FBG Week 1 Projections (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So if say I'm trying to choose a flex between Brandon Jacobs and Lance Moore, having similiar point projections isn't very helpful, what would be is a higher/lower risk player.

I'll be releasing High Floor/High Ceiling/Bust Risk lists to go along with my projections this year to address just this.

Thanks Sig. That would actually be helpful. BTW, nice job on the audible!

appreciate the kind words. We're always open to feedback about every feature. We will project RBs for over 100 yards over the course of the year. Maybe a WR or two. The reason it doesn't happen that often is that we are trying to stay honest, hit the "most likely" outcome, even though it is only one data point when the reality is more like a probability cloud. I want develop a projection format to address this in the offseason, so feedback is welcome. the High Ceiling/High Floor/Bust Risk list is a bit of a beta version of that.

box plots imo

 

[caglassc]

I can see the rationale behind predicting conservative numbers at the beginning of the season. It seems conventional wisdom - defenses tend to be ahead of offense early in the year. I think the Thursday night game will be an aberration for the most part - not the norm for early season games. Am I off base with this line of thinking?

 

[ShadowMaster]

The week 1 content for the MyFBG area is incomplete at 5PM Saturday

I'm inclined to agree that the week 1 coverage has been BELOW AVERAGE

This is not the service that I've come to expect around here:



QB Kevin Kolb

Outlook Stats Game logs Splits Play-by-play Latest news

Week 1 matchup vs CAR: detailed analysis coming soon.

Click here to see stats by QBs against CAR this year.

QB Ben Roethlisberger

Outlook Stats Game logs Splits Play-by-play Latest news

Week 1 matchup at BAL: detailed analysis coming soon.

Click here to see stats by QBs against BAL this year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can see the rationale behind predicting conservative numbers at the beginning of the season. It seems conventional wisdom - defenses tend to be ahead of offense early in the year. I think the Thursday night game will be an aberration for the most part - not the norm for early season games. Am I off base with this line of thinking?

It's got litlte to do with the time of year. In week 13, FBG shouldn't be projecting any QB at over 300 yards or any RB at 120 yards or any WR at 110 yards. Those things are just about never more likely to happen than not.

 

[Hoss Style]

I'm with the OP...and in my experience, the projections do not solidify into realistic/reasonable numbers as Sunday draws nearer. While I completely appreciate that there is a need to be conservative and attempt to keep the standard deviations as close to what really plays out as possible, and that the talent of prognosticating such numbers is very difficult, the bottom line is that telling me that 15 different WRs will all have between 5 and 7 catches for 60-80 yards and a 40-60% chance of a TD doesn't help me at all. I mean, come on...10 QBs *averaged* over 250 yards per game last season and we've got only Rodgers projected to eclipse that number at present? We had an average of over 5.5 300yd passers each week last season. The projected numbers in this case simply provide zero value.

Personally, I would like to see one of two approaches: 1) Throw out the numbers altogether and give me a tiered list each week for each position, or 2) really go out on a limb and tell me who you think is going to throw for 300 yards, rush or receive 100+, etc. Example here (yeah, it's Yahoo): http://sports.yahoo....906_star_system

The FBG staff is the best in the biz, in my opinion. Let's see them show the world how good they are and give us some more info we can really use. I'm sure we'll get a great mix of predictions based on science, statistics, weather, injuries and the good old Gut.

Personally, I would like to see one of two approaches: 1) Throw out the numbers altogether and give me a tiered list each week for each position, or 2) really go out on a limb and tell me who you think is going to throw for 300 yards, rush or receive 100+, etc.

I can certainly understand why the numbers look the way they do - there is obviously a big range of results each player can have, and FBG is simply providing the average performance they think each player will have. But to add on your your suggestions, another route they could go would be to provide the same projections they do now, but also add a column to list the percentage chance each player would have a 100-yard game (or 300 for QBs.) For example, a projection for Adrian Peterson might be 76 yards and 0.6 TDs rushing, and 38% to go over 100 yards. I'd think a projection like that would provide some value. Two players might both be projected for the same yardage, but one could be a much riskier play than the other. You may or may not want a bunch of variance from your starting lineup (which I'd think would primarily depend on the strength of you opponent's team), and a percentage projection like that would help you identify risky/safe plays, as well as average expected production.

