Is there any value to the official weekly rankings? (1 Viewer)

[CapnJB]

I started to look at the email I got today with the Week 3 Early Rankings. I always enjoy looking over the lists seeing where my FF players are listed but today I wondered if these were in any way accurate. I pulled up Week 2's Official Rankings email and looked at the QB and RB rankings vs my leagues scoring (while not standard it's not too far off the norm). I couldn't believe how many complete whiffs there were in the top 12. Admittedly, I've only looked at QB and RB rankings for a single week, but is this an outlier or the norm? If it's the norm, where is the value in the rankings?

Here's what I saw from week 2.

TOP 12 QB's and their actual finish

1. Aaron Rodgers - GB vs CHI 27

2. Cam Newton - CAR vs NO 6

3. Matt Ryan - ATL vs DEN 10

4. Tom Brady - NE vs ARI 21

5. Michael Vick - PHI vs BAL 14

6. Robert Griffin III - WAS at STL 1

7. Drew Brees - NO at CAR 17

8. Jay Cutler - CHI at GB 32

9. Matthew Stafford - DET at SF 23

10. Eli Manning - NYG vs TB 2

11. Tony Romo - DAL at SEA 24

12. Peyton Manning - DEN at ATL 30

Only four of the top 12 ranked QBs actually finished in the top 12 and six actually finished in the bottom 12

The actual top 5 and where they were ranked

1. RG III - 6

2. Eli Manning - 10

3. Sam Bradford - 28

4. Andy Dalton - 21

5. Philip Rivers - 14

The running backs fared similarly.

TOP 12 Running Backs and their actual finish

1. Arian Foster - HOU at JAX 6

2. Darren McFadden - OAK at MIA 46

3. Adrian Peterson - MIN at IND 32

4. Ray Rice - BAL at PHI 12

5. C.J. Spiller - BUF vs KC 2

6. LeSean McCoy - PHI vs BAL 16

7. Maurice Jones-Drew - JAX vs HOU 13

8. Stevan Ridley - NE vs ARI 27

9. Doug Martin - TB at NYG 19

10. Marshawn Lynch - SEA vs DAL 9

11. Jamaal Charles - KC at BUF 52

12. Ahmad Bradshaw - NYG vs TB 73

This time only 3 of the top 12 ranked running backs finished in the top 12 while 4 players finished at 32 or below.

The actual top 5 and where they were ranked

1. Reggie Bush - 19

2. CJ Spiller - 5

3. Trent Richardson - 20

4. Willis McGahee - 22

5. Ben Tate - 44

And what's interesting is #6 Jackie Battle & #7 Andrew Brown didn't even get ranked in the top 94.

Now I understand that no one can predict the future, I'm not expecting that. But if we are to use these rankings as a tool, as a reassurance, as whatever we are to use them for, where is the value if they are not only mostly wrong, but grossly incorrect? But again, I've only looked at a single week of data so can someone who's done a bit more research comment on if this is the norm? I'm not trying to disparage anyone's rankings as I do like looking over them, just wondering if they are more hurtful then helpful.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Dodds rankings vs the rest of the industry is very good. really all you can expect.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Still better than espn's.

 

[Warrior]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?

My point is that these rankings were likely much better than your rankings. Not sure what else you want here when you stated yourself that "you can't predict the future".

 

[Plorfu]

You're right. You should probably start your own site and eliminate these losers.

 

[CapnJB]

Dodds rankings vs the rest of the industry is very good. really all you can expect.

I get that. It's got to be tremendously difficult and time consuming to do rankings every week. My point is, if I'm trying to decide between two RBs and I look at the rankings and one guy is ranked 7th and the other is 20th, I'd likely plug in the #7 guy and be confident in my decision. However, I'm not having to rank 90 players, I just need to rank two. I should be looking at the matchups, the history, the injuries, the hot streaks, etc for those two players. I'm not saying that Dodds doesn't do all that but it's a lot easier to be objective about ranking two players than it is when you're looking at 90 different guys. If I don't look at rankings, I need to make that call myself. By using the rankings, or at least acknowledging them, I set my bias to a particular player based on someone elses research which as it seems could very likely be incorrect. But we never think about the fact that it's likely wrong, we think 'Woohoo, my guy is #4!'.Ok, I rambled a bit much there but what I'm trying to convey is jumbled up in there somewhere.

