Our Value article is posted (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

This is subscribers content.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2010/10valueintro.php

This includes quotes from our staff on who they believe the biggest values are (according to ADP). The opposite is done too (Over-valued Players)

I am biased, but this is possibly the most important article you will read this preseason. We will also update this in August.

Enjoy.

David

 

[tones]

On the under valued TE you might want to combine Zach Miller as you only speak of OAK TE not JAX TE. Given OAK TE 9 votes.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Here's a look back at our overvalued/undervalued players from...

2009

2008

2007

 

[mrip541]

I like the idea but saying certain players are both over and undervalued at their current adp is pretty frustrating.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I like the idea but saying certain players are both over and undervalued at their current adp is pretty frustrating.

with so many writers on staff, a variance of outlooks is inevitable...we don't have a mono-group think consensus...the good that could come from that... people can listen to multiple viewpoints, judge for themselves which aggregate position (for players with more than one take - in some cases, on both sides of the value fence) summoned and marshalled the most compelling evidence, and form their conclusions... maybe even a modified viewpoint that takes into account multiple perspectives...

 

[Rovers]

The FBG love affair with Garrard continues. Garrard IS a low end QB2. Why? Because he is flat out awful on the road. Even as a QB2 I don't like him. If QB1 is on a bye, and Garrard is on the road, especially against a decent defense... yes, high year end point totals don't look bad, but he is far too inconsistant for my tastes.

 

[Steed]

The FBG love affair with Garrard continues. Garrard IS a low end QB2. Why? Because he is flat out awful on the road. Even as a QB2 I don't like him. If QB1 is on a bye, and Garrard is on the road, especially against a decent defense... yes, high year end point totals don't look bad, but he is far too inconsistant for my tastes.

Replacement level production with little trade value does not win you FF

 

[Rovers]

The FBG love affair with Garrard continues. Garrard IS a low end QB2. Why? Because he is flat out awful on the road. Even as a QB2 I don't like him. If QB1 is on a bye, and Garrard is on the road, especially against a decent defense... yes, high year end point totals don't look bad, but he is far too inconsistant for my tastes.

Replacement level production with little trade value does not win you FF

And your point is.... what? Otherwise, I found the content to be interesting. Like staff, I have guys I like, and those who I don't. Garrard I don't like, obviously. He's like Lee Evans in years past, all or nothing. Production, yes, but woefully inconsistant. You can carry a WR as a WR3 and live with the inconsistancy as long as he is in your starting line up every week. Year end number are fine if inconsistant from a WR3. That luxury cannot be afforded from the QB position where most leagues start one.

 

[Multiple Scores]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

 

[Steed]

The FBG love affair with Garrard continues. Garrard IS a low end QB2. Why? Because he is flat out awful on the road. Even as a QB2 I don't like him. If QB1 is on a bye, and Garrard is on the road, especially against a decent defense... yes, high year end point totals don't look bad, but he is far too inconsistant for my tastes.

Replacement level production with little trade value does not win you FF

And your point is.... what?

That came across wrong. I'm in agreement with you. Garrard will hurt you more than he'll help you.

 

[Tyrion]

The FBG love affair with Garrard continues. Garrard IS a low end QB2. Why? Because he is flat out awful on the road. Even as a QB2 I don't like him. If QB1 is on a bye, and Garrard is on the road, especially against a decent defense... yes, high year end point totals don't look bad, but he is far too inconsistant for my tastes.

Replacement level production with little trade value does not win you FF

And your point is.... what?

That came across wrong. I'm in agreement with you. Garrard will hurt you more than he'll help you.

I picked Garrard up off waivers last year as a bye week filler and he actually brought my other players' production down. He's that bad.

 

[Nate]

Awesome stuff David. Love these articles.

 

[Tau837]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

I haven't verified this but would be interested to see (a) some commentary by staffers on this and (b) the results prior to 2009 and whether or not there has been any consistency on this one way or the other (i.e., good or bad).

 

[mrip541]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

These lists seem most useful to keep up on the pluses and minuses of players of interest rather than using the lists to see who is actually over or undervalued.

 

[David Yudkin]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

I haven't verified this but would be interested to see (a) some commentary by staffers on this and (b) the results prior to 2009 and whether or not there has been any consistency on this one way or the other (i.e., good or bad).

Just like other things at FBG, some of us do better than others. I have had a pretty decent track record over the years in the Over/Under stuff. I would guess that a hit rate of 60%+ would be quite good. We've had other threads on how to determine what a hit is, there might be some thoughts in there to mull over.Just because some picks are sound logically or statistically doesn't mean the commentary or selection was bad if that pick went the other way. For example, if there had never been a Top 5 QB at 40, betting against Brett Favre might have seen like a smart move.

 

[Jason Wood]

I have never looked back with too keen an eye, but I can say that last year I felt like my picks were far less impactful than usual. Again, that's just how I felt about my personal choices, I have no view as to whether -- as a staff -- our hit rate was better or worse last year.

Point is, it's a fun exercise, particularly the July version because it's a chance to really see where we're outliers and where we might really have differences of opinion. I personally LOVE when we have staff that vote for the same player in both categories, because it invites me to take an ever harder look than I already do on that player to see if there's a real opportunity there to take a contrarian angle versus ADP.

 

[LTsharks]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

I haven't verified this but would be interested to see (a) some commentary by staffers on this and (b) the results prior to 2009 and whether or not there has been any consistency on this one way or the other (i.e., good or bad).

Just like other things at FBG, some of us do better than others. I have had a pretty decent track record over the years in the Over/Under stuff. I would guess that a hit rate of 60%+ would be quite good. We've had other threads on how to determine what a hit is, there might be some thoughts in there to mull over.Just because some picks are sound logically or statistically doesn't mean the commentary or selection was bad if that pick went the other way. For example, if there had never been a Top 5 QB at 40, betting against Brett Favre might have seen like a smart move.

