small percentage of FBGs subscribers maintain an active presence here, too. But like I said, if any subscribers have a problem with any of the staff members' rankings that they'd like addressed, email should have a near-100% success rate. And if they just want to discuss the philosophy of rankings in general, I'm always down for a good discussion or two. Even if it is a pretty big time sink.

I appreciate your terrific attitude and involvement in the Pool, Adam. You handle yourself very well.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

like I said, every staff member is always reachable at <lastname>@footballguys.com).

This is kind of true. If you try to reach John Lee this way, Austin will forward your email to him. (John's address is john.lee@footballguys.com.)

 

[Adam Harstad]

like I said, every staff member is always reachable at <lastname>@footballguys.com).

This is kind of true. If you try to reach John Lee this way, Austin will forward your email to him. (John's address is john.lee@footballguys.com.)

I apologize profusely, I never would have knowingly left anyone in a position where they were reliant on the mercy and goodwill of Austin Lee...

 

[renesauz]

I appreciate your terrific attitude and involvement in the Pool, Adam. You handle yourself very well.


Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Warrior]

Update: Gronk had a slightly better 2014 season than Logan Paulsen. Luckily, I didn't take this bit of (paid) advice seriously during my 2014 draft.

Exclude button in full effect. "Look at me!" rankings hidden going forward. /rant

I'm not even going to bring up the Jordan Cameron over DeMarco Murray 2015 ranking. Carry on...

 

[plastik]

It is fun to look at his rankings though, if only for the shock factor. He has Jermaine Kearse (WR25) ahead of Brandin Cooks (WR33), Brandon Marshall (WR35), Andre Johnson (WR40), Martavis Bryant (WR47), Roddy White (unranked), and Allen Robinson (unranked). He does explain it at least...

 

[Louche]

The dynasty rankings are such a hard LOL. The opinions of the four rankers really are ALL over the place. I get that they feel it's great to put out dynasty rankings where it's not merely a reflection of ADP, but come on...fantasy football isn't THAT complicated. We can disagree on the smaller details, but some things we know.

One ranker has Sammy Watkins #3 overall and another has him #50. Cooks is either the #6 player or number #44. Jimmy Graham is #15 overall or not even ranked (75+). Russell Wilson is outside the top 75 or #17 overall. TJ Yeldon is outside the top 75 for one ranker but #19 overall for another.

Calvin Johnson as the #50 overall player? WR28...? Seems legit. It really inspires confidence in the rankers when you have one of them that thinks Calvin Johnson is the 28th best wide receiver for dynasty fantasy football.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Update: Gronk had a slightly better 2014 season than Logan Paulsen. Luckily, I didn't take this bit of (paid) advice seriously during my 2014 draft.

Exclude button in full effect. "Look at me!" rankings hidden going forward. /rant

I'm not even going to bring up the Jordan Cameron over DeMarco Murray 2015 ranking. Carry on...

Mark Wimer didn't rank Rob Gronkowski behind Logan Paulsen. When Gronk's injury status was unclear, Wimer left him unranked and added a comment that Gronk was "off his board" until there was some clarity. It said that clearly in the mouse-over text. People complained about the concept of taking a player "off the board" entirely, so Wimer put Gronk back on his board. Above Logan Paulsen.

Dealing with criticism is part and parcel with putting our opinions out for public consumption. Even a TE8 ranking is obviously eminently criticisable in hindsight, (and, indeed, in foresight). But let's make sure if we're going to criticize someone, it's for something they actually said.

If anyone's curious how Wimer's actual rankings did, I offered up a postmortem earlier in this thread.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The dynasty rankings are such a hard LOL. The opinions of the four rankers really are ALL over the place. I get that they feel it's great to put out dynasty rankings where it's not merely a reflection of ADP, but come on...fantasy football isn't THAT complicated. We can disagree on the smaller details, but some things we know.

One ranker has Sammy Watkins #3 overall and another has him #50. Cooks is either the #6 player or number #44. Jimmy Graham is #15 overall or not even ranked (75+). Russell Wilson is outside the top 75 or #17 overall. TJ Yeldon is outside the top 75 for one ranker but #19 overall for another.

Calvin Johnson as the #50 overall player? WR28...? Seems legit. It really inspires confidence in the rankers when you have one of them that thinks Calvin Johnson is the 28th best wide receiver for dynasty fantasy football.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of that. That's dynasty. Some dynasty owners are very youth-centric. Others are basically playing modified redraft leagues, focusing on super-short windows. The window someone is using is going to have a DRAMATIC impact on how they value a player. But that's just a reflection of the format. I've played in dynasty leagues with both types of owners. I shopped Calvin Johnson this offseason, and I can tell you that there are absolutely guys who would value Calvin as a top-5 dynasty asset and other guys who wouldn't value him as a top-30.

