What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FBG Week 1 Projections (1 Viewer)

Raiders

Footballguy
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. In fact only three people are projected to get even 80 yards! (all WRs) No one is even projected to score a TD! I know that people don't also score .4 TD's in a game either, but that you are just trying to give us an idea of the chances that they might score a TD, but come on Dodds, take a risk. I mean, are we to believe that no one will go off in week 1?!

Like I said, I'm not just trying to talk trash, I love this site. I've been coming here since the yellow boards and following you guys since it was free and called cheatsheets.net. But when you are so conservative with your projections it makes it less obvious to spot at a glance guys who you might think have a chance at a really big game.

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...

 
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. In fact only three people are projected to get even 80 yards! (all WRs) No one is even projected to score a TD! I know that people don't also score .4 TD's in a game either, but that you are just trying to give us an idea of the chances that they might score a TD, but come on Dodds, take a risk. I mean, are we to believe that no one will go off in week 1?!

Like I said, I'm not just trying to talk trash, I love this site. I've been coming here since the yellow boards and following you guys since it was free and called cheatsheets.net. But when you are so conservative with your projections it makes it less obvious to spot at a glance guys who you might think have a chance at a really big game.

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...
The numbers speak for themselves. Sheesh, at least wait until the games are over to start your complaining.
 
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. In fact only three people are projected to get even 80 yards! (all WRs) No one is even projected to score a TD! I know that people don't also score .4 TD's in a game either, but that you are just trying to give us an idea of the chances that they might score a TD, but come on Dodds, take a risk. I mean, are we to believe that no one will go off in week 1?!

Like I said, I'm not just trying to talk trash, I love this site. I've been coming here since the yellow boards and following you guys since it was free and called cheatsheets.net. But when you are so conservative with your projections it makes it less obvious to spot at a glance guys who you might think have a chance at a really big game.

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...
The numbers speak for themselves. Sheesh, at least wait until the games are over to start your complaining.
Those numbers suggest you get better advice from a free site than you do from Footballguys.
 
they have said well over a hundred times, but the tuesday rankings are very general and not to be taken too seriously. they get far better later in the week.

however, i think no matter what you will be disappointed with their projections for hightower.

 
they have said well over a hundred times, but the tuesday rankings are very general and not to be taken too seriously. they get far better later in the week.however, i think no matter what you will be disappointed with their projections for hightower.
Sactly. What I like about FBG is that you get an early draft of projections on Tuesdays, so that you have at least *some* gauge of relative value when considering bye-week waiver wire pickups or trades based on short-term lineup value. But you have to cut them some slack - I don't expect them to have a polished product less than 24 hours after the previous week's games are finished, in most cases.
 
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. In fact only three people are projected to get even 80 yards! (all WRs) No one is even projected to score a TD! I know that people don't also score .4 TD's in a game either, but that you are just trying to give us an idea of the chances that they might score a TD, but come on Dodds, take a risk. I mean, are we to believe that no one will go off in week 1?!

Like I said, I'm not just trying to talk trash, I love this site. I've been coming here since the yellow boards and following you guys since it was free and called cheatsheets.net. But when you are so conservative with your projections it makes it less obvious to spot at a glance guys who you might think have a chance at a really big game.

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...
The numbers speak for themselves. Sheesh, at least wait until the games are over to start your complaining.
Those numbers suggest you get better advice from a free site than you do from Footballguys.
OK. All I'm saying is FBG has a pretty good track record as far as projections are concerned.
 
Projections here, as with anywhere else, is a lot of conjecture and guesswork - sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You can't take it as gospel and need to make your own assessment.

It is the continuous news updates and insightful, in-depth analysis across various articles where FBG makes its bones in validating the subscription.

 
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. In fact only three people are projected to get even 80 yards! (all WRs) No one is even projected to score a TD! I know that people don't also score .4 TD's in a game either, but that you are just trying to give us an idea of the chances that they might score a TD, but come on Dodds, take a risk. I mean, are we to believe that no one will go off in week 1?!

Like I said, I'm not just trying to talk trash, I love this site. I've been coming here since the yellow boards and following you guys since it was free and called cheatsheets.net. But when you are so conservative with your projections it makes it less obvious to spot at a glance guys who you might think have a chance at a really big game.