With all of the different opinions presented I've always tried to just look at the top picks for each group. I've taken a look at the picks that had 4 or more staffers agree in 2009. Here you go:Undervalued QB:Garrad, QB17 (7 votes) - finished QB14. Not a big hit for the number of votesPalmer, QB12 (6 votes) - finished QB18. Missed this one bigOvervalued QB:Cassell, QB14 (4 votes) - finished QB21. Nice JobUndervalued RB:Rice, RB31 (5 votes) - finished RB4. Uh, crushed this oneMoreno, RB25 (4 votes) - finished RB17. Good Call here tovervalued RB:Chris Johnson (4 votes) - those voters might want to run and hide!Undervalued WRriver, WR34 (4 votes) - finished WR18. Nice CallOvervalued WR:Roy Williams, WR16 (4 votes) - finished WR37. Nailed itUndervalued TE:Z. Miller, TE10 (5 votes) - finished TE12. Got it wrong, but didn't really hurt you.That is a 6-3 record for calling them the right way. A few big hits with Rice, Moreno, Cassel, and Driver. Outside of the Chris Johnson prediction the incorrect calls wouldn't have really hurt you too bad in 2009. I just looked at this with 4+ votes. Maybe 3+ would give a different result. Hope this helps the discussion.......Edit to add: It looks like in 2010 there are many more selections with 4+ votes then there were in 2009. Is this a result of more group think by FBG staffers or is there really something to it? I guess we'll know after the season.Or are there just more people voting in 2010 so there are more votes to go around? Maybe they can shed some light here...

 

[r3t2]

The FBG love affair with Garrard continues. Garrard IS a low end QB2. Why? Because he is flat out awful on the road. Even as a QB2 I don't like him. If QB1 is on a bye, and Garrard is on the road, especially against a decent defense... yes, high year end point totals don't look bad, but he is far too inconsistant for my tastes.

Replacement level production with little trade value does not win you FF

And your point is.... what?

That came across wrong. I'm in agreement with you. Garrard will hurt you more than he'll help you.

I picked Garrard up off waivers last year as a bye week filler and he actually brought my other players' production down. He's that bad.

the value article listed garrard's ADP as 160 and the top 300 list has his value at 108. i'm sorry, but i dont know anyone who is any good at FF who would take a replacement level player in the 9th round with the upside of qb 12. after garrard on that list is vincent jackson, santonio holmes, kenny britt, donny avery, wes welker, pierre garcon, dustin keller, roethlisberger, arian foster...really? garrard isnt even a qb you'd start in a qbbc...he's ONLY a guy you would play during a bye week. you'd be better off taking hasselbeck or campbell 7 rounds later and getting some wr depth. the garrard love really is stunning.

 

[r3t2]

i do really like this feature and look forward to this kind of analysis when putting together a draft board, and i dont need to agree with everyone's choices. that said, some analysis is suspect. some lines of thought:

"Larry Fitzgerald is coming off his worst fantasy season since 2006 and he'll have to try to rebound without Kurt Warner under center."

i'm not picking on anyone but does the word "rebound" really reflect a guy who had 97 rec 1092 yds 13 tds? if youre concerned about matt leinart's chances at success SAY that, but dont try to give the impression that fitzgerald did not have a fantastic season. when the fantasy playoffs started he was the #1 wr and finished 4th overall.

"Kolb will be working without one of the best pass-catching RBs of the last decade, Brian Westbrook. Westbrook routinely provided Donovan McNabb with 60-90 receptions and 4-5 receiving TDs per year - LeSean McCoy's career best so far is 40/308/0"

you mean in mccoy's ONLY season in the league? and is 40 catches a terrible number for a rookie rb? or any rb, considering that put him 17th on the list last year. my god, what exactly ARE the standards that rookie rbs are supposed to live up to?

juxtaposed with another take on Kolb:

"His receivers are young and talented, but they aren't great route technicians, which places more of the burden on Kolb to make great decisions and create under pressure."

i may not agree with it, but this is a great reason to be concerned about going overboard on kolb, and great analysis from my perspective.

and finally, on tom brady:

"The Patriots offense looks to be a fraction of what they used to be."

like 2009, when they were 1st in first downs, 3rd in yards, and 6th in points?

and..."Edelman and Tate are nothing special."

how do we know this exactly? again, do we now judge all rookies based on whether they made good fantasy plays in their rookie years?

to be useful to the average fantasy owner, WHAT you think is not nearly as important and WHY you think it. rant over.

 

[Ian F]

the value article listed garrard's ADP as 160 and the top 300 list has his value at 108. i'm sorry, but i dont know anyone who is any good at FF who would take a replacement level player in the 9th round with the upside of qb 12. after garrard on that list is vincent jackson, santonio holmes, kenny britt, donny avery, wes welker, pierre garcon, dustin keller, roethlisberger, arian foster...really? garrard isnt even a qb you'd start in a qbbc...he's ONLY a guy you would play during a bye week. you'd be better off taking hasselbeck or campbell 7 rounds later and getting some wr depth. the garrard love really is stunning.

There are plenty 2 QB leagues out there where this matters a lot. Being able to get QB15 way late gives you a big advantage

 

[Anthony Borbely]

In FBG scoring, Garrard was QB16 in 2007 (in only 12 games), QB11 in 2008, and QB14 last year. His ADP when we penned the article was QB24. I don't see any reason why he would not be considered a strong value play with that low of an ADP. Also, I think running QBs are drastically undervalued in general and this applies to Garrard. A mid QB2 seems more than reasonable to me.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

I haven't verified this but would be interested to see (a) some commentary by staffers on this and (b) the results prior to 2009 and whether or not there has been any consistency on this one way or the other (i.e., good or bad).

Just like other things at FBG, some of us do better than others. I have had a pretty decent track record over the years in the Over/Under stuff. I would guess that a hit rate of 60%+ would be quite good. We've had other threads on how to determine what a hit is, there might be some thoughts in there to mull over.Just because some picks are sound logically or statistically doesn't mean the commentary or selection was bad if that pick went the other way. For example, if there had never been a Top 5 QB at 40, betting against Brett Favre might have seen like a smart move.

With all of the different opinions presented I've always tried to just look at the top picks for each group. I've taken a look at the picks that had 4 or more staffers agree in 2009. Here you go:Undervalued QB:

Garrad, QB17 (7 votes) - finished QB14. Not a big hit for the number of votes

Palmer, QB12 (6 votes) - finished QB18. Missed this one big

Overvalued QB:

Cassell, QB14 (4 votes) - finished QB21. Nice Job

Undervalued RB:

Rice, RB31 (5 votes) - finished RB4. Uh, crushed this one

Moreno, RB25 (4 votes) - finished RB17. Good Call here too.

Overvalued RB:

Chris Johnson (4 votes) - those voters might want to run and hide!