I like both these ideas. I'd also like to see more of the features that are currently up for offense be applied to defense, as well.I used to not pay for any site. I'd scour team pages and local newspapers (online) and I did very well in my leagues. Then I moved into IDP. It just became too much. After a lot of research I came here. There is great IDP information here. The "news" I used to scour the internet for is all here as well (for the most part). Worth $26, in my opinion.

 

[zoonation]

The projections and rankings are, and have always been, of little to no utility.

The rankings especially. If FBGs ranks one WR 22 and another 23, it is only useful when followed if the guy ranked 22 actually finishes higher than the guy ranked 23. If he doesn't and you followed that, the ranking was useless.

Now think about how often the order is guessed correctly? That is something the staff would never even try to calculate, as it would prove my point beyond any doubt.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The projections and rankings are, and have always been, of little to no utility.The rankings especially. If FBGs ranks one WR 22 and another 23, it is only useful when followed if the guy ranked 22 actually finishes higher than the guy ranked 23. If he doesn't and you followed that, the ranking was useless. Now think about how often the order is guessed correctly? That is something the staff would never even try to calculate, as it would prove my point beyond any doubt.

You can replace 22 and 23 with any two numbers. If FBGs ranks one WR 1 and another WR 68, it is only useful when followed if the guy ranked 1 actually finishes higher than the guy ranked 60. If he doesn't and you followed that, the ranking was useless. I'm not sure what your point is, then, since that's true of any fantasy football rankings done anywhere, ever.IIRC the staff have actually tried to calculate just that (pairwise ranking accuracy). I might be wrong, though. But other sites have done analyses of in-season rankings of all the major fantasy info providers and I think FBGs have typically finished respectably.

 

[zoonation]

My point is that if you follow the weekly rankings blindly, you are probably going to start the wrong guy more often than the right guy.

I'm going to do a blog in this thread with one of my teams and the FBG's success rate.

 

[Doug Drinen]

QB Kevin Kolb

Outlook Stats Game logs Splits Play-by-play Latest news

Week 1 matchup vs CAR: detailed analysis coming soon.

That one is 1000% my fault. It's fixed now. Sorry about that.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My point is that if you follow the weekly rankings blindly, you are probably going to start the wrong guy more often than the right guy.

I'm not sure why you'd think this is the case. If they had absolutely no football knowledge and just had a blind monkey randomly ranking pairs of players, they'd be at about 50% accuracy. I'm guessing they do better than the blind monkey.

 

[Hoss Style]

My point is that if you follow the weekly rankings blindly, you are probably going to start the wrong guy more often than the right guy.

I'm not sure why you'd think this is the case. If they had absolutely no football knowledge and just had a blind monkey randomly ranking pairs of players, they'd be at about 50% accuracy. I'm guessing they do better than the blind monkey.

Agreed. Also considering that most of the time the person with no knowledge wouldn't be looking at two players ranked one spot apart - like 22 and 23. Most of the time there's a decent amount of seperation between two players. And the more seperation the more chance the rankings would be correct, I would think.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Player A Projection: 0.4 TD, 80 yardsPlayer B Projection: 0.3 TD, 70 yardsorPlayer A Projection: 2 TD, 130 yardsPlayer B Projection: 2 TD, 75 yardsEither way, the message is start Player A over Player B. It's all relative. Projections should be read the same way i think. just my You know, we should start a new game where you pick one QB, one RB and one WR each week and have people guess the actual output for the week.

Not really. First example the players are relatively equal. The second example Player A is projected to be much better (over 50 yards) than Player B.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm guessing they do better than the blind monkey.

Do we have your permission to publicize this endorsement on the FBG homepage?

 

[N Zone]

I plan to continue dominating fantasy football, in high quality 12 team ppr leagues, without the help of a footballguys subscription. Some may benefit from it, but I don't personally need my decisions swayed.

 

[gurp13]

I plan to continue dominating fantasy football, in high quality 12 team ppr leagues, without the help of a footballguys subscription. Some may benefit from it, but I don't personally need my decisions swayed.

Cool story, bro. Thanks for letting us know. Please keep us up to date on your future plans.Good lord, the complaints here are great examples of first world problems.