 

[Doug B]

Nobody really knows in advance. These kinds of rankings typically deal with probabilities. For instance, it's probably better to think of Arian Foster's #1 ranking going into Week 2 as something like "60% chance of putting up legit starting FFB RB stats"** rather than "close to a sure shot to go off this week". Even the very best of studs really only go off about half the time anyway.

These kinds of rankings still provide a valuable service, though -- to make sure you didn't miss important information about someone you're getting ready to start. If you're prepared to start someone with confidence, and you see that Dodds ranks them 50th, it may be that you've missed an practice-time injury or a team suspension or something like that.

** 60% might seem low for the #1 guy, but the #2 guy might be at 55%. #15 might be regarded as having, to throw a number out, a 1 in 3 shot at good stats.

 

[zoonation]

The rankings (and projections) are completely useless. Always have been, always will be.

The fact that Dodds does better than other rankings is nice, but doesn't change the fact that the rankings are not useful.

 

[CapnJB]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?My point is that these rankings were likely much better than your rankings. Not sure what else you want here when you stated yourself that "you can't predict the future".

They probably would be better than my rankings but that's not what I'm asking about here. I was asking what is the value of the the weekly rankings if they are so wildly inconsistant.

 

[CapnJB]

If you're prepared to start someone with confidence, and you see that Dodds ranks them 50th, it may be that you've missed an practice-time injury or a team suspension or something like that.

Interesting take. I hadn't looked at it like that. Thanks.

 

[werdnoynek]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?My point is that these rankings were likely much better than your rankings. Not sure what else you want here when you stated yourself that "you can't predict the future".

They probably would be better than my rankings but that's not what I'm asking about here. I was asking what is the value of the the weekly rankings if they are so wildly inconsistant.

rankings are for people who can't make their own decisions on players. they are practically worthless as you've already noticed. in hindsight we can pick them apart all we want, but what is the point? to confirm dodds can't predict the future??

 

[Doug B]

My point is, if I'm trying to decide between two RBs and I look at the rankings and one guy is ranked 7th and the other is 20th, I'd likely plug in the #7 guy and be confident in my decision.

Not looking at Dodds' raw math, but: I would suggest that the difference between #7 and #20 are not actually that great. #7 might be somewhat more likely than #20 to have a nice day ... but I think that the spread from, say, 5 to 30 is not all that huge as far as the underlying calculation goes.

 

[joffer]

Nobody really knows in advance. These kinds of rankings typically deal with probabilities. For instance, it's probably better to think of Arian Foster's #1 ranking going into Week 2 as something like "60% chance of putting up legit starting FFB RB stats"** rather than "close to a sure shot to go off this week". Even the very best of studs really only go off about half the time anyway.

bingo. Aaron Rodgers had better odds of having a big game last week than Sam Bradford. Doesn't mean its gonna happen

 

[scrumptrulescent]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?My point is that these rankings were likely much better than your rankings. Not sure what else you want here when you stated yourself that "you can't predict the future".

I'm guessing the guy's personal rankings may be more sharp if he had people paying him for his advice.There is nothing wrong in my mind with questioning and a little criticism. It should be expected when you run a bigtime FF site and demand money for your information. It should also be a reminder to all writers/gurus/prognosticators on this site that they'd better stay sharp.

 

[VA703]

the rankings are all based on numbers YTD. so based off the first 2 weeks these are the most accurate. its not a list to live or die by but its a good start for the lazies

 

[Dippa]

I recall reading that the early rankings aren't as accurate, as they're largely based on matchups, or something like that.

Looking back at week 2's early rankings, many of the rankings changed significantly by the end of the week.

 

[solorca]

The only thing the rankings are useful for is to help you see someone that you're significantly overvaluing or undervaluing.

If I am planning on starting Stevie Johnson and see he is ranked at 50th on the list, it will cause me to research his situation a little closer to see what I may have missed.

Likewise, if I plan on benching Pierre Garcon and I see he is listed in the top 5, I'll research the matchup, info coming out of Washington, etc.

Using it to simply choose your start/sits is a losing battle, and more often than not you'll be disappointed with the results.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?My point is that these rankings were likely much better than your rankings. Not sure what else you want here when you stated yourself that "you can't predict the future".