Undervalued WR:

Driver, WR34 (4 votes) - finished WR18. Nice Call

Overvalued WR:

Roy Williams, WR16 (4 votes) - finished WR37. Nailed it

Undervalued TE:

Z. Miller, TE10 (5 votes) - finished TE12. Got it wrong, but didn't really hurt you.

That is a 6-3 record for calling them the right way. A few big hits with Rice, Moreno, Cassel, and Driver. Outside of the Chris Johnson prediction the incorrect calls wouldn't have really hurt you too bad in 2009.

I just looked at this with 4+ votes. Maybe 3+ would give a different result. Hope this helps the discussion.......

Edit to add: It looks like in 2010 there are many more selections with 4+ votes then there were in 2009. Is this a result of more group think by FBG staffers or is there really something to it? I guess we'll know after the season.

Or are there just more people voting in 2010 so there are more votes to go around? Maybe they can shed some light here...

At quick glance, I think it is the bolded. It looks like there are quite a few more overall votes than we have had in the past. We have added some staffers and some of us, like myself, posted several more picks than in the past. I don't think there is any group think at all on the value plays.Thanks for the summary you did.

As for my picks last year, I badly missed on Palmer and Thomas Jones, hit big on Stewart and Lance Moore, and mildly hit on Ochocinco.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Looking at my picks from 2009...

Red - wrong

Green - right

Injury - out for season



Totals from 2009

Correct: 12

Wrong: 8

Push: 1

Injury: 1

Undervalued QB - Garrard, Palmer, Orton, Ryan

Garrard - 17/14 (Ranked 17 in the preseason, finished 14) On the positive side of accuracy, but not much. 7 staffers got it right

Palmer - 12/18 - Missed on him. 6 staffers missed

Orton - 18/16 - Got it right, but not by much. Two staffers undervalued Orton.

Ryan - 9/19 - Ryan regressed after his impressive rookie season. I was surprised to see his PS ranking was 9th. Only I undervalued Ryan.

Overvalued QB - Cassel, Campbell

Cassel - 14/21 Got that one right. 4 staffers got it right.

Campbell - 23/15 Missed on Campbell. I was the only one who overvalued Campbell

Undervalued RB - Ray Rice, Knowshon Moreno, Leon Washington, Ryan Grant

Rice - 31/4 - Nailed that one. A total of five staffers nailed it

Moreno - 25/17 - Got it right for the most part, but by no stretch was it like Ray Rice. Four staffers got it right

L. Washington - 45/71 - Got injured. Likely would've exceeded RB45, but no way of knowing for sure. 3 votes for Washington

Grant - 17/8 - Got this one right. Wouldn't say nailed it, but still good. I was the only staffer who undervalued Grant

Overvalued RB - Addai, R. Bush, Forte, S. Jackson

Addai 22/9 - Missed on Addai. Three staffers missed on him

R. Bush 23/36 - Bush missed two games to injury, but he underperformed finishing 36th. Got this one right. Three staffers overvalued him

Forte 4/18 - Got this one right. Forte finished in the Top 20, but nowhere near 4th, his PS rank. Three staffers overvalued Forte

S. Jackson - 5/10 Got this right for the most part. He had another Top 15 season (10), but not Top 5. Three staffers overvalued SJ

Undervalued WR - Ochocinco, Royal, Bowe, D. Hixon

Ochocinco - 17/14 - Got it right, but barely. I did not do so well with my WRs in 2009. Three staffers undervalued Ochocinco.

Royal - 23/100 - Missed badly on Royal. Worst pick of the year, arguably. Three staffers undervalued Royal.

Bowe - 12/55 - Missed badly on Bowe too. Not as bad as Royal, but definitely not good. I was the only one to undervalue Bowe

Hixon - 41/111 - The end of his 2008 season was not indicative of 2009. Missed on him too, pretty badly. I was the only one to undervalue him

Overvalued WR - Hester, R. White

Hester 33/45 - Hester didn't do enough to warrant a 33rd ranking, so I got this right. I was the only one to overvalue Hester

R. White 8/7 - Roddy White finished 7th after a PS rank of 8. I thought Tony Gonzalez would take away from him. Wasn't much change in rank

Undervalued TE - Shiancoe

Shiancoe - 13/6 - Got this one right. Brett Favre made all the difference. Shiancoe had 11 TDs. Two staffers undervalued him

Overvalued TE - Winslow

Winslow - 7/7 - Push. Not right, not wrong. Was only one to overvalue Winslow.

 

[TWP]

If you say he's overvalued at 7 and he ends up at 7, you were wrong -- that's not a push. Even if he ends up at 10 you were wrong, in any meaningful sense. Unless you're TRYING to predict guys who will perform 2-3 spots worse than their ADP? Isn't the whole pt of the exercise to pick guys who are SIGNIFICANTLY overvalued and undervalued?

Nice breakdown, though, and nice job last year. Will definitely read this carefully again this year.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If you say he's overvalued at 7 and he ends up at 7, you were wrong -- that's not a push. Even if he ends up at 10 you were wrong, in any meaningful sense. Unless you're TRYING to predict guys who will perform 2-3 spots worse than their ADP? Isn't the whole pt of the exercise to pick guys who are SIGNIFICANTLY overvalued and undervalued? Nice breakdown, though, and nice job last year. Will definitely read this carefully again this year.

I would go as far to say that if you undervalue Garrard at QB 17 and he finishes at QB 14 that you have failed again. No one is reading this article to figure out if Garrard is going to be a lower end middling QB or a top end middling QB.

 

[gandalas]

Play in a 2+ QB league or a deeper league than 10 or 12, and then see who is valuing QB14 so poorly...

 

[David Yudkin]

Here's a LINK to essentially the same discussion from last year.

 

[cobalt_27]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

These lists seem most useful to keep up on the pluses and minuses of players of interest rather than using the lists to see who is actually over or undervalued.

Oh, so you mean like this:

Chris Johnson - TEN ADP: 9 overall, RB 8 4 votes

Aaron Rudnicki - While Chris Johnson is undoubtedly one of the most exciting players in the league, this average draft slot will be tough for him to live up to. He's one of the smallest feature backs in the league, making him more susceptible to injury and unlikely to hold up over a heavy workload. Johnson also has to split carries with a power back in LenDale White who is likely to steal a lot of TDs from inside the 5 yard line.

Jeff Tefertiller - I am a huge Chris Johnson fan. He is a play-maker in every sense of the word. But, with an ADP of RB8 (and player 9 overall), the odds are against him meeting expectations. First of all, the Titans utilize LenDale White to salt away games when the team has a lead. Tennessee is a good team so this is a common occurrence. This, combined with White getting the majority of the short yardage carries, will limit the upside of the very talented second-year ball carrier. Johnson will make many big plays for Tennessee, but is not an elite fantasy RB1.

