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!

LHUCKS 4th Annual FBG Rankings Critique (1 Viewer)

i also didn't list brooks who i have as the #3 QB.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
:eek: :blackdot:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
lolmy initial run he was #2, and eli was #3. they have now swapped. it is still early so he may slide, but even if he ends up being 6-8, he is a huge value play given his adp will be 10th round+.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I actually think he has #3 type upside, but I also believe he has #26 downside. Classic boom/bust if you ask me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But, if his downside is that he'll get yanked mid-season, then his PPG will warrant a much higher ranking than your hypothetical 26. Plug in your backup after a top 5 FF guy gets pulled and that means that he's probably still a top 10-12 guy at a minimum.On a side note, it seems interesting that some of the QBs are immune to coaching changes/philosophies/surrounding personnel and others aren't. I personally think that too much is being made by LHUCKS about a player's coach, situation, injury history, etc. when we're talking about a veteran player. I don't think that injuries are indicative of a person's future tendency to get injured (for the most part). Also, if a QB has good weapons to throw to, he is likely to have a good passing season. I just disagree with the "Mike Martz was a mad man passing machine" as a coach and "Linehan is going to pound the rock 30-35 times a game". Sorry, but if you have Holt, Bruce, Curtis, and others as targets in the passing game you're going to throw the ball period. I think Bulger will probably be underrated this year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
:goodposting: I use this same type of strategy with all positions!

 
i also didn't list brooks who i have as the #3 QB.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
:eek: :blackdot:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
lolmy initial run he was #2, and eli was #3. they have now swapped. it is still early so he may slide, but even if he ends up being 6-8, he is a huge value play given his adp will be 10th round+.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I actually think he has #3 type upside, but I also believe he has #26 downside. Classic boom/bust if you ask me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But, if his downside is that he'll get yanked mid-season, then his PPG will warrant a much higher ranking than your hypothetical 26. Plug in your backup after a top 5 FF guy gets pulled and that means that he's probably still a top 10-12 guy at a minimum.On a side note, it seems interesting that some of the QBs are immune to coaching changes/philosophies/surrounding personnel and others aren't. I personally think that too much is being made by LHUCKS about a player's coach, situation, injury history, etc. when we're talking about a veteran player. I don't think that injuries are indicative of a person's future tendency to get injured (for the most part). Also, if a QB has good weapons to throw to, he is likely to have a good passing season. I just disagree with the "Mike Martz was a mad man passing machine" as a coach and "Linehan is going to pound the rock 30-35 times a game". Sorry, but if you have Holt, Bruce, Curtis, and others as targets in the passing game you're going to throw the ball period. I think Bulger will probably be underrated this year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
At the risk of being misunderstood I will make this post. But please LHUCKS, it's not negative, just an observation. Rads, you see what I see. While the insight is mostly thoughtful and valid there is clearly a tendency to make the argument fit the findings rather than the other way around. The reason this is a significant issue is that we all do it.

LKUCKS is likely one of the best analytical minds around and his posts are always backed up with sound thinking. But there is no magic 8 ball when ranking players or doing projections. Despite our best efforts we have to make some "judgment" calls about players and it will go against the grain of analytical logic. IOW-we have to trust out instincts. LHUCKS has excellent instincts and it shows in the results he's accomplished in the past.

Sometimes when we rationalize our thinking we expose ourselves to feedback that's contrary. Others see things differently and it is at times complete opposite of one another.

Further, I think when you've had the level of success LHUCKS has had, he's entitled to trust his instincts. He gave the example last year of Culpepper and he turned out to be right but for the wrong reason. Sure he was having a bad season but that could of turned around. At the end of the day the injury stopped him dead in his tracks. But his instincts were right.

 
Good analysis.  What scoring was used in these rankings? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
FBG scoring
I like the Bledsoe and Kitna calls

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Funny, I don't even see Bledsoe as a "call", he finished 6th last year without TO.I don't understand the Kitna haterade people are drinking...the guy was solid his last two years as a starter and McCown is not very good...I know, I live in AZ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bagger, are you reading this?
 
LHUCKS, assuming Jimmy Smith goes through with his announcement and retires, how would the move affect your Leftwich ranking?