 

[N Zone]

I plan to continue dominating fantasy football, in high quality 12 team ppr leagues, without the help of a footballguys subscription. Some may benefit from it, but I don't personally need my decisions swayed.

Cool story, bro. Thanks for letting us know. Please keep us up to date on your future plans.Good lord, the complaints here are great examples of first world problems.

You seem upset?

 

[Hoss Style]

I plan to continue dominating fantasy football, in high quality 12 team ppr leagues, without the help of a footballguys subscription. Some may benefit from it, but I don't personally need my decisions swayed.

If the advice on FF sites "sways" your opinion and you keep "dominating" without it then enter one of the big leagues. You should win it easily. Or start your own website. You'd surely make millions.And funny that you are on the boards here. Since you don't like your opinion swayed I'm assuming you're just here to drop your dominating knowledge on us every once in a while? You know - just to help us lowly subscribers?If so, thanks in advance!

 

[plastik]

So if say I'm trying to choose a flex between Brandon Jacobs and Lance Moore, having similiar point projections isn't very helpful, what would be is a higher/lower risk player.

I'll be releasing High Floor/High Ceiling/Bust Risk lists to go along with my projections this year to address just this.

Thanks Sig. That would actually be helpful. BTW, nice job on the audible!

appreciate the kind words. We're always open to feedback about every feature. We will project RBs for over 100 yards over the course of the year. Maybe a WR or two. The reason it doesn't happen that often is that we are trying to stay honest, hit the "most likely" outcome, even though it is only one data point when the reality is more like a probability cloud. I want develop a projection format to address this in the offseason, so feedback is welcome. the High Ceiling/High Floor/Bust Risk list is a bit of a beta version of that.

I like the "High Ceiling/High Floor/Bust Risk list", but it would be nice to have information like that integrated with the rankings for easier visual access. Maybe an extra column could be added to the projections where one could either place a symbol or color-coded notation to place that info to the actual rankings list?

 

[N Zone]

I plan to continue dominating fantasy football, in high quality 12 team ppr leagues, without the help of a footballguys subscription. Some may benefit from it, but I don't personally need my decisions swayed.

If the advice on FF sites "sways" your opinion and you keep "dominating" without it then enter one of the big leagues. You should win it easily. Or start your own website. You'd surely make millions.And funny that you are on the boards here. Since you don't like your opinion swayed I'm assuming you're just here to drop your dominating knowledge on us every once in a while? You know - just to help us lowly subscribers?If so, thanks in advance!

I enjoy some of the discussions here. Others, I think there is a LOT of useless information posted, often in essay form. I'm not here much, but I sometimes look and enjoy some of what I read and occassionally contribute. I should have not stated my opinion of my ff prowess. Not cool to do.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bloom historically number one of two every year at projecting week to week out of hundreds in the industry? Don't the FBG staff have 2 out of the top 5? If you don't agree with their projections then go with your gut. These are guidelines for you to follow. They are not drafting your team and setting your lineups.

I go with Bloom almost exclusively for RB's since he somehow has an uncanny knack for hitting on them almost to the point.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I'm not hating, and I believe that this is still the best FF site on the web, but these week 1 projections are a joke, right?! Not a single RB, WR, or TE is projected to get 100 yards rushing or receiving.

You can think of the yardage projections as over/unders.It would be very, very rare for a specific player to have a reasonable over/under that exceeds 100 yards rushing. A couple years ago Chris Johnson was reasonably expected to go over 100 yards plenty of times. But not in week one, before anybody knew his season would be historic like that.Let's take Tim Hightower as an example. If you projected Tim Hightower for 126 yards this week, and if you allowed people to make bets against you on either side of the action, would you be comfortable when 98% of the money came in on the under? You'd probably want to adjust it down pretty quickly, I'd think.Sometimes our projections are way off, of course. That's unavoidable. But we try not to make any projections that would cause us to be very uncomfortable if we allowed people to theoretically bet against us by taking whichever side of the action they wanted.