I wrote earlier this offseason about the dangers of thinking we have anything in dynasty "figured out". I always say that the reason I love it is because it's such a hard format. We have no idea what really works until three years after the fact, and by that point, we don't know if it still works anymore.

I think a lot of the staffers are wrong about a lot of things. (Obviously: my rankings are in many places wildly different from theirs.) I've gotten in some pretty knock-down, drag-out debates with people I consider good friends in the dynasty community. But I recognize there's a wide constellation of philosophy and belief, and having a wide range of opinions on staff is an asset because it's more likely to actually represent what your leaguemates are really thinking and doing. Far more even than redraft, it's important to make sure a wide range of opinions are represented in dynasty. And, as a haver-of-outside-of-consensus opinions, I'm always going to argue in favor of someone's right to have an outside-of-consensus opinion. I had Percy Harvin as my WR6 for quite a while. I took a lot of heat for it. I was wrong and everyone else was right. I had Gronk as my #1 TE and my #5 overall player through 2013 and 2014. I took a lot of heat for it. I was right and everyone else was wrong. If I'd been more concerned with making rankings that didn't look silly in hindsight, I'd make a lot fewer rankings that looked brilliant in hindsight, too. If people really want safe, consensus rankings, they should be using ADP and not expert rankings. Expert rankings are not about describing how the market currently stands, they're about articulating a consistent, cohesive philosophical vision. And say what you want about any expert's individual rankings, they all express a pretty consistent and coherent philosophical vision. You can tell which guys are valuing youth and which guys have short windows. You can tell who loves the running backs, who loves the quarterbacks, and who loves the wide receivers.

I can also say that FBGs' dynasty rankers are all pretty experienced. They play in dynasty leagues. I've seen the teams they put together. They know what they're doing, and they have the results to prove it. The guy who has Sammy Watkins as his #50 overall dynasty player, that far outside of consensus? He just *HUMILIATED* the staff dynasty league en route to a dominant championship victory. (See the article I linked to earlier.) I can go on about just how wrong he is and why, but at the end of the day, he can just point to the scoreboard. It's not like these are just a bunch of guys trying to make a name for themselves.

 

[Louche]

The dynasty rankings are such a hard LOL. The opinions of the four rankers really are ALL over the place. I get that they feel it's great to put out dynasty rankings where it's not merely a reflection of ADP, but come on...fantasy football isn't THAT complicated. We can disagree on the smaller details, but some things we know.

One ranker has Sammy Watkins #3 overall and another has him #50. Cooks is either the #6 player or number #44. Jimmy Graham is #15 overall or not even ranked (75+). Russell Wilson is outside the top 75 or #17 overall. TJ Yeldon is outside the top 75 for one ranker but #19 overall for another.

Calvin Johnson as the #50 overall player? WR28...? Seems legit. It really inspires confidence in the rankers when you have one of them that thinks Calvin Johnson is the 28th best wide receiver for dynasty fantasy football.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of that. That's dynasty. Some dynasty owners are very youth-centric. Others are basically playing modified redraft leagues, focusing on super-short windows. The window someone is using is going to have a DRAMATIC impact on how they value a player. But that's just a reflection of the format. I've played in dynasty leagues with both types of owners. I shopped Calvin Johnson this offseason, and I can tell you that there are absolutely guys who would value Calvin as a top-5 dynasty asset and other guys who wouldn't value him as a top-30.

I wrote earlier this offseason about the dangers of thinking we have anything in dynasty "figured out". I always say that the reason I love it is because it's such a hard format. We have no idea what really works until three years after the fact, and by that point, we don't know if it still works anymore.

I think a lot of the staffers are wrong about a lot of things. (Obviously: my rankings are in many places wildly different from theirs.) I've gotten in some pretty knock-down, drag-out debates with people I consider good friends in the dynasty community. But I recognize there's a wide constellation of philosophy and belief, and having a wide range of opinions on staff is an asset because it's more likely to actually represent what your leaguemates are really thinking and doing. Far more even than redraft, it's important to make sure a wide range of opinions are represented in dynasty. And, as a haver-of-outside-of-consensus opinions, I'm always going to argue in favor of someone's right to have an outside-of-consensus opinion. I had Percy Harvin as my WR6 for quite a while. I took a lot of heat for it. I was wrong and everyone else was right. I had Gronk as my #1 TE and my #5 overall player through 2013 and 2014. I took a lot of heat for it. I was right and everyone else was wrong. If I'd been more concerned with making rankings that didn't look silly in hindsight, I'd make a lot fewer rankings that looked brilliant in hindsight, too. If people really want safe, consensus rankings, they should be using ADP and not expert rankings. Expert rankings are not about describing how the market currently stands, they're about articulating a consistent, cohesive philosophical vision. And say what you want about any expert's individual rankings, they all express a pretty consistent and coherent philosophical vision. You can tell which guys are valuing youth and which guys have short windows. You can tell who loves the running backs, who loves the quarterbacks, and who loves the wide receivers.