 
Good analysis.  What scoring was used in these rankings? 
FBG scoring
I like the Bledsoe and Kitna calls
Funny, I don't even see Bledsoe as a "call", he finished 6th last year without TO.I don't understand the Kitna haterade people are drinking...the guy was solid his last two years as a starter and McCown is not very good...I know, I live in AZ.
Bagger, are you reading this?
i have bledsoe at 8 now with an upside of 5. still getting a good value w/adp too.
 
...by the way, was checking your credentials...missed where you finished in No Mercy-Grubs last year... :excited:
Sorry LHUCKS, I couldn't resist...Commisioner priviledge, you know? ;) Great thread, btw, full of your usual quality, fact-supported analysis. You're always a quality read. :thumbup:

BTW, You'll be pleased to know the slate in No Mercy-Maggots is shaping up to be a pretty competitive lot for 2006. I'll shoot you a PM when I start rallying the troops... :P

 
If Kitna actually ends up being the starter in Detroit, I agree with that call too. But, at this time I think McCown has at least a 35-40% chance to win the job.
:popcorn:
Lions head coach Rod Marinelli officially named Jon Kitna his starting quarterback Wednesday.

"You know as we enter camp, we will have Jon Kitna," Marinelli said. "He'll enter camp as our starting quarterback. He's really had a tremendous offseason. I feel good about him." Jul. 26 - 11:44 pm et
 
Loved the read, LHucks...spot on analysis for most.

I'm not quite buying the McNabb downside though. Even without a stud #1, Philly's receiving corps looks deep, the RB's are good (great?)pass catchers, and they have 2 solid pass-catching TE's. McNabb has put up solid numbers with less weapons before.

As far as injuries...Only two stick out of significance. The first was a broken leg. It should be noted that that injury happened in the first quarter of a game against Arizona, and Donovan stayed in and pummelled them, on a broken leg.

The second was a sports hernia last year.

These are NOT repetitive type injuries, so assuming DMac to miss significant time due to injury is foolish, IMHO.

While I respect the opinion of those who are down on the Philly passing game this year, I fully intend to take advantage of that in my drafts.

 
4) I totally agree with you on Bulger -- injuries are a big concern for him -- I was surprised they didn't try to move up in the draft to nab Leinart or Cutler -- then again, I'll bet if one landed in their laps when they picked, they would have, and nearly did -- I think your ranking of him is right on
Cutler did land in their laps. Then they traded the pick to Denver.
Further, I think when you've had the level of success LHUCKS has had, he's entitled to trust his instincts. He gave the example last year of Culpepper and he turned out to be right but for the wrong reason. Sure he was having a bad season but that could of turned around. At the end of the day the injury stopped him dead in his tracks. But his instincts were right.
I could be wrong, but I read what LHUCKS was saying differently. He prefaced his write-up on Hasselbeck by saying
So you may think I’m nitpicking here given the relatively small differences in the site rankings, but it’s the little things that differentiate the champion in your fantasy football league from the second place finisher. Last year I had Culpepper ranked lower than most at #5…that ranking was just low enough to ensure that he would not be on any of my fantasy teams and I in turn didn’t end up with a bust of a pick in the early rounds. The same principle can be applied to this situation.
To me, the important part has nothing to do with how Culpepper turned out, and I don't think LHUCKS is trying to take credit for predicting Culpepper going el busto. He's simply pointing out that the difference between a ranking of #2/3 and #5 may not seem like much, but at that tier it means the difference between owning and not owning the player just about everywhere you draft.
 
I have much love for Joe, David and the FBG site in general and this series of critiques by no means is intended to be an analysis of negative tone. FBG is easily the best fantasy football product available and if I didn’t respect the opinions of the staff and ownership here I wouldn’t be composing this analysis.

The rankings look stellar this year, so good that I’m going to add a twist to the format giving more props to those rankings that I see as those that differentiate FBG from the “competition.” For each position I’m adding an “FBG Shark Ranking.” A ranking that I see as a shark type raking that I believe differentiates FBG from the other ff services/publications.