Mark Wimer - Johnson is stuck in an almost 50/50 carry split with LenDale White in Tennessee, and that doesn't look like it will change any time soon. White showed up to offseason workouts 20+ pounds lighter than last year (238 lbs vs. 261), and looks motivated to play big in his upcoming contract season. Johnson simply won't get enough touches on the ball or TD opportunities to break into the top 10 among fantasy RBs - he's over-rated right now.

David Yudkin - Johnson had a superb rookie campaign, but people seem to be ignoring the fact that he is in a job share with LenDale White. White had 200 carries and got essentially all the looks at the goal line, cashing in on 15 TDs last season. Using the axiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," there is very little incentive for the Titans to alter their strategy. Johnson would need to capture a bigger piece of the RB pie and score a lot more TD to crack the Top 5, and that seems unlikely in the current situation.

I think too many folks here think that the writers on the FBG staff are somehow insiders and have a beat on the league and team tendencies. More often than not, they are...like the rest of us...using the prior year's data to forecast future results.

 

[David Yudkin]

Another thing people need to consider (for better or for worse) is that we are asked to provide feedback on this long before the season starts, some years as early as April or May, before training camp has even started. So we have to predict who things will shape up not knowing which free agents might sign where, which players will get hurt before the season has started, and without benefit of learning more intel before the season approaches.

So in hindsight, those saying Chris Johnson would not be a great value (myself included) would have no way of knowing anything about the Titans giving very few carries to LenDale White and we could only go on the plan they used in 2008. It should still count as a miss, but sometimes we (like everyone else) won't have updated information or situational updates until much later on.

That's why some things will look very odd from the outside in things like this. If there is a positional battle for a starting spot, some of us might think PLAYER X will win it while some will pick PLAYER Y. Once it's known which guy it is, their ADPs will sort themselves out. But in the meantime, we have to guess, and clearly one guy will be under valued and the other over valued in this scenario.

 

[cobalt_27]

Another thing people need to consider (for better or for worse) is that we are asked to provide feedback on this long before the season starts, some years as early as April or May, before training camp has even started. So we have to predict who things will shape up not knowing which free agents might sign where, which players will get hurt before the season has started, and without benefit of learning more intel before the season approaches.So in hindsight, those saying Chris Johnson would not be a great value (myself included) would have no way of knowing anything about the Titans giving very few carries to LenDale White and we could only go on the plan they used in 2008. It should still count as a miss, but sometimes we (like everyone else) won't have updated information or situational updates until much later on.That's why some things will look very odd from the outside in things like this. If there is a positional battle for a starting spot, some of us might think PLAYER X will win it while some will pick PLAYER Y. Once it's known which guy it is, their ADPs will sort themselves out. But in the meantime, we have to guess, and clearly one guy will be under valued and the other over valued in this scenario.

So, what you're saying is nevermind what's written in these articles because they may contain outdated information? Perhaps it would be worthwhile to re-examine when they are written.

 

[David Yudkin]

Another thing people need to consider (for better or for worse) is that we are asked to provide feedback on this long before the season starts, some years as early as April or May, before training camp has even started. So we have to predict who things will shape up not knowing which free agents might sign where, which players will get hurt before the season has started, and without benefit of learning more intel before the season approaches.So in hindsight, those saying Chris Johnson would not be a great value (myself included) would have no way of knowing anything about the Titans giving very few carries to LenDale White and we could only go on the plan they used in 2008. It should still count as a miss, but sometimes we (like everyone else) won't have updated information or situational updates until much later on.That's why some things will look very odd from the outside in things like this. If there is a positional battle for a starting spot, some of us might think PLAYER X will win it while some will pick PLAYER Y. Once it's known which guy it is, their ADPs will sort themselves out. But in the meantime, we have to guess, and clearly one guy will be under valued and the other over valued in this scenario.

So, what you're saying is nevermind what's written in these articles because they may contain outdated information? Perhaps it would be worthwhile to re-examine when they are written.

Say what you want about the content or timeliness of articles. But ***ALL*** fantasy websites have the same issue. Most leagues draft well before the season starts, and if we only wrote articles based on more current information, most leagues would have already drafted.We do have a first pass at this and usually an update closer to the start of the season. That's the best we can do.

 

[cobalt_27]

Another thing people need to consider (for better or for worse) is that we are asked to provide feedback on this long before the season starts, some years as early as April or May, before training camp has even started. So we have to predict who things will shape up not knowing which free agents might sign where, which players will get hurt before the season has started, and without benefit of learning more intel before the season approaches.So in hindsight, those saying Chris Johnson would not be a great value (myself included) would have no way of knowing anything about the Titans giving very few carries to LenDale White and we could only go on the plan they used in 2008. It should still count as a miss, but sometimes we (like everyone else) won't have updated information or situational updates until much later on.That's why some things will look very odd from the outside in things like this. If there is a positional battle for a starting spot, some of us might think PLAYER X will win it while some will pick PLAYER Y. Once it's known which guy it is, their ADPs will sort themselves out. But in the meantime, we have to guess, and clearly one guy will be under valued and the other over valued in this scenario.

So, what you're saying is nevermind what's written in these articles because they may contain outdated information? Perhaps it would be worthwhile to re-examine when they are written.

Say what you want about the content or timeliness of articles. But ***ALL*** fantasy websites have the same issue. Most leagues draft well before the season starts, and if we only wrote articles based on more current information, most leagues would have already drafted.We do have a first pass at this and usually an update closer to the start of the season. That's the best we can do.

Define "well before the season starts." I am assuming here that most leagues are not drafting in April or May when you are writing these Value articles. Or even June or July. Most leagues hold their drafts in August, which makes an April/May analyses outdated. You conceded this point, yourself.It's just a suggestion, if you want to separate yourselves from ***ALL*** fantasy websites.

 

[Rovers]

the value article listed garrard's ADP as 160 and the top 300 list has his value at 108. i'm sorry, but i dont know anyone who is any good at FF who would take a replacement level player in the 9th round with the upside of qb 12. after garrard on that list is vincent jackson, santonio holmes, kenny britt, donny avery, wes welker, pierre garcon, dustin keller, roethlisberger, arian foster...really? garrard isnt even a qb you'd start in a qbbc...he's ONLY a guy you would play during a bye week. you'd be better off taking hasselbeck or campbell 7 rounds later and getting some wr depth. the garrard love really is stunning.