Are you an alias staff member? Any criticism of pay content and you sure take it personal. Do you realize that the OP is constructive and you come off as a hindrance to improvement?

 

[bucs4life_99]

Dodds rankings vs the rest of the industry is very good. really all you can expect.

I get that. It's got to be tremendously difficult and time consuming to do rankings every week. My point is, if I'm trying to decide between two RBs and I look at the rankings and one guy is ranked 7th and the other is 20th, I'd likely plug in the #7 guy and be confident in my decision. However, I'm not having to rank 90 players, I just need to rank two. I should be looking at the matchups, the history, the injuries, the hot streaks, etc for those two players. I'm not saying that Dodds doesn't do all that but it's a lot easier to be objective about ranking two players than it is when you're looking at 90 different guys. If I don't look at rankings, I need to make that call myself. By using the rankings, or at least acknowledging them, I set my bias to a particular player based on someone elses research which as it seems could very likely be incorrect. But we never think about the fact that it's likely wrong, we think 'Woohoo, my guy is #4!'.Ok, I rambled a bit much there but what I'm trying to convey is jumbled up in there somewhere.

So using your example, how many times has the #20 ranked RB finished ahead of the #7 ranked RB for the week? My guess is if you pull the stats from last season, the #7 was higher more often than not. Do this over a wide variety of rankings and larger sample sizes than only looking at one week, and you will have your answer as to how good the projections are.There is a lot of noise in individual weekly rankings, and they are likely going to be off a lot of the time. That is just the nature of predicting the future, and FBGs does a better job of it than most.

 

[inca911]

the rankings are all based on numbers YTD. so based off the first 2 weeks these are the most accurate. its not a list to live or die by but its a good start for the lazies

The weekly rankings are not just a summary of YTD performance.

 

[Deamon]

Dodds rankings vs the rest of the industry is very good. really all you can expect.

I get that. It's got to be tremendously difficult and time consuming to do rankings every week. My point is, if I'm trying to decide between two RBs and I look at the rankings and one guy is ranked 7th and the other is 20th, I'd likely plug in the #7 guy and be confident in my decision. However, I'm not having to rank 90 players, I just need to rank two. I should be looking at the matchups, the history, the injuries, the hot streaks, etc for those two players. I'm not saying that Dodds doesn't do all that but it's a lot easier to be objective about ranking two players than it is when you're looking at 90 different guys. If I don't look at rankings, I need to make that call myself. By using the rankings, or at least acknowledging them, I set my bias to a particular player based on someone elses research which as it seems could very likely be incorrect. But we never think about the fact that it's likely wrong, we think 'Woohoo, my guy is #4!'.Ok, I rambled a bit much there but what I'm trying to convey is jumbled up in there somewhere.

Like others say, if you don't like the rankings, don't use them. Those calling them 'useless' are doing so blindly. Yes they are better and more accurate then most other rankings out there, and the fact is, despite these 'actual' vs 'rankings' numbers you show, they are correct more then they are wrong if you are considering your #7 vs #20 example. Let's say you are always torn between a #7 and #20 dodds ranked player each week. Or even #9 and #10. Dodds' higher ranked player will outscore his lower ranked player more then half of the time, making his rankings as good or better then you simply flipping the coin or doing your own projections based on matchups, etc. It's easy to look at every player but in this sport, there are so many variables and anyone can break for a huge game or bad game. He has done the research that you can do, so yes for the most part, I'd say the rankings are worthwhile if you are deciding between two players, his analysis is likely as good or better then anyone else's will be. If I'm totally torn and on the fence between two players and Dodds has one much higher, I'll trust that over 50% of the time he will be right between those two players.

 

[ponchsox]

I go with my own rankings and use Dodds and other sites to confirm between two players I am torn on. I like when they give reasons why player X might perform better over player Y based on situations I haven't thought of. Overall, Dodds predictions are a lot better than the crap I see out there. Zegura on CBS isn't bad, either.

 

[bagger]

look at the rankings with your starters, if something seems way off investigate why. once you have done that, maybe the rankings will influence you to change a starter or maybe they wont. but you will have at least had some more thought about your starters or have some confirmation that fbg thinks the same way you do which should give you some comfort.

any other exercise in analyzing these rankings is fairly useless.

i dont care where they rank rodgers because he is not on my team.