As many of you know I’ve had a fair amount of success in FBG related leagues but there are always a few new guys to the board that get in these threads and try to derail them away from the intended discussion by questioning my expertise. This year I’m going to try to nip that in the bud by listing my finishes in FBG related leagues, ALL of which had FBG staff members and other well known sharks as the competition. My hope is that this is not perceived as showboating, but rather as an attempt to silence the haters in advance so that the discussion can be more focused on ff and not the credentials of LHUCKS. I’m not here to win a popularity contest, I’m here so that I can be better than my competition at fantasy football…period. Here are my finishes:

1st Place of 12 - FBG forum Challenge

1st Place of 16 - Anarchy Invitational

1st Place of 16 - SSL3

4th Place of 16 - WSL1

2nd Place/leading scorer of 32 - Staff v. Messageboard

2nd Place of 16 - MBSL4

2nd Place of 12/leading scorer - GSOS

2nd Place of 12 - EBF Invitational

And now for the good stuff, I hope you enjoy.

FBG Shark Ranking - Excellent Ranking by the FBG Staff

1) Matt Hasselbeck Ranked #2

ESPN Ranking: #5

CBS Sportsline Ranking: #3

So you may think I’m nitpicking here given the relatively small differences in the site rankings, but it’s the little things that differentiate the champion in your fantasy football league from the second place finisher. Last year I had Culpepper ranked lower than most at #5…that ranking was just low enough to ensure that he would not be on any of my fantasy teams and I in turn didn’t end up with a bust of a pick in the early rounds. The same principle can be applied to this situation.

Let’s take a look at the three players the other websites ranked ahead of Hasselbeck not named Peyton.

McNabb(ranked higher by ESPN)- Has missed on average 3.5 games over the last four years

- Reid has made it very clear he wants a more balanced offense with less passing and more rushing

- Suspect WR Crew

Brady(Ranked higher by both CBS and ESPN)

- Coming off a career year where he had roughly 400 more yards passing than in each of the previous two years, historical precedent seems to favor a more conservative offense

- Suspect WR depth with the loss of Givens

- A healthy Dillon with the addition of Maroney should make for an improved rushing game enabling a more conservative offense

- Defense should be improved, which should enable BB to call more of his type of game, which means less passing based on previous years.

Culpepper(ranked higher by ESPN) :lmao:

– With injury concerns I’m not going to address this ranking

Now let’s look at Hasselbeck’s last three years:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 2003 sea | 16 | 313 513 61.0 3844 7.5 26 15 | 36 125 2 || 2004 sea | 14 | 279 474 58.9 3382 7.1 22 15 | 27 90 1 || 2005 sea | 16 | 294 449 65.5 3455 7.7 24 9 | 36 124 1 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+As you can see his yards per game took a hit compared to previous years as he had significantly fewer pass attempts. There are three reasons for this as I see it. 1) The Seattle Defense was much improved

2) Seattle had one of the softest rushing schedules in the entire NFL last year, not to mention relatively weak opponents which allowed them to get up early and run, run, run in the second half.

3) Darrel Jackson was injured and nearly all of the other WRs battled injury throughout the season.

In general I believe we can expect the Seahawks to revert back to their more pass-oriented offense for several reasons:

- With Jackson healthy and with an added weapon in Burleson, Holmgren will be more inclined to pass the ball.

-With a tougher schedule IMHO, I expect closer games and as a result more passing which is what we’ve seen from Holmgren's Hawks in the past.

- The loss of Hutchinson will not enable the Hawks to be quite as effective on the ground.

In conclusion I see FBG’s #2 ranking of Hasselbeck as a “Shark” type ranking as a lot of people will look at last year’s stats and conclude that he’s not worthy of the ranking. I’ve provided the main reasons why I believe otherwise. Hasselbeck may not finish #2 next year, but his risk is so low that when you couple it with all of the positive factors I’ve hilighted above I believe he has the best chance of finishing #2.

Nice job FBG. :hifive:

OVERRATED

1) Marc Bulger Ranked #6

Quite frankly I think Bulger is a huge risk this year for several reasons.

a) The former starter for Linehan was coincidentally one of the first free agent signings brought in by the Rams

b) Bulger can’t stay healthy, not because of Martz’ schemes, but because he’s built like a librarian and lacks elusiveness...he's missed about 4 games on average over the last three years. With an experienced Frerotte backing him up Bulger wont exactly be hurried back into the lineup should another injury occur.

c) New systems almost always take time to digest, don’t expect Bulger to come out with guns blazing.

d) Linehan’s offense was fairly balanced last year as Miami ranked 16th in total passing yards, nowhere close to #6.