I can also say that FBGs' dynasty rankers are all pretty experienced. They play in dynasty leagues. I've seen the teams they put together. They know what they're doing, and they have the results to prove it. The guy who has Sammy Watkins as his #50 overall dynasty player, that far outside of consensus? He just *HUMILIATED* the staff dynasty league en route to a dominant championship victory. (See the article I linked to earlier.) I can go on about just how wrong he is and why, but at the end of the day, he can just point to the scoreboard. It's not like these are just a bunch of guys trying to make a name for themselves.

Shopping/buying a player and ranking a player are two completely separate things. If you see Calvin as the 50th best dynasty asset in a vacuum then that's just wrong. You might not find a good market for him in a specific league, and you might not have interest in him for your rebuild, but if you rank him as 50 overall you're just flat out wrong - regardless of preferred dynasty strategy. If your strategy is causing you to pass on value and production like that then you haven't understood how to win in FF. Then you don't have dynasty "figured out". And I'm sure the format seems hard if you make those types of mistakes, but it's really not that difficult. It's a complicated game with tons of random and uncontrollable factors that play into the end result, but some owners make it more complicated than what it has to be by making stupid mistakes. Some of those above mentioned rankings I'll classify as mistakes, not opinions or strategy.

I notice that you call the rankers experts, which is a bit interesting as I don't see that good writers are necessarily good players. Writing is primarily about having a deep understanding of a part of the game, being a good player is about putting all parts of the game together - both the social part, the economics of the game, the understanding of the game and being able to project both production and value. I'm in plenty of leagues with writers and in my experience the best owners in those leagues are usually not the writers. One reason for that is that other owners often put more time and effort into those particular leagues, or that they're better at playing the dynasty market, but quite often I'll find that writers get too attached to their own evaluations of players and "their guys" and are slow to react to what actually transpires on the field and what the actual results are telling us. To me the most successful dynasty owners seem to be the most active owners who are quickly able to react to current tendencies and play the dynasty market well, not the owners that think they have crystal balls and keep betting on their own position rather than recalibrate their view. There's little point in hitting on a sleeper from time to time if you're leaking value by being too patient waiting for your guys to come through.

What is the objective of the rankings? Is it to show potential dynasty strategies and reflect how a league can have owners with wildly different valuations of players or is it to guide owners to win?

 

[PatsWillWin]

The dynasty rankings are such a hard LOL. The opinions of the four rankers really are ALL over the place. I get that they feel it's great to put out dynasty rankings where it's not merely a reflection of ADP, but come on...fantasy football isn't THAT complicated. We can disagree on the smaller details, but some things we know.

One ranker has Sammy Watkins #3 overall and another has him #50. Cooks is either the #6 player or number #44. Jimmy Graham is #15 overall or not even ranked (75+). Russell Wilson is outside the top 75 or #17 overall. TJ Yeldon is outside the top 75 for one ranker but #19 overall for another.

Calvin Johnson as the #50 overall player? WR28...? Seems legit. It really inspires confidence in the rankers when you have one of them that thinks Calvin Johnson is the 28th best wide receiver for dynasty fantasy football.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of that. That's dynasty. Some dynasty owners are very youth-centric. Others are basically playing modified redraft leagues, focusing on super-short windows. The window someone is using is going to have a DRAMATIC impact on how they value a player. But that's just a reflection of the format. I've played in dynasty leagues with both types of owners. I shopped Calvin Johnson this offseason, and I can tell you that there are absolutely guys who would value Calvin as a top-5 dynasty asset and other guys who wouldn't value him as a top-30.

I wrote earlier this offseason about the dangers of thinking we have anything in dynasty "figured out". I always say that the reason I love it is because it's such a hard format. We have no idea what really works until three years after the fact, and by that point, we don't know if it still works anymore.