 

[spodog]

I wouldn't call the rankings, regardless of who puts the time in to prepare them, worthless. But you certainly shouldn't expect them to be accurate on a week to week basis, or even close to accurate. The comment made about viewing them as probabilities is a good comment.

If you see a guy ranked #11 in the WR list, it really is telling you that whoever established the rankings feels that the probability that this guy should be in starting lineups is higher than that same probability for all other WR's except 10 guys in the NFL. That is all the ranking represents.

I don't really look at rankings relative to who is already on my team at all.

I do look at the Weekly Rankings from certain sources, however, to possibly see if there is a waiver wire guy or a trade target that I should be paying more attention to than I might have otherwise. If five different reputable weekly rankings guys move Torrey Smith down an average of 20% in their rankings, then they probably have a reason for doing so. If I was contemplating a trade offer to obtain Smith, I might do some additional research before I extend the offer. Thats the real value of these rankings, as a once a week snapshot of movements in opinions.

You just have to be careful to filter out looking at rankings from sources that have proven they don't pay close enough attention to the entire league every week. Rankings from these types of guys get stale way too quickly to be of any value for any purpose.

 

[NCPanthersFan]

You could do a ton worse than Dodds.

 

[rickyg]

Dodds rankings vs the rest of the industry is very good. really all you can expect.

I get that. It's got to be tremendously difficult and time consuming to do rankings every week. My point is, if I'm trying to decide between two RBs and I look at the rankings and one guy is ranked 7th and the other is 20th, I'd likely plug in the #7 guy and be confident in my decision. However, I'm not having to rank 90 players, I just need to rank two. I should be looking at the matchups, the history, the injuries, the hot streaks, etc for those two players. I'm not saying that Dodds doesn't do all that but it's a lot easier to be objective about ranking two players than it is when you're looking at 90 different guys. If I don't look at rankings, I need to make that call myself. By using the rankings, or at least acknowledging them, I set my bias to a particular player based on someone elses research which as it seems could very likely be incorrect. But we never think about the fact that it's likely wrong, we think 'Woohoo, my guy is #4!'.Ok, I rambled a bit much there but what I'm trying to convey is jumbled up in there somewhere.

I thin you're right. At the end ofthe day, I use m own thoughts and projections based on my specific players to make the lineup calls. It does feel good though after I've made my choices to see that Dodds rankings agree with them. When they differ, I like to read why he has to say about the general matchups for that game to see if there is something I missed. But generally, it's my team and I go with my gut which is based on my brain making the choices for me. It's the only way to truly play and enjoy it. Otherwise if you go against your gut after feeling informed about a specific player or players and you follow the rankings and the rankings are wrong you will find yoursel so angry at yourself and also fbg and thats when people come onto the MSG board and spew darts of hate. LolGL

 

[MIMN]

All I know is that Dodds needs a new computer. It takes 18 hours to calculate his rankings for Tuesday. Time to spend some subscriber money and get rid of that 486...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I agree with what a lot of other posters have already pointed out:

[*]It's bery hard to predict the future. In fact, I'd be surprised if Dodds gets pairwise comparisons right more than, say, 55% of the time. But if he's right 55% of the time, it's still better than a coinflip and studies have shown that he typically does better than most of the competition. If you expect better than that, then the problems are with your expectations, not with the projections. If you think you can consistently beat 55% (or whatever Dodds's relevant hit rate really is) you should start your own thread to prove it. You'll either realize you were wrong, or you'll dominate the industry and can start your own pay service in 2013.

[*]As others have said, it's more useful to look at these as a probability distribution. The guy ranked #1 has a higher probability of scoring more points than anyone else. But on any given week, the guy ranked #1 is not likely to actually finish #1. Think of it like a golf tourney - Tiger Woods might be the favorite to finish in first, but you wouldn't bet even money on Tiger to beat the field. Over larger scales I'm sure it holds up well - e.g. the guys projected to be top 10 probably finish higher than the guys projected in the 30-40 range most of the time. But on a case by case basis there will be tons of variation week to week.