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci. I can see the OP's point about going out on a limb a bit to predcit a full TD. Projecting .5, .6, of a TD just seems like a safe way of saying he might score, or has a slightly higher chance than a coin flip that he'll score.I can't recall if the week 1 projections are always more conservative, or how the actuals compare with the projections for overall trends.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bloom historically number one of two every year at projecting week to week out of hundreds in the industry? Don't the FBG staff have 2 out of the top 5? If you don't agree with their projections then go with your gut. These are guidelines for you to follow. They are not drafting your team and setting your lineups.I go with Bloom almost exclusively for RB's since he somehow has an uncanny knack for hitting on them almost to the point.

Noticing now that Bloom has Hillis with 78 yards. Right at the Vegas prop bet line, 78.5. That's pretty solid right there.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci.

Any chance you could share a link to a site listing these kinds of prop bets? I'd love to see them.

 

[moderated]

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci.

Any chance you could share a link to a site listing these kinds of prop bets? I'd love to see them.

Go to any big online sports book.Sportsbook.com has tons of player props out now, fbg's should just copy their over/under lines.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci.

Any chance you could share a link to a site listing these kinds of prop bets? I'd love to see them.

Go to any big online sports book.Sportsbook.com has tons of player props out now, fbg's should just copy their over/under lines.

Good stuff. I'm going to compare their numbers to mine. (They're not exactly similar, though. If you ran each game a thousand times, their over/unders are the projected median of the performances, while mine are the projected mean. But for yardage totals, they're probably close enough to the same thing.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Sportsbook.com doesn't have a yardage bet for Hillis.

What are some of the other sites with player prop bets?

Bodog has a lot of listings, but they're mostly blank.

 

[therokie0070]

I would be more disappointed if FBG put unrealistic guesses for week one than what they have posted currently!! Week 1 is a total crap shot because you have no idea how teams will truly play and the predictions will get better and better as the season goes on and they have more data to base them from!!

 

[griff321]

People don't want to see averages or "probabilty ratio's", we want to see cold hard numbers.

I'd really like to play poker against you and the OP.

Yup!Just like in poker you see the pros(FBGs) make it deep in the WSOP(accuracy rankings) annually. They must be REALLY lucky though, right OP?

 

[Sarnoff]

Not a single RB, WR, or TE is projected to get 100 yards rushing or receiving.

Here, I'll lead the charge even. I project the following for T Hightower: 18 rushes 126 yards, 1 TD rush, 3 rec 28 yards

See, that wasn't so hard...

He didn't even crack 100 yards combined.

Sharks indeed.

 

[Sarnoff]

People don't want to see averages or "probabilty ratio's", we want to see cold hard numbers.

I'd really like to play poker against you and the OP.

Yup!Just like in poker you see the pros(FBGs) make it deep in the WSOP(accuracy rankings) annually. They must be REALLY lucky though, right OP?

OP is basically asking "Screw the odds, FBG! I've got four cards to a flush, it doesn't help me to tell me I've only got a 20% chance of hitting it, just tell me AM I GONNA GET THAT DIAMOND OR WHAT??!!?!"

 

[datonn]

I always give the projections a look...just to see if eekspurts are thinking along the same lines I am. That said, the *only* thing I use the projections for is to see if they have Player A projected to have more receptions/yards/TDs than Player B. I'm wanting to start Player A, but am thinking Player B might be the smarter/safer play. So, I see what some of the other guys at FBGs think (along with what other experts on other sites think via FantasyPros). Do I care whether Dodds projects Robert Meachem to have 57.74325 yards on 4.32356 receptions with 0.24753 TDs? No. All (ALL) I care about is whether he thinks Meachem is a better/worse start this week than "Braylon Edwards." That's it. Don't care about projections, since the specific numbers are meaningless (since none of my league rules and scoring systems match their projection criteria). So...is Meachem or Edwards the smarter/better play? Dodds said Braylon in Week 1, I still felt Meachem would have the better game. And I got it right. Next week? I probably get it wrong, and Dodds gets it right. It's all just an educated guess anyway...as there are 100 variables outside our (FFLers) and players' control (injuries, penalties nullifying plays, injuries to key players at other positions that impact said players, et al). All I need to know is:

1. Best Case.

2. Worst Case.

3. Most Likely Case.

...then I weigh 1, 2 and 3 accordingly, and I turn in my line-ups. NOT what "Dodds" or anyone else tells me to do, but using opinions such as Dodds' to see if I'm an outlier, of if I'm running with the herd.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Not a single RB, WR, or TE is projected to get 100 yards rushing or receiving.