There are plenty 2 QB leagues out there where this matters a lot. Being able to get QB15 way late gives you a big advantage

In a start 2 QB league, I think Garrard is an outstanding value based on his ADP, however, what is his ADP in those start 2 leagues? In a start 2 QB, you can live with his lousy weeks because you hopefully have a consistant scoring QB1. I don't even like him as a bye week QB in start 1 leagues. Since the value article is based one a start 1 QB format (at least as I understand it) FBG has again over valued him. In a start 2, altogether different story. But in a start 2 format, no doubt his ADP is MUCH higher than it is in start 1 formats.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

Play in a 2+ QB league or a deeper league than 10 or 12, and then see who is valuing QB14 so poorly...

My two favorite leagues are start 2 QB leagues. In one of them the difference between QB 13 and QB 19 was about 1.7 points per game.

 

[r3t2]

In FBG scoring, Garrard was QB16 in 2007 (in only 12 games), QB11 in 2008, and QB14 last year. His ADP when we penned the article was QB24. I don't see any reason why he would not be considered a strong value play with that low of an ADP. Also, I think running QBs are drastically undervalued in general and this applies to Garrard. A mid QB2 seems more than reasonable to me.

i dont disagree with you, though i would have him ranked about qb 20 myself, but dodds has his value at 108 (9.12), and the article had his ADP at 160 (14.04). i'm not even sure i'd take him at 160 because i could get upside plays like josh morgan, james jones, laurent robinson, ben tate, malcolm kelly, early doucet, tashard choice, etc. garrard has 24 multiple TD games in 8 seasons over 74 games. in contrast, jason campbell has 17 multi TD games out of 52. to me, theyre the same guy. why not wait a few rounds to get campbell and pick up players with top 20 upside at their position? or handcuff your stud rbs who are more likely to get injured. the main question is: would you ever start garrard over rivers, brady, peyton, brees, schaub, rodgers, favre, romo, cutler, or eli this year? and personally i would add mcnabb, ryan, and roethlisberger to that list. i'm just not going to start a guy with five 3 TD games in his career over all of these players who clearly have the resources in place and ability to go off on a given week. what this makes garrard is good insurance in case your qb goes down for the year with an injury, and for that he is very solid. but if comes to that i'll try to trade for him. i'm not taking him in the 9th, or even 14th round while there is still quality depth being taken at the other positions.

 

[greggorymac]

If you say he's overvalued at 7 and he ends up at 7, you were wrong -- that's not a push. Even if he ends up at 10 you were wrong, in any meaningful sense. Unless you're TRYING to predict guys who will perform 2-3 spots worse than their ADP? Isn't the whole pt of the exercise to pick guys who are SIGNIFICANTLY overvalued and undervalued? Nice breakdown, though, and nice job last year. Will definitely read this carefully again this year.

I would go as far to say that if you undervalue Garrard at QB 17 and he finishes at QB 14 that you have failed again. No one is reading this article to figure out if Garrard is going to be a lower end middling QB or a top end middling QB.

It's funny to hear the justifications of some of the writers on this. Looking at the data, the hit rate was slightly less than a coin flip. May as well have Paul the Octopus picking these guys. I apologize for being so tough but members here are paying $$$ for the "experts" insight which is why you're being held to a higher standard. In the 2009 exercise, you failed.

 

[Multiple Scores]

If you look at 2009 the picks are pretty horrible. Pass on CJ2K, Rivers, Brees, etc; The hit rate with high numbers of votes were more than 50% flat wrong either way, flipping a coin would net a better result.

I haven't verified this but would be interested to see (a) some commentary by staffers on this and (b) the results prior to 2009 and whether or not there has been any consistency on this one way or the other (i.e., good or bad).

Just like other things at FBG, some of us do better than others. I have had a pretty decent track record over the years in the Over/Under stuff. I would guess that a hit rate of 60%+ would be quite good. We've had other threads on how to determine what a hit is, there might be some thoughts in there to mull over.Just because some picks are sound logically or statistically doesn't mean the commentary or selection was bad if that pick went the other way. For example, if there had never been a Top 5 QB at 40, betting against Brett Favre might have seen like a smart move.

With all of the different opinions presented I've always tried to just look at the top picks for each group. I've taken a look at the picks that had 4 or more staffers agree in 2009. Here you go:Undervalued QB:Garrad, QB17 (7 votes) - finished QB14. Not a big hit for the number of votesPalmer, QB12 (6 votes) - finished QB18. Missed this one bigOvervalued QB:Cassell, QB14 (4 votes) - finished QB21. Nice JobUndervalued RB:Rice, RB31 (5 votes) - finished RB4. Uh, crushed this oneMoreno, RB25 (4 votes) - finished RB17. Good Call here tovervalued RB:Chris Johnson (4 votes) - those voters might want to run and hide!Undervalued WRriver, WR34 (4 votes) - finished WR18. Nice CallOvervalued WR:Roy Williams, WR16 (4 votes) - finished WR37. Nailed itUndervalued TE:Z. Miller, TE10 (5 votes) - finished TE12. Got it wrong, but didn't really hurt you.That is a 6-3 record for calling them the right way. A few big hits with Rice, Moreno, Cassel, and Driver. Outside of the Chris Johnson prediction the incorrect calls wouldn't have really hurt you too bad in 2009. I just looked at this with 4+ votes. Maybe 3+ would give a different result. Hope this helps the discussion.......Edit to add: It looks like in 2010 there are many more selections with 4+ votes then there were in 2009. Is this a result of more group think by FBG staffers or is there really something to it? I guess we'll know after the season.Or are there just more people voting in 2010 so there are more votes to go around? Maybe they can shed some light here...