I think a lot of the staffers are wrong about a lot of things. (Obviously: my rankings are in many places wildly different from theirs.) I've gotten in some pretty knock-down, drag-out debates with people I consider good friends in the dynasty community. But I recognize there's a wide constellation of philosophy and belief, and having a wide range of opinions on staff is an asset because it's more likely to actually represent what your leaguemates are really thinking and doing. Far more even than redraft, it's important to make sure a wide range of opinions are represented in dynasty. And, as a haver-of-outside-of-consensus opinions, I'm always going to argue in favor of someone's right to have an outside-of-consensus opinion. I had Percy Harvin as my WR6 for quite a while. I took a lot of heat for it. I was wrong and everyone else was right. I had Gronk as my #1 TE and my #5 overall player through 2013 and 2014. I took a lot of heat for it. I was right and everyone else was wrong. If I'd been more concerned with making rankings that didn't look silly in hindsight, I'd make a lot fewer rankings that looked brilliant in hindsight, too. If people really want safe, consensus rankings, they should be using ADP and not expert rankings. Expert rankings are not about describing how the market currently stands, they're about articulating a consistent, cohesive philosophical vision. And say what you want about any expert's individual rankings, they all express a pretty consistent and coherent philosophical vision. You can tell which guys are valuing youth and which guys have short windows. You can tell who loves the running backs, who loves the quarterbacks, and who loves the wide receivers.

I can also say that FBGs' dynasty rankers are all pretty experienced. They play in dynasty leagues. I've seen the teams they put together. They know what they're doing, and they have the results to prove it. The guy who has Sammy Watkins as his #50 overall dynasty player, that far outside of consensus? He just *HUMILIATED* the staff dynasty league en route to a dominant championship victory. (See the article I linked to earlier.) I can go on about just how wrong he is and why, but at the end of the day, he can just point to the scoreboard. It's not like these are just a bunch of guys trying to make a name for themselves.

Shopping/buying a player and ranking a player are two completely separate things. If you see Calvin as the 50th best dynasty asset in a vacuum then that's just wrong. You might not find a good market for him in a specific league, and you might not have interest in him for your rebuild, but if you rank him as 50 overall you're just flat out wrong - regardless of preferred dynasty strategy. If your strategy is causing you to pass on value and production like that then you haven't understood how to win in FF. Then you don't have dynasty "figured out". And I'm sure the format seems hard if you make those types of mistakes, but it's really not that difficult. It's a complicated game with tons of random and uncontrollable factors that play into the end result, but some owners make it more complicated than what it has to be by making stupid mistakes. Some of those above mentioned rankings I'll classify as mistakes, not opinions or strategy.

I notice that you call the rankers experts, which is a bit interesting as I don't see that good writers are necessarily good players. Writing is primarily about having a deep understanding of a part of the game, being a good player is about putting all parts of the game together - both the social part, the economics of the game, the understanding of the game and being able to project both production and value. I'm in plenty of leagues with writers and in my experience the best owners in those leagues are usually not the writers. One reason for that is that other owners often put more time and effort into those particular leagues, or that they're better at playing the dynasty market, but quite often I'll find that writers get too attached to their own evaluations of players and "their guys" and are slow to react to what actually transpires on the field and what the actual results are telling us. To me the most successful dynasty owners seem to be the most active owners who are quickly able to react to current tendencies and play the dynasty market well, not the owners that think they have crystal balls and keep betting on their own position rather than recalibrate their view. There's little point in hitting on a sleeper from time to time if you're leaking value by being too patient waiting for your guys to come through.

What is the objective of the rankings? Is it to show potential dynasty strategies and reflect how a league can have owners with wildly different valuations of players or is it to guide owners to win?

Everything in your first paragraph is just your opinion. I don't think there's anything objectively "just flat out wrong." I don't know that particular ranker, but just looking over his rankings, he obviously puts an extremely high premium on youth. I just don't see how you can that is "flat out wrong." With the possible exception of Aaron Rodgers and maybe Lamar Miller, I don't think there's a single player ranked about Johnson that you could say is in the second-half of their career (and even Rodgers may not be given the time horizon QB's can have). Quite simply, this ranker only wants players who are trending up, not trending down. Johnson, I think most would agree, is trending down.

As to your last question, I think the objective of rankings is simply for the person doing them to show owners how they value players. That doesn't mean he would draft Cody Latimer over Calvin Johnson because you are still subject to the subjective feelings of the rest of your league, and anyone with half a brain would know that 99% of owners would give you several Cody Latimer type prospects for Calvin Johnson. I don't think each individual ranker is working in concert with the other rankers at all - it's just one guy's opinion. Some people talk about dynasty teams in terms of like seven year windows - I think that's pretty absurd, but it is a strategy out there, and in that kind of context, Calvin Johnson would not be worth all that much to that owner (other than to trade - but I don't think rankings are an attempt to show what each ranker thinks each player's trade value is - that would defeat the purpose).