There are other QBs with as much or more upside than Bulger with half the risk. I think you’ll be disappointed if you’re expecting top 6 numbers from Bulger.

Staff With Highest Ranking: Levin at #2 and Wimer at #3

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Norton, Smith and Rudnicki all at #9 :hifive:

LHUCKS Ranking: #10

2) Donovan McNabb Ranked #4

Let’s take a look at McNabb’s yearly totals before TO rode into town:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 2000 phi | 16 | 330 569 58.0 3365 5.9 21 13 | 86 629 6 || 2001 phi | 16 | 285 493 57.8 3233 6.6 25 12 | 82 482 2 || 2002 phi | 10 | 211 361 58.4 2289 6.3 17 6 | 63 460 6 || 2003 phi | 16 | 275 478 57.5 3216 6.7 16 11 | 71 355 3 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Note the following:- McNabb has never thrown for 3400 yards without TO(although on pace in ’02)

- His rushing yards have been in steady decline

- He has missed 3.5 games on average over the past four years

Additionally, Reid has said he’d like to balance the offense more and who can blame him with that very suspect group of WRs and McNabb's recent injury woes.

What exactly is screaming #4 fantasy QB here? His career TD’s/game is a nice stat, but I just don’t see the upside here given the limited weaponry and his inability to stay healthy. Somebody else can take on that risk.

Staff With Highest Ranking: Bloom, Norton, Henry, Lammey all at #2

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Smith #8, Brown #12 :hifive:

LHUCKS Ranking: #8

UNDERRATED

1) Drew Bledsoe Ranked #10

Drew finished #6 in scoring last year and now he has TO. Let’s take a look at what TO did for McNabb’s numbers in '04 and '05:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 2000 phi | 16 | 330 569 58.0 3365 5.9 21 13 | 86 629 6 || 2001 phi | 16 | 285 493 57.8 3233 6.6 25 12 | 82 482 2 || 2002 phi | 10 | 211 361 58.4 2289 6.3 17 6 | 63 460 6 || 2003 phi | 16 | 275 478 57.5 3216 6.7 16 11 | 71 355 3 || 2004 phi | 15 | 300 469 64.0 3875 8.3 31 8 | 41 220 3 || 2005 phi | 9 | 211 357 59.1 2507 7.0 16 9 | 25 55 1 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+The analysis is really that simple for me. There aren’t any other significant changes in Dallas to warrant downgrading Bledsoe. One might argue that you could have the “Seattle effect” as the Dallas D is improving and Cowboys’ passing could be limited in second halves, but that is not nearly enough for me to downgrade my #5 ranked QB. Throw in the fact that Bledsoe never gets injured and you’ve got yourself a very nice low risk/high reward pick. Staff With Highest Ranking: Shick, Smith, Lammey, Wood all at #6 :hifive:

Staff With Lowest Ranking: Baker #17, Bloom #16 and Brown #15

LHUCKS Ranking: #5

2) Byron Leftwich Ranked #18

Lefty showed a marked improvement last year before succumbing to a minor injury late in the season…he was on pace for roughly 3100 yards and 22 TDs giving him a ppg that was good enough for 8th in the league in what was only his third season in the NFL. Throw in the facts that you’ve got a very deep, maturing WR crew in addition to some added weapons in Mercedes Lewis and Maurice Drew and I think you’ve got the potential here for a breakout season.

Even if Leftwich doesn’t improve his efficiency he’ll be hovering around the #10 mark IMHO and an expectation of an increase in efficiency shouldn’t be out of the question considering this will only be his fourth year in the league.

I believe Byron is one of the next great gunslingers in the league…don’t be surprised if he puts up 3600 and 30 in just his 4th year in the League.