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...
The numbers speak for themselves. Sheesh, at least wait until the games are over to start your complaining.
Those numbers suggest you get better advice from a free site than you do from Footballguys.
OK. All I'm saying is FBG has a pretty good track record as far as projections are concerned.
I'm not talking about their track record. Any weatherman can point at a calendar in the month of March and say that there is at least a 35% chance of rain, but that doesn't tell me if I need to bring an umbrella. Saying that player X has a .6 chance at a TD with 75 yards does not suggest to me anything at all. I'm not looking for the safest path. I just don't see any worth in projecting numbers that are so vanilla that they hope that they can have a 62% chance of being right, while mitigating their chances of looking silly. Show some guts. What does Dodds really think they'll do?

 
I think taking a cautious approach in week 1 is smart. You might have a few choices in redrafts but mostly folks are going to go with what they know over the unknown.

 
I use projections to help with tough lineup decisions. That's about it. I always start my studs regardless of matchups. I consider my studs as my top 4-5 picks (not counting sleepers that emerge of course). Now if my WR2 has Revis island or something then I always factor that kind of stuff in. Also I like to go by my gut instincts and for the most part it has paid off. For example if I think a bench guy has a higher ceiling than a weekly starter and I feel like I need the extra points I will take that risk. I've been burned doing that too.

I think if you use FBG's projections to rank your starters and you stuck to them for the entire season you'll come out on top in the longrun. You have to understand they are not trying to predict the exact stats of the game but rather the extrapolation of stats over the entire season. Since they do this for every player then you really shouldn't have an issue?

Lastly I will say, since somebody else mentioned it above, that these projections have historically NOT come out on Tuesdays as promised. This has been brought to FBG's attention numerous times the past few seasons and I hope they get it right this year because it really does help with leagues that run waivers on Tuesday Night/Wednesday morning. Regardless of this I will continue to subscribe because this is the best FF site on the web hands down, and the draft dominator application alone is worth the $25/year.

$0.02

 
I use projections to help with tough lineup decisions. That's about it. I always start my studs regardless of matchups. I consider my studs as my top 4-5 picks (not counting sleepers that emerge of course). Now if my WR2 has Revis island or something then I always factor that kind of stuff in. Also I like to go by my gut instincts and for the most part it has paid off. For example if I think a bench guy has a higher ceiling than a weekly starter and I feel like I need the extra points I will take that risk. I've been burned doing that too.

I think if you use FBG's projections to rank your starters and you stuck to them for the entire season you'll come out on top in the longrun. You have to understand they are not trying to predict the exact stats of the game but rather the extrapolation of stats over the entire season. Since they do this for every player then you really shouldn't have an issue?

Lastly I will say, since somebody else mentioned it above, that these projections have historically NOT come out on Tuesdays as promised. This has been brought to FBG's attention numerous times the past few seasons and I hope they get it right this year because it really does help with leagues that run waivers on Tuesday Night/Wednesday morning. Regardless of this I will continue to subscribe because this is the best FF site on the web hands down, and the draft dominator application alone is worth the $25/year.

$0.02
I thought they did a much better job last season.
 
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. In fact only three people are projected to get even 80 yards! (all WRs) No one is even projected to score a TD! I know that people don't also score .4 TD's in a game either, but that you are just trying to give us an idea of the chances that they might score a TD, but come on Dodds, take a risk. I mean, are we to believe that no one will go off in week 1?!

Like I said, I'm not just trying to talk trash, I love this site. I've been coming here since the yellow boards and following you guys since it was free and called cheatsheets.net. But when you are so conservative with your projections it makes it less obvious to spot at a glance guys who you might think have a chance at a really big game.

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...
The problem with these types of projections is that they are only useful if they are right. I think the way they do it now is far more useful in terms of expectations. Expecting any player to put up 18/126/1 is kind of silly imo, especially when thats probably closer to a best case scenario than an expected.On the other hand, the way the projections are set, you tend to have a bunch of players lumped together. 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'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.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AhRzEobsUFG4sHU3xv0dNxj.uLYF?slug=nfp-20110906_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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if he thinks two players are equally likely to score a TD, i'm much rather see him project them both to get (for example) 0.5 TDs, than project one of them for 1, and the other for 0

 
'Astangi said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who the hell uses projections anyway ? Here is how I project:

Good player vs bad defence = high points

Good player vs mediocre defence = average points

Good player vs good defence = low points

 
I have to agree with OP as well. Been coming here for years and I love all their content...expect the projections. People don't want to see averages or "probabilty ratio's", we want to see cold hard numbers. This same topic get brought up year after year and it doesn't seem to change anything, which is too bad. Projections are one of the BIGGEST aspects (in season)of a good FF site IMO. And FBG is missing the boat on them bigtime.