Thanks for posting this, I think some of the worst ones were 3 votes so I'll post those from 2009.Undervalued players with 3 votes -Donovan McNabb - PHI ADP: 55 overall, QB 8 3 votesLeon Washington - NYJ ADP: 114 overall, RB 45 3 votesChad Ochocinco - CIN ADP: 46 overall, WR 17 3 votesEddie Royal - DEN ADP: 63 overall, WR 23 3 votesOvervalued players with 3 votes - Philip Rivers - SD ADP: 36 overall, QB 5 3 votesTony Romo - DAL ADP: 45 overall, QB 7 3 votesMatt Ryan - ATL ADP: 65 overall, QB 9 3 votesKurt Warner - ARI ADP: 38 overall, QB 6 3 votesJoseph Addai - IND ADP: 48 overall, RB 22 3 votesReggie Bush - NO ADP: 49 overall, RB 23 3 votesMatt Forte - CHI ADP: 4 overall, RB 4 3 votesSteven Jackson - STL ADP: 5 overall, RB 5 3 votesMichael Crabtree - SF ADP: 130 overall, WR 43 3 votesHopefully somebody will pull up their actual ADP. To me these articles tell you who to draft or pass on within a block of picks, that's how I would use this article. To me Rivers, Romo are the ones that concern me. Rivers was actually overvalued at QB 5, he finished at QB 8, the QB 5 was only 12 fantasy points away though, but I actually consider the Rivers a miss in practical terms. Forte, Jackson, Ryan were big hits.I think this group would likely be at better than a 50% hit rate, saying Rivers was overvalued even though literally correct doesn't work for me. I think with Chris Johnson having been listed as the highest vote getter for overvalued at 8 puts a real stain on the value of the article.

 

[Tau837]

Looking at my picks from 2009...

Red - wrong

Green - right

Injury - out for season



Totals from 2009

Correct: 12

Wrong: 8

Push: 1

Injury: 1

Undervalued QB - Garrard, Palmer, Orton, Ryan

Garrard - 17/14 (Ranked 17 in the preseason, finished 14) On the positive side of accuracy, but not much. 7 staffers got it right

Palmer - 12/18 - Missed on him. 6 staffers missed

Orton - 18/16 - Got it right, but not by much. Two staffers undervalued Orton.

Ryan - 9/19 - Ryan regressed after his impressive rookie season. I was surprised to see his PS ranking was 9th. Only I undervalued Ryan.

Overvalued QB - Cassel, Campbell

Cassel - 14/21 Got that one right. 4 staffers got it right.

Campbell - 23/15 Missed on Campbell. I was the only one who overvalued Campbell

Undervalued RB - Ray Rice, Knowshon Moreno, Leon Washington, Ryan Grant

Rice - 31/4 - Nailed that one. A total of five staffers nailed it

Moreno - 25/17 - Got it right for the most part, but by no stretch was it like Ray Rice. Four staffers got it right

L. Washington - 45/71 - Got injured. Likely would've exceeded RB45, but no way of knowing for sure. 3 votes for Washington

Grant - 17/8 - Got this one right. Wouldn't say nailed it, but still good. I was the only staffer who undervalued Grant

Overvalued RB - Addai, R. Bush, Forte, S. Jackson

Addai 22/9 - Missed on Addai. Three staffers missed on him

R. Bush 23/36 - Bush missed two games to injury, but he underperformed finishing 36th. Got this one right. Three staffers overvalued him

Forte 4/18 - Got this one right. Forte finished in the Top 20, but nowhere near 4th, his PS rank. Three staffers overvalued Forte

S. Jackson - 5/10 Got this right for the most part. He had another Top 15 season (10), but not Top 5. Three staffers overvalued SJ

Undervalued WR - Ochocinco, Royal, Bowe, D. Hixon

Ochocinco - 17/14 - Got it right, but barely. I did not do so well with my WRs in 2009. Three staffers undervalued Ochocinco.

Royal - 23/100 - Missed badly on Royal. Worst pick of the year, arguably. Three staffers undervalued Royal.

Bowe - 12/55 - Missed badly on Bowe too. Not as bad as Royal, but definitely not good. I was the only one to undervalue Bowe

Hixon - 41/111 - The end of his 2008 season was not indicative of 2009. Missed on him too, pretty badly. I was the only one to undervalue him

Overvalued WR - Hester, R. White

Hester 33/45 - Hester didn't do enough to warrant a 33rd ranking, so I got this right. I was the only one to overvalue Hester

R. White 8/7 - Roddy White finished 7th after a PS rank of 8. I thought Tony Gonzalez would take away from him. Wasn't much change in rank

Undervalued TE - Shiancoe

Shiancoe - 13/6 - Got this one right. Brett Favre made all the difference. Shiancoe had 11 TDs. Two staffers undervalued him

Overvalued TE - Winslow

Winslow - 7/7 - Push. Not right, not wrong. Was only one to overvalue Winslow.

Echoing some of the other comments, IMO Winslow is a miss, and I would not characterize guys like Orton, Garrard, and Ochocinco the same as some of your better predictions (e.g., Rice, Moreno, and Grant).IMO what matters in this exercise is getting these two situations right:

1. If a player's ADP suggests that in most leagues he will be drafted to be a starter, and you project that he will not be starter worthy.

2. If a player's ADP suggests that in most leagues he will not be drafted to be a starter, and you project that he will be starter worthy.

That's why the Orton and Garrard projections really didn't matter much. Sure, you were right, but *in most leagues* they were not drafted to be starters and did not end up being starter worthy.

To a lesser degree, it also matters if a guy is projected as a second starter (e.g., RB2) and you project him to be a first starter (e.g., RB1) or vice versa. But IMO getting these right is less important, since there is less upside/downside in such projections. This is why your correct Ochocinco projection didn't matter much.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to pick on you specifically, just using your examples for what (IMO) matters in this exercise.

And by the way, great job on the RBs as a whole.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Echoing some of the other comments, IMO Winslow is a miss, and I would not characterize guys like Orton, Garrard, and Ochocinco the same as some of your better predictions (e.g., Rice, Moreno, and Grant).

IMO what matters in this exercise is getting these two situations right:

1. If a player's ADP suggests that in most leagues he will be drafted to be a starter, and you project that he will not be starter worthy.

2. If a player's ADP suggests that in most leagues he will not be drafted to be a starter, and you project that he will be starter worthy.

That's why the Orton and Garrard projections really didn't matter much. Sure, you were right, but *in most leagues* they were not drafted to be starters and did not end up being starter worthy.

To a lesser degree, it also matters if a guy is projected as a second starter (e.g., RB2) and you project him to be a first starter (e.g., RB1) or vice versa. But IMO getting these right is less important, since there is less upside/downside in such projections. This is why your correct Ochocinco projection didn't matter much.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to pick on you specifically, just using your examples for what (IMO) matters in this exercise.

And by the way, great job on the RBs as a whole.