Staff With Highest Ranking: Bloom at #8 :eek: :hifive:

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Smith and Shick at #22

LHUCKS Ranking: #11

3) Jon Kitna #25

Let’s take a look at Jon’s last two years as an NFL starter:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 2002 cin | 14 | 294 473 62.2 3178 6.7 16 16 | 24 57 4 || 2003 cin | 16 | 324 520 62.3 3591 6.9 26 15 | 38 113 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Not too shabby heh?Last year’s #25 QB had 2000 passing yards and 12 TDs…Kitna will have this by game 12 with any luck. For the last three years under Martz the Rams offense passed for over 4000 yards. One can come up with a lot of excuses as to why Kitna will not be a top 20 QB, but when you’re looking at the possible upside that Detroit’s situation offers, Kitna is worth significantly more to me than the #25 QB off the board.

Staff With Highest Ranking: Mike Brown #8 :pickle:

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Bloom #34, Rudnick/Norton/Hicks #28

LHUCKS Ranking: #18

Those are the QBs...what say you??

:popcorn:
Thus far, this doesn't look too good (an understatement!):For LHucks Rankings look here

Overrated:

Bulger at 6: FBG's nailed Bulger again; LHucks rated him #11 :thumbdown:

McNabb at 4: FBG's much more accurate; LHucks had him at #9 :thumbdown:

Underrated:

Bledsoe at 10: FBG's much more accurate; LHucks at #3

Leftwich at 18: FBG's much more accurate; LHucks at #14

Kitna at 25; FBG's way off; Lhucks at #21 = both way off

Excellent Ranking:

Hasselb at #2: Both way off

The Final scoreboard Has LHucks missing out on ALL Six of his QB Ranking Tidbits.

Hopefully you didn't follow his advice here.

:popcorn:

 
Lhucks,

Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :pickle:

Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.

 
Lhucks,Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :shrug: Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.
Leftwich was hurt. Hasselbeck's receivers were hurt. Bledsoe got benched for Romo, but look what Romo did. LHUCKS' whole argument in favor of Bledsoe was the situation, not the player. He was dead on about Kitna. Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
 
Lhucks,Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :lmao: Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.
Leftwich was hurt. Hasselbeck's receivers were hurt. Bledsoe got benched for Romo, but look what Romo did. LHUCKS' whole argument in favor of Bledsoe was the situation, not the player. He was dead on about Kitna. Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
:popcorn: Hasselbeck's season was not due to WR injuries, sorry - D Jax missed 3 games & Branch 2 - Hackett was a solid replacement. Bledsoe busted because he is a statue and doesn't make good decisions under pressure. Bledsoe had a history of this, and letting someone off the hook because he got benched doesn't work. Also, yes, I am results oriented. Does your league pay out for 8th place if your had your analysis right but your players busted?Again, no offense at all to Lhucks - love the threads, they are some of the best on here. But it's tough to predict any of this stuff, and not just because of injury. There are many factors in play, not to mention what is going on in these player's heads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This stuff is mainly entertainment anyway. I don't know of anybody who blames or gives credit to LHUCKS when rankings hit or miss.

LHUCKS analysis always keeps me entertained! Kitna 18 last year?? C'mon.. step out on a limb for once!

 
Lhucks,Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :goodposting: Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.
Leftwich was hurt. Hasselbeck's receivers were hurt. Bledsoe got benched for Romo, but look what Romo did. LHUCKS' whole argument in favor of Bledsoe was the situation, not the player. He was dead on about Kitna. Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
Analysis was correct?Obviously not. He had "opinions" about the changes/effects on a player going into the season. And here's a clue, the ENTIRE WORLD is results oriented. Someone should bump his WR article. He was completely wrong on almost every one.
 
Lhucks,Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :2cents: Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.
Leftwich was hurt. Hasselbeck's receivers were hurt. Bledsoe got benched for Romo, but look what Romo did. LHUCKS' whole argument in favor of Bledsoe was the situation, not the player. He was dead on about Kitna. Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
Analysis was correct?Obviously not. He had "opinions" about the changes/effects on a player going into the season. And here's a clue, the ENTIRE WORLD is results oriented. Someone should bump his WR article. He was completely wrong on almost every one.
But, at least he gets to hear himself talk and gets a lot of attention over it. It's a win-win, regardless. :thumbup:
 
Lhucks,Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :2cents: Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.
Leftwich was hurt. Hasselbeck's receivers were hurt. Bledsoe got benched for Romo, but look what Romo did. LHUCKS' whole argument in favor of Bledsoe was the situation, not the player. He was dead on about Kitna. Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
:thumbup:Believe me, the last thing I want to do is nitpick because I don't go out on a limb with my predictions, but your thing about Bledsoe is hilarious. Hucks had him as a top 5 QB, and you are saying he should get a break because he was benched?
 
Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
So, we're not interested in results now?
No. We're not. Let's say I flip a coin ten times, and ask how many times the coin would come up heads. You say seven, and LHUCKS says five. If the coin lands on heads seven times, you had better results. But if I'm going to flip that coin ten times, I'd still trust LHUCKS' results better than yours.

 
Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
So, we're not interested in results now?
No. We're not. Let's say I flip a coin ten times, and ask how many times the coin would come up heads. You say seven, and LHUCKS says five. If the coin lands on heads seven times, you had better results. But if I'm going to flip that coin ten times, I'd still trust LHUCKS' results better than yours.
Right. But, it's a question about base rates. And, if we had any reason to trust the analytical methods hucks uses over, say, FBGs or yours, then I'd trust his results, too. But, it's not like his projections of situations or players held above the base rate analysis.
 
Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
So, we're not interested in results now?
No. We're not. Let's say I flip a coin ten times, and ask how many times the coin would come up heads. You say seven, and LHUCKS says five. If the coin lands on heads seven times, you had better results. But if I'm going to flip that coin ten times, I'd still trust LHUCKS' results better than yours.
Flipping a coin is black & white. Predicting player performance is not. Trying to compare the two doesn't work.
 
Lhucks,

Love the predictions and the work you put in, these are the best threads. However, I hope you fare better with the QB's this year :lmao:

Just goes to show how difficult it is to predict this s***.
Leftwich was hurt. Hasselbeck's receivers were hurt. Bledsoe got benched for Romo, but look what Romo did. LHUCKS' whole argument in favor of Bledsoe was the situation, not the player. He was dead on about Kitna. Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
:lmao: Believe me, the last thing I want to do is nitpick because I don't go out on a limb with my predictions, but your thing about Bledsoe is hilarious. Hucks had him as a top 5 QB, and you are saying he should get a break because he was benched?
Yeah. His whole analysis for Bledsoe was "Owens is that good." You're right that he didn't see the benching coming, but that wasn't the reason he liked Bledsoe. And the reason he liked Bledsoe translated well into the reason he should have liked Romo when it became clear Bledsoe was heading to the bench. I agree with his analysis because he was correct about Owens' effect on his QB. He was correct about that. I agree with your critique of his ranking. He didn't account for the possibility Bledsoe would get benched. At the time, given the data available to us, there was a small chance of that, but it wasn't a serious concern until later in the season. If you'd like to show me where you predicted Bledsoe's benching, be my guest - I'll give you credit for correctly calling that, too, if you gave a decent reason for it.

In the future, if a true stud receiver goes to a new team, I'll significantly raise that quarterback's projections. In the future, if that quarterback does not have a good likelihood of getting benched, I'll be more confident in them. Which is why I'll critique LHUCKS' ranking of Tom Brady as overrated this year, more than his prediction for Bledsoe last year.

 
But, it's not like his projections of situations or players held above the base rate analysis.
I'm not going to turn this into a LHUCKS bragging thread, but my results in competition around here are unparallelled. You can look at a single set of rankings or even a single year's rankings and come to a conclusion, but that would only prove your inability to analyze data IMHO.
 
Yeah, the predictions wouldn't have worked out great. But his analysis was correct. To say anything else is results oriented
So, we're not interested in results now?
No. We're not. Let's say I flip a coin ten times, and ask how many times the coin would come up heads. You say seven, and LHUCKS says five. If the coin lands on heads seven times, you had better results. But if I'm going to flip that coin ten times, I'd still trust LHUCKS' results better than yours.
Flipping a coin is black & white. Predicting player performance is not. Trying to compare the two doesn't work.
Unless you can demonstrate that there is an appreciable difference between the rate at which a predictor accurately forecasts the future over another predictor.In this case, though, I think it's more a function of a FBG member saying "hey, everybody, look at me" than any actual insight(s) above/beyond what you get from the folks who run this place.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top