Here, I'll lead the charge even. I project the following for T Hightower: 18 rushes 126 yards, 1 TD rush, 3 rec 28 yards

See, that wasn't so hard...

He didn't even crack 100 yards combined.

Sharks indeed.

Did THT out play his ranking of 25th this week? The final numbers bring him in at about 19-20pts...do you add anything to the Shark Pool except trying to shame other posters? I have you on ignore but I knew this was going to be some attempt to blast another poster and of course I was right. Find another place to be a jerk please.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I'm not hating, and I believe that this is still the best FF site on the web, but these week 1 projections are a joke, right?! Not a single RB, WR, or TE is projected to get 100 yards rushing or receiving.

You can think of the yardage projections as over/unders.It would be very, very rare for a specific player to have a reasonable over/under that exceeds 100 yards rushing. A couple years ago Chris Johnson was reasonably expected to go over 100 yards plenty of times. But not in week one, before anybody knew his season would be historic like that.Let's take Tim Hightower as an example. If you projected Tim Hightower for 126 yards this week, and if you allowed people to make bets against you on either side of the action, would you be comfortable when 98% of the money came in on the under? You'd probably want to adjust it down pretty quickly, I'd think.Sometimes our projections are way off, of course. That's unavoidable. But we try not to make any projections that would cause us to be very uncomfortable if we allowed people to theoretically bet against us by taking whichever side of the action they wanted.

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci. I can see the OP's point about going out on a limb a bit to predcit a full TD. Projecting .5, .6, of a TD just seems like a safe way of saying he might score, or has a slightly higher chance than a coin flip that he'll score.I can't recall if the week 1 projections are always more conservative, or how the actuals compare with the projections for overall trends.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci.

Any chance you could share a link to a site listing these kinds of prop bets? I'd love to see them.

Go to any big online sports book.Sportsbook.com has tons of player props out now, fbg's should just copy their over/under lines.

Good stuff. I'm going to compare their numbers to mine. (They're not exactly similar, though. If you ran each game a thousand times, their over/unders are the projected median of the performances, while mine are the projected mean. But for yardage totals, they're probably close enough to the same thing.)

O/U are more how the public feels a player will do, or how they encourage the action, rather than what they even feel the player will do. Vegas could give a #### if it's close, it just want to get as much action as possible. For e.g I bet u (without looking) that Ochocinco's prop bet is 20-30 yards more than what FBGs projected him at.

 

[Tex Goldstein]

I'm not hating, and I believe that this is still the best FF site on the web, but these week 1 projections are a joke, right?! Not a single RB, WR, or TE is projected to get 100 yards rushing or receiving.

You can think of the yardage projections as over/unders.It would be very, very rare for a specific player to have a reasonable over/under that exceeds 100 yards rushing. A couple years ago Chris Johnson was reasonably expected to go over 100 yards plenty of times. But not in week one, before anybody knew his season would be historic like that.Let's take Tim Hightower as an example. If you projected Tim Hightower for 126 yards this week, and if you allowed people to make bets against you on either side of the action, would you be comfortable when 98% of the money came in on the under? You'd probably want to adjust it down pretty quickly, I'd think.Sometimes our projections are way off, of course. That's unavoidable. But we try not to make any projections that would cause us to be very uncomfortable if we allowed people to theoretically bet against us by taking whichever side of the action they wanted.

The projections do seem a bit conservative. Example, Peyton Hillis. Vegas has the prop bet at 79.5 yds rushing, FBG has 67 yds. I'd feel comfortable with the over. I also see Hillis as a pretty good bet for a full TD, at home against Cinci. I can see the OP's point about going out on a limb a bit to predcit a full TD. Projecting .5, .6, of a TD just seems like a safe way of saying he might score, or has a slightly higher chance than a coin flip that he'll score.I can't recall if the week 1 projections are always more conservative, or how the actuals compare with the projections for overall trends.

hillis 17/57/0 rushing; 6/30/0 receiving. projected 16/67/0.5 rushing, 5/35/0.2 receiving. DD