First, the following are the guidelines we use to select our over and undervalued players. They are in the introduction to the article:

A fantasy draft is all about obtaining the most value with each selection. There is value available throughout a draft, and grabbing it is one of the most important keys to a successful fantasy team. In an attempt to point out this value, we asked our staff to look through the top 150 players and identify players that should outperform their draft position.

The flip side of succeeding with value players is failing with overvalued players. These are players that will not put up stats commensurate to their draft spot, and avoiding them is another of the important keys to a successful fantasy team. In an attempt to point out these players, we asked our staff to look through the top 150 players and identify players that should under perform their draft position.

When we pick our over and undervalued players, we pick based on whether they outperform or under perform based on their draft position. We are not asked to pick players that will be 5 spots better or 10 spots better or 3 spots better. We are not asked to pick players with ADPs as reserves that we think will start or starters that we think will not start. If any of this were true or if our guidelines were something like you mentioned above (in bold), I know for a fact my list would be much different than it is. We were not asked to value players based on what you suggest above, so it's not really fair to judge the picks based on that. Chad Ochocinco had an ADP of WR 17 and finished as WR14. That is not great value, but it is value nonetheless. For example, selecting him over a WR14 that finished as WR20 or 30 or whatever could make or break your year. Obviously, I don't consider Chad to be a major hit from last year, but in my opinion, it is incorrect to say his selection as a value pick doesn't matter. If we were asked to only pick Chad if we thought he would be a WR1, then this would be a bad pick, but we were not asked to do that. We were asked to pick him if we thought he would outperform his ADP. He did. It's not a big hit, but based on the guidelines, it is still a hit, albeit mild.

Basically, we follow the guidelines given to us and that is what should determine a good or a bad pick. If we used different guidelines, all of our picks would be different.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Self-analysis is a very good way to get better, no question.

The question I have though is how to really analyze the results. Yudkin and I went back and forth on this in the thread he pointed out earlier as to several ways to look at it. For example:

1. Rivers was ADP of QB5 at the time last year when I said he was overrated and he finished as QB9. I'd say that was a "hit" even though the scores were close. "Multiple Scores" calls this a "miss" because "even though he was QB8" (actually I see him as QB9 from here) - that really shouldn't matter. The point is you could have grabbed a QB later that would have scored comparable to Rivers - which makes Rivers a reach and overrated by that definition.

2. I technically missed on Pierre Thomas (said he was underrated at RB16, finished RB20). That's a RB2 in either event - so is that a big miss, since he was a RB2 either way?

3. I crushed some (such as Eddie Royal, ADP of 23 and finished as WR100) - but missed on others. Do I get more credit for nailing Royal because he was such a big overrating or are all hits and misses equal?

That's the problem I have with looking at the results in a vacuum. I got 11 right and 11 wrong near as I can tell, some better than others, some worse. My own viewpoint is that the best way to evaluate the results is to throw them all into a value chart based on their ADPs (which I'm struggling to find) and see the values of the hits or misses.

 

[David Yudkin]

I guess the other issue is what defines a hit or a miss and what % hit rate should be considered "good." In the thread I referenced from last year above, I personally had a 75% hit rate (see the thread for clarification) over the five years since FBG has been doing the over/unders. But some folks wanted to take away credit for players that got hurt or had significant changes in ADP as the season approached.

I don't have an answer for those. I said Tom Brady was not worth his first round ADP after throwing 50 TD passes. He got hurt and barely played. Should that be thrown out? I also suggested taking guys like Derrick Mason after he had retired and Kurt Warner when he wasn't even the ARI starter. Of course, those situations also changed. Last year, I was the only staffer with Favre as a value pick. Should those not count as well?

There are also cases where taking someone higher on the food chain becomes a much better suggestion than someone in a much lower tier. For example, last year I had Gore as a value pick. His ADP was RB9, his actual ranking ended up as RB5. The difference there could be 15-20 spots among the middle receivers scoring wise.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

Wow, that's a long read but well worth it. It makes it a little difficult since most of the analysts are split down the middle on undervalued and over valued players. I mainly tried to just read the thinking behind their choice rather than focus on the split. Certainly a good idea to get a lot of opinions.

 

[Tyrion]

I enjoy Footballguys and never feel like I am wasting my money.

These guys give a quality product that is both well reasoned and entertaining. Their tools, articles and forum are exceptional.

I don't expect them to be able to see the future. They give good arguments and justification for their rankings and it gives me multiple opinions to compare with my own.

Thanks for the hard work guys. It is greatly appreciated.

 

[Tau837]

Echoing some of the other comments, IMO Winslow is a miss, and I would not characterize guys like Orton, Garrard, and Ochocinco the same as some of your better predictions (e.g., Rice, Moreno, and Grant).

IMO what matters in this exercise is getting these two situations right:

1. If a player's ADP suggests that in most leagues he will be drafted to be a starter, and you project that he will not be starter worthy.

2. If a player's ADP suggests that in most leagues he will not be drafted to be a starter, and you project that he will be starter worthy.

That's why the Orton and Garrard projections really didn't matter much. Sure, you were right, but *in most leagues* they were not drafted to be starters and did not end up being starter worthy.

To a lesser degree, it also matters if a guy is projected as a second starter (e.g., RB2) and you project him to be a first starter (e.g., RB1) or vice versa. But IMO getting these right is less important, since there is less upside/downside in such projections. This is why your correct Ochocinco projection didn't matter much.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to pick on you specifically, just using your examples for what (IMO) matters in this exercise.

And by the way, great job on the RBs as a whole.

First, the following are the guidelines we use to select our over and undervalued players. They are in the introduction to the article:

A fantasy draft is all about obtaining the most value with each selection. There is value available throughout a draft, and grabbing it is one of the most important keys to a successful fantasy team. In an attempt to point out this value, we asked our staff to look through the top 150 players and identify players that should outperform their draft position.

The flip side of succeeding with value players is failing with overvalued players. These are players that will not put up stats commensurate to their draft spot, and avoiding them is another of the important keys to a successful fantasy team. In an attempt to point out these players, we asked our staff to look through the top 150 players and identify players that should under perform their draft position.