 
'Modog814 said:
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.
 
'Astangi said:
1) Throw out the numbers altogether and give me a tiered list each week for each position,
I try for my projections each week to function like this. the tightly packed groups indicate a tier. I try to not leave ties in the numbers to show a lean one way or the other.
 
'benm3218 said:
someone help me... i dont see projections listed and i want to look at them. i am looking here - http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2011/11week1.php
Clicking on that link doesn't get to them. But if you go to the main page (the "Fantasy Football - Footballguys Homepage" link to the upper-left of the forum page), then click on the "1" after "Week" (or click "Week 1 Content" under "The Latest" bar) you'll find it.
I'm having the same problem as benm3218. The only thing I see listed is the Week 1 depth charts. I tried your instructions but see the same thing. I am logged in - I can read the premium articles. But something is hosed up on the site. However, if you go to "Articles" -> "Current articles" and then click on week 1 it will direct you to the 2010 week 1 material. So I've got that going for me...

 
'Modog814 said:
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!
 
'Modog814 said:
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!
+1. The audible rules
 
'Modog814 said:
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.
 
'Modog814 said:
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.
That will be great! I don't use projections as a guide, but rather a wakeup call for some players I might be overlooking on my team or under appreciating. I find your projections particularly useful, because I think you take a bit more risk with some of the players.
 
So Sigmund (or Dodds, if you're here), do you adjust the projections so that the players fit your rankings? Basically, if you see that Vincent Jackson projects out to 17.1 points, but Kenny Britt is at 16.9...but you feel that Britt may have a better week, do you then adjust the number projections slightly to make sure Britt is ahead?

 
Did the rankings get removed recently for week 1 or do I have a browser problem? I was able to see them fine from work...

 
'Astangi said:
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.
in all the moaning I think this is a pretty reasonable suggestion.
 
Did the rankings get removed recently for week 1 or do I have a browser problem? I was able to see them fine from work...
Interesting - I can see the rankings (and other week 1 links) if I use MS Explorer but if I use Firefox all I see is the Depth Chart link.
 
So Sigmund (or Dodds, if you're here), do you adjust the projections so that the players fit your rankings? Basically, if you see that Vincent Jackson projects out to 17.1 points, but Kenny Britt is at 16.9...but you feel that Britt may have a better week, do you then adjust the number projections slightly to make sure Britt is ahead?
I certainly do that. I project with the idea that they are basically rankings for the week
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Player A Projection: 0.4 TD, 80 yards

Player B Projection: 0.3 TD, 70 yards

or

Player A Projection: 2 TD, 130 yards

Player B Projection: 2 TD, 75 yards

Either 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 :2cents:

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.

 
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.
Is this coming out this week? I saw it listed at one point in the week 1 content but it appears to be gone now...
 
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.
Is this coming out this week? I saw it listed at one point in the week 1 content but it appears to be gone now...
Listed under content released Wednesday evening, titled Ceiling/Floor.
 
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.
in all the moaning I think this is a pretty reasonable suggestion.
I'm not a fan of the specific implementations here, but I could get on board with some type of expected variance metric.
 
I've been playng fantasy football for about 7 years now and using FBG for about five. I used all the free sites in the past. I got what I paid for.

FBG has a money-back guarantee. I suggest you exercise your rights if you're that unhappy. Me? I think it's cute that you think your subscription largely pays for rankings. I pay for tips, news, articles that analyze trends and look at big pictures. I pay them to watch all the games for me, to monitor practices, to follow rookies. I pay them to give me the inside track on my league mates. Oh, and the rankings? I use them as a general way to help me set my lineup. And, over the course of the season they are usually right. Early in the season the trends are still emerging.

Because of FBG, I am usually in the playoffs and have won league titles twice. Mostly, I have enjoyed playing fantasy football every year. I think that's $26 well spent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top