[*]They also provide stats with the rankings. Look at them closely. Looking at the current week 3 QB projections, for example, the guy at #5 is projected to score 21.6 points. The guy at #15 is projected to score 19.2 points. It's not a massive swing. Don't let the fact that one guy is ten spots higher than the other convince you that he's a lock to do better. In reality they're pretty close.

I think it's perfectly valid to critique the product you're paying for, but make sure you're being realistic.

 

[CapnJB]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?

My point is that these rankings were likely much better than your rankings. Not sure what else you want here when you stated yourself that "you can't predict the future".

Well, since you've called me out, I regrettably will share my ranking technique with you. It involves a Guinness hat, 32 strips of paper, and a four year old who would rather be doing something else. For full transparancy you can observe the process right here.Week 3 QB Rankings

1. Russell Wilson

2. Andy Dalton

3. Joe Flacco

4. Christian Ponder

5. Jay Cutler

6. Matt Stafford

7. Eli Manning

8. Cam Newton

9. Jake Locker

10. Robert Griffin III

11. Alex Smith

12. Ben Roethlisberger

The first one is free.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Now I understand that no one can predict the future, I'm not expecting that. But if we are to use these rankings as a tool, as a reassurance, as whatever we are to use them for, where is the value if they are not only mostly wrong, but grossly incorrect? But again, I've only looked at a single week of data so can someone who's done a bit more research comment on if this is the norm? I'm not trying to disparage anyone's rankings as I do like looking over them, just wondering if they are more hurtful then helpful.

You do understand that no one has psychic powers, right? Whether it's amateurs like you and I or it's former NFL coach John Gruden, none of us really knows how these things will transpire. Brandon Marshall is a perfect example of this. In week #1, Cutler force fed Marshall the football, and he finished in the top five. So FBG ranks him #1 in week 2, and Green Bay totally shuts Marshall down. But Marshall dropped a TD pass in week 2. No one can account for that when they make up their rankings.If you're looking for the web site that accurately predicts these rankings top to bottom with high accuracy, let me know. I'd love to see it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The only thing the rankings are useful for is to help you see someone that you're significantly overvaluing or undervaluing.

Rankings are simply a tool for comparing your own theories with another reputable source.For week 3, FBG ranks Dez Bryant over these guysJordy NelsonMike WallaceDwayne Bowe - KC at NOAntonio Brown - PIT at OAKMiles Austin - DAL vs TBSteve Johnson - BUF at CLELarry Fitzgerald - ARI vs PHIBrandon Lloyd - NE at BAL I bet 90% of fantasy owners won't be starting those guys over Bryant. But if I start Dez instead of Lloyd this week, no way will I blame FBG if Bryant has another mediocre game.

 

[Chili Cheese Burrito]

I got burned by following the rankings in week 1. My gut instinct told me to start the Jets and I ended up starting the Bills. This was a mega fail as the bills scored -3 and Jets 20. It cost me my week 1 win. From now on I will use the service as a tool, but not to supersede my own analysis.

 

[Sarnoff]

Looking at the current week 3 QB projections, for example, the guy at #5 is projected to score 21.6 points. The guy at #15 is projected to score 19.2 points. It's not a massive swing. Don't let the fact that one guy is ten spots higher than the other convince you that he's a lock to do better. In reality they're pretty close.

This. It's pointless to complain about error rate in ranking when the difference comes down to decimal places. A more worthwhile evaluation would be to figure out how off the projected points totals are.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Unless Dodds pays my league fees I'm making my own decisions.

 

[Sinn Fein]

at people complaining about weekly projections/rankings

If you don't like them, don't use them. Cancel your subscription.

Like everything else on this site, including the SP, it is a source of information. Its one guys opinion, on how he sees the games playing out. He is not Marty McFly, but he does a good job. Watch the projections as teh week goes on, they are fine-tuned as you get to Sunday - taking in lots of information (and I suspect a bit of subjective bias). Also - look at the actual points - a lot of times there may be 1-2 point difference between a player ranked 10th, and a player ranked 25th. That is not much difference, and if your gut tells you to go with the guy at 25, then plug him in.