When we pick our over and undervalued players, we pick based on whether they outperform or under perform based on their draft position. We are not asked to pick players that will be 5 spots better or 10 spots better or 3 spots better. We are not asked to pick players with ADPs as reserves that we think will start or starters that we think will not start. If any of this were true or if our guidelines were something like you mentioned above (in bold), I know for a fact my list would be much different than it is. We were not asked to value players based on what you suggest above, so it's not really fair to judge the picks based on that. Chad Ochocinco had an ADP of WR 17 and finished as WR14. That is not great value, but it is value nonetheless. For example, selecting him over a WR14 that finished as WR20 or 30 or whatever could make or break your year. Obviously, I don't consider Chad to be a major hit from last year, but in my opinion, it is incorrect to say his selection as a value pick doesn't matter. If we were asked to only pick Chad if we thought he would be a WR1, then this would be a bad pick, but we were not asked to do that. We were asked to pick him if we thought he would outperform his ADP. He did. It's not a big hit, but based on the guidelines, it is still a hit, albeit mild.

Basically, we follow the guidelines given to us and that is what should determine a good or a bad pick. If we used different guidelines, all of our picks would be different.

<_< I guess I think the criteria FBG asks its staffers to use could be improved. At the very least, it would be useful IMO to split players into two categories. Those that a staffer projects to outperform/underperform his draft position by a considerable amount, like 10 spots in position rankings or something similar, and those projected to outperform/underperform draft position by any amount.

 

[Tau837]

Self-analysis is a very good way to get better, no question.

The question I have though is how to really analyze the results. Yudkin and I went back and forth on this in the thread he pointed out earlier as to several ways to look at it. For example:

1. Rivers was ADP of QB5 at the time last year when I said he was overrated and he finished as QB9. I'd say that was a "hit" even though the scores were close. "Multiple Scores" calls this a "miss" because "even though he was QB8" (actually I see him as QB9 from here) - that really shouldn't matter. The point is you could have grabbed a QB later that would have scored comparable to Rivers - which makes Rivers a reach and overrated by that definition.

Again, there is an element to how one chooses to measure success here. However, consider that after week 16, Rivers was QB6, 3.2 points behind QB5 (Brady) and 5.2 points behind QB4 (Schaub). Rivers only played one quarter in week 17, and Romo, Roethlisberger, and Favre all passed him when they played full games. Furthermore, I suspect that majority of fantasy leagues do not play in week 17, anyway.So, while you were technically correct that he was overrated at QB5, IMO it is more appropriate to look at week 16 when judging that, and for all practical purposes, he was virtually QB4 at that time.

 

[PhantomJB]

I enjoy Footballguys and never feel like I am wasting my money.These guys give a quality product that is both well reasoned and entertaining. Their tools, articles and forum are exceptional. I don't expect them to be able to see the future. They give good arguments and justification for their rankings and it gives me multiple opinions to compare with my own. Thanks for the hard work guys. It is greatly appreciated.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Self-analysis is a very good way to get better, no question.

The question I have though is how to really analyze the results. Yudkin and I went back and forth on this in the thread he pointed out earlier as to several ways to look at it. For example:

1. Rivers was ADP of QB5 at the time last year when I said he was overrated and he finished as QB9. I'd say that was a "hit" even though the scores were close. "Multiple Scores" calls this a "miss" because "even though he was QB8" (actually I see him as QB9 from here) - that really shouldn't matter. The point is you could have grabbed a QB later that would have scored comparable to Rivers - which makes Rivers a reach and overrated by that definition.

Again, there is an element to how one chooses to measure success here. However, consider that after week 16, Rivers was QB6, 3.2 points behind QB5 (Brady) and 5.2 points behind QB4 (Schaub). Rivers only played one quarter in week 17, and Romo, Roethlisberger, and Favre all passed him when they played full games. Furthermore, I suspect that majority of fantasy leagues do not play in week 17, anyway.So, while you were technically correct that he was overrated at QB5, IMO it is more appropriate to look at week 16 when judging that, and for all practical purposes, he was virtually QB4 at that time.

I see validity to your argument, but that level of variability makes it nearly impossible to grade the results then.

Based on this, you could say Rivers is a "hit", "miss" or "push".

So then what? Do you give up ones that are close?

While it's clear I nailed Driver and Forte for example, what about my "miss" of Dallas Clark being overrated at TE4 but finishing TE2. Is that an egregious error?

Big Ben at QB13 underrated.... hit or miss?

Just saying it is very tough to grade except the extreme results.

 

[Tau837]

Self-analysis is a very good way to get better, no question.

The question I have though is how to really analyze the results. Yudkin and I went back and forth on this in the thread he pointed out earlier as to several ways to look at it. For example:

1. Rivers was ADP of QB5 at the time last year when I said he was overrated and he finished as QB9. I'd say that was a "hit" even though the scores were close. "Multiple Scores" calls this a "miss" because "even though he was QB8" (actually I see him as QB9 from here) - that really shouldn't matter. The point is you could have grabbed a QB later that would have scored comparable to Rivers - which makes Rivers a reach and overrated by that definition.

Again, there is an element to how one chooses to measure success here. However, consider that after week 16, Rivers was QB6, 3.2 points behind QB5 (Brady) and 5.2 points behind QB4 (Schaub). Rivers only played one quarter in week 17, and Romo, Roethlisberger, and Favre all passed him when they played full games. Furthermore, I suspect that majority of fantasy leagues do not play in week 17, anyway.So, while you were technically correct that he was overrated at QB5, IMO it is more appropriate to look at week 16 when judging that, and for all practical purposes, he was virtually QB4 at that time.

I see validity to your argument, but that level of variability makes it nearly impossible to grade the results then.

Based on this, you could say Rivers is a "hit", "miss" or "push".

So then what? Do you give up ones that are close?

While it's clear I nailed Driver and Forte for example, what about my "miss" of Dallas Clark being overrated at TE4 but finishing TE2. Is that an egregious error?

Big Ben at QB13 underrated.... hit or miss?

Just saying it is very tough to grade except the extreme results.

I agree. That's why I posted earlier that IMO the most valuable undervalued/overvalued projections are those that identify big movers.

 

[Shadows]

And this is one of the reasons why i fork out my coin to FBG

Good Discussion by the way

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Oh, so you mean like this:

Chris Johnson - TEN ADP: 9 overall, RB 8 4 votes

Aaron Rudnicki - While Chris Johnson is undoubtedly one of the most exciting players in the league, this average draft slot will be tough for him to live up to. He's one of the smallest feature backs in the league, making him more susceptible to injury and unlikely to hold up over a heavy workload. Johnson also has to split carries with a power back in LenDale White who is likely to steal a lot of TDs from inside the 5 yard line.

I missed bigtime on Chris Johnson last year. Never would have expected him to be the workhorse he was.