 

[CapnJB]

at people complaining about weekly projections/rankingsIf you don't like them, don't use them. Cancel your subscription.Like everything else on this site, including the SP, it is a source of information. Its one guys opinion, on how he sees the games playing out. He is not Marty McFly, but he does a good job. Watch the projections as teh week goes on, they are fine-tuned as you get to Sunday - taking in lots of information (and I suspect a bit of subjective bias). Also - look at the actual points - a lot of times there may be 1-2 point difference between a player ranked 10th, and a player ranked 25th. That is not much difference, and if your gut tells you to go with the guy at 25, then plug him in.

Way to not understand the point of this thread. But thanks for the advice... I just cancelled my subscription and gave you the referral. Thanks for saving me some money!

 

[Marauder]

at people complaining about weekly projections/rankingsIf you don't like them, don't use them. Cancel your subscription.Like everything else on this site, including the SP, it is a source of information. Its one guys opinion, on how he sees the games playing out. He is not Marty McFly, but he does a good job. Watch the projections as teh week goes on, they are fine-tuned as you get to Sunday - taking in lots of information (and I suspect a bit of subjective bias). Also - look at the actual points - a lot of times there may be 1-2 point difference between a player ranked 10th, and a player ranked 25th. That is not much difference, and if your gut tells you to go with the guy at 25, then plug him in.

Way to not understand the point of this thread. But thanks for the advice... I just cancelled my subscription and gave you the referral. Thanks for saving me some money!

I'm not sure I understand the point of the thread. The way I look at it there are three approaches to making your decisions:1. Do your own analysis and make your own decisions.2. Rely on an experts rankings3. Do your own analysis, then compare yours to an experts rankings to see where there are discrepancies that need further analysis.I fall into category 1 and I suspect you do too. However, there are some people who are either too busy or don't have enough confidence in their own analysis and choose to use option 2. For those people, Dodds is a good source since, by all accounts, he is more accurate than most other experts.No matter which category you fall into, I don't see how his rankings can do more harm than good. Maybe you can clarify why you think it does.

 

[Arizona Ron]

This thread is as bad as the "if the season ended now" guy.

 

[Short Corner]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?

What? For free?

 

[Short Corner]

If you don't like them, don't use them. Cancel your subscription.

This. These guys started mailing it in a few years ago. Some decent tools (if you use different projections) and the contest is nice. No more for me though.

 

[Sarnoff]

at people complaining about weekly projections/rankingsIf you don't like them, don't use them. Cancel your subscription.Like everything else on this site, including the SP, it is a source of information. Its one guys opinion, on how he sees the games playing out. He is not Marty McFly, but he does a good job. Watch the projections as teh week goes on, they are fine-tuned as you get to Sunday - taking in lots of information (and I suspect a bit of subjective bias). Also - look at the actual points - a lot of times there may be 1-2 point difference between a player ranked 10th, and a player ranked 25th. That is not much difference, and if your gut tells you to go with the guy at 25, then plug him in.

Way to not understand the point of this thread. But thanks for the advice... I just cancelled my subscription and gave you the referral. Thanks for saving me some money!

If you're using rankings instead of projections, you're not understanding the point of anything.

 

[CapnJB]

at people complaining about weekly projections/rankingsIf you don't like them, don't use them. Cancel your subscription.Like everything else on this site, including the SP, it is a source of information. Its one guys opinion, on how he sees the games playing out. He is not Marty McFly, but he does a good job. Watch the projections as teh week goes on, they are fine-tuned as you get to Sunday - taking in lots of information (and I suspect a bit of subjective bias). Also - look at the actual points - a lot of times there may be 1-2 point difference between a player ranked 10th, and a player ranked 25th. That is not much difference, and if your gut tells you to go with the guy at 25, then plug him in.

Way to not understand the point of this thread. But thanks for the advice... I just cancelled my subscription and gave you the referral. Thanks for saving me some money!

If you're using rankings instead of projections, you're not understanding the point of anything.

I don't use the rankings. I've never used the rankings. Every week I get an Early Rankings email then an Official Rankings email followed by an updated Rankings email. This thread wasn't about projections. It wasn't about peoples inability to predict the future.As I said earlier, I just wanted to know, with the rankings being as inconsistant as they are, what is their true value. Some people offered helpful insight, others just jumped on me thinking I was complaining about the rankings being wrong. I'm not even sure how or why projections entered this thread. I certainly didn't mention it.

 

[Doug B]

Link to your personal rankings and how many of your top 12 QBs ended in the top 12?

What? For free?

 

[jdoggydogg]

I just cancelled my subscription

Have fun walking through life assuming you can buy answers to unknowable questions.

 

[matuski]

The rankings are just another widget of input to help you make your own decisions.

They are only as useful as you make them.

 

[mphtrilogy]

I enjoy the rankings a lot, but usually go with my own gut, but it's really nice to get a 2nd and 3rd opinion....

 

[Hoss Style]

Nobody really knows in advance. These kinds of rankings typically deal with probabilities. For instance, it's probably better to think of Arian Foster's #1 ranking going into Week 2 as something like "60% chance of putting up legit starting FFB RB stats"** rather than "close to a sure shot to go off this week". Even the very best of studs really only go off about half the time anyway.

bingo. Aaron Rodgers had better odds of having a big game last week than Sam Bradford. Doesn't mean its gonna happen

If you're still reading this thread - this above is the clearest explanation. In FBG's opinion, those players they ranked above have a better chance to have a good game than those below. And remember - they are ranking their projections of those players. They aren't actually ranking the players themselves (if that makes sense to you). In other words - they are implying "We have no idea who's going to be the best, but if we had to guess, here's the list - and then we'll rank our guesses"And as a P.S. - I've found with alarming regularity that posts that have a " " in them will normally not help you at all. Just gloss over them. They usually add nothing to the conversation and/or attack your opinion (usually with their opinion - which they totally miss the irony of). No need to even respond to them.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I saw this quote from Matthew Berry's love 'em/hate'em column, and thought it really ties into a few threads (bashing FBG projections, bashing Matthew Berry, bashing Joe Bryant, etc.)

This is a crucial week. And the person who cares the most about your team is … you. So make pickups and trades and, most importantly, set your lineup with conviction. I have Larry Fitzgerald outside my top 20 this week. I'll give reasons below but you think that's crazy? Then start him. Don't let me or anyone else talk you out of it.I can't tell you how many times I see it. A guy says to me … "I really want to start this guy but you and everyone else have this other guy ranked higher … Arghhh. I don't know what to do." Well, maybe this will help: I've done all the research, watched the games, talked to as many folks as I can. But I can't tell the future.As my good friend Joe Bryant says, "It's an oblong ball made of leather. Weird stuff is gonna happen." Remember this as you set your lineup this week and in every future week: I really want you to win.But not as badly as you do.

I happen to find Berry entertaining, probably more than many here, but I think he really nails this one.

 

[CapnJB]

Well, since you've called me out, I regrettably will share my ranking technique with you. It involves a Guinness hat, 32 strips of paper, and a four year old who would rather be doing something else. For full transparancy you can observe the process right here.

Week 3 QB Rankings

1. Russell Wilson

2. Andy Dalton

3. Joe Flacco

4. Christian Ponder

5. Jay Cutler

6. Matt Stafford

7. Eli Manning

8. Cam Newton

9. Jake Locker

10. Robert Griffin III

11. Alex Smith

12. Ben Roethlisberger

The first one is free.

Top 5 QBs for week 3

Actual . . . . . . . . Dodds Ranking . . . . 4 year old girl Ranking

1. Ben Roethlisberger . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 12

2. Matt Shaub . . . . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . DNR

3. Joe Flacco . . . . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . 3

4. Andy Dalton. . . . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . 2

5. Christian Ponder . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . 4

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Well, since you've called me out, I regrettably will share my ranking technique with you. It involves a Guinness hat, 32 strips of paper, and a four year old who would rather be doing something else. For full transparancy you can observe the process right here.

Week 3 QB Rankings

1. Russell Wilson

2. Andy Dalton

3. Joe Flacco

4. Christian Ponder

5. Jay Cutler

6. Matt Stafford

7. Eli Manning

8. Cam Newton

9. Jake Locker

10. Robert Griffin III

11. Alex Smith

12. Ben Roethlisberger

The first one is free.

Top 5 QBs for week 3

Actual . . . . . . . . Dodds Ranking . . . . 4 year old girl Ranking

1. Ben Roethlisberger . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 12

2. Matt Shaub . . . . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . DNR

3. Joe Flacco . . . . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . 3

4. Andy Dalton. . . . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . 2

5. Christian Ponder . . . . DNR. . . . . . . . . 4

:subscribe: