Question about the Rankings/Match-ups (1 Viewer)

[Gargoylez]

I was reading how Michael Vick has a tough matchup this week. According to the E-mail I got from FBG.com.

Then I looked at the cheat sheets... and he is ranked 3rd among QB's? I am sure his running ability is factored but....

Just curious how he can have such a tough matchup... yet be ranked 3rd? I mean the rushing DOES mean something but to go from a TOUGH matchup to 3rd is a little off kilter don't you think?



Im starting newly acquired Palmer anyways, because the Falcons pass defense is HORRIFIC. I was just curious...

 

[Big Score]

First thing it says in the Passing/Rushing Matchups;

PLEASE NOTE: This does NOT replace the Cheatsheet ranking. The Cheatsheet rankings are the final say on where we see a player for that week. The Matchup Breakdowns are simply one more tool in the box when it comes to helping choose your lineup.

 

[KiddLattimer]

Cincinatti cant stop the run. Vick can run. He may throw for a TD or two. Sounds like a good matchup to me.

 

[Gargoylez]

First thing it says in the Passing/Rushing Matchups;

PLEASE NOTE: This does NOT replace the Cheatsheet ranking. The Cheatsheet rankings are the final say on where we see a player for that week. The Matchup Breakdowns are simply one more tool in the box when it comes to helping choose your lineup.

I was waiting for that and I was not saying THEY ARE SCREWING ME or anything... I just found it odd that they think this is a tough matchup... yet rank him 3rd.

An observation and something we could discuss... which is it? Tough matchup or GOOD matchup???

 

[Big Score]

First thing it says in the Passing/Rushing Matchups;

PLEASE NOTE: This does NOT replace the Cheatsheet ranking. The Cheatsheet rankings are the final say on where we see a player for that week. The Matchup Breakdowns are simply one more tool in the box when it comes to helping choose your lineup.

I was waiting for that and I was not saying THEY ARE SCREWING ME or anything... I just found it odd that they think this is a tough matchup... yet rank him 3rd.

An observation and something we could discuss... which is it? Tough matchup or GOOD matchup???

No need for the Gargoylez.I wasn't insinuating that you were thinking you were being screwed.

Just didn't know if you'd seen that or not.

Obviously they think it IS a tough matchup, but still expect Vick to still shine.

 

[glumpy]

First thing it says in the Passing/Rushing Matchups;

PLEASE NOTE: This does NOT replace the Cheatsheet ranking. The Cheatsheet rankings are the final say on where we see a player for that week. The Matchup Breakdowns are simply one more tool in the box when it comes to helping choose your lineup.

I was waiting for that and I was not saying THEY ARE SCREWING ME or anything... I just found it odd that they think this is a tough matchup... yet rank him 3rd.

An observation and something we could discuss... which is it? Tough matchup or GOOD matchup???

I think you need to look at the whole picture, and don't necessarily think this is contradictory. The most obvious example of this type of conflict of course is Peyton Manning--he might be going against Chicago, but with his receiving corps and game planning will still be ranked within the top few plays for the week. With MVick you don't have quite as much a "must start" attitude but know that he is an athletic quarterback with a potential to score against anybody.In my (only!) league this year it breaks down defenses as well, and has Cincinnatti so far as the 11th best against QB's and the 4th best against WR's. That leads to the obvious conclusion that the passing matchup for Atlanta sucks--particularly playing at Cincinnatti. Look then at the rushing matchup, and Cincinnatti is the 5th worst at stopping the running game. That would suggest that the #1 running team in the NFL just might, possibly, have a field day against them even at their home field.

From there the decision is all yours. Think Vick might run once in awhile? Play him. Think he's turned into a pocket passer? Then bench him.

 

[Gargoylez]

First thing it says in the Passing/Rushing Matchups;

PLEASE NOTE: This does NOT replace the Cheatsheet ranking. The Cheatsheet rankings are the final say on where we see a player for that week. The Matchup Breakdowns are simply one more tool in the box when it comes to helping choose your lineup.

I was waiting for that and I was not saying THEY ARE SCREWING ME or anything... I just found it odd that they think this is a tough matchup... yet rank him 3rd.

An observation and something we could discuss... which is it? Tough matchup or GOOD matchup???

I think you need to look at the whole picture, and don't necessarily think this is contradictory. The most obvious example of this type of conflict of course is Peyton Manning--he might be going against Chicago, but with his receiving corps and game planning will still be ranked within the top few plays for the week. With MVick you don't have quite as much a "must start" attitude but know that he is an athletic quarterback with a potential to score against anybody.In my (only!) league this year it breaks down defenses as well, and has Cincinnatti so far as the 11th best against QB's and the 4th best against WR's. That leads to the obvious conclusion that the passing matchup for Atlanta sucks--particularly playing at Cincinnatti. Look then at the rushing matchup, and Cincinnatti is the 5th worst at stopping the running game. That would suggest that the #1 running team in the NFL just might, possibly, have a field day against them even at their home field.

From there the decision is all yours. Think Vick might run once in awhile? Play him. Think he's turned into a pocket passer? Then bench him.

I can buy that... but what threw me was the highest ranking of the year. I was like hmmmmm If Dunn and Norwood are running all over, he might be limited in his drop backs, thus limiting his opportunity to run. I just thought this would be a good discussion away from VICK SUCKS/VICK IS GOD threads we have been seeing... LOL!

 

[Nemesis Enforcer]

Someone can have a tough matchup and still produce, that is the definition of a stud. Conversely a guy can have an easy matchup and because of game situations never put a good game statistically together. Look at any of the Jags last week vs Houston, all week Taylor, Leftwich, Williams were touted as great plays, Houston jumped out to an early lead, Leftwich was clearly not 100% and it impacted all involved. By the 3rd quarter they had abandoned the run in an attempt to catch up. Williams ended without a catch, Taylor had 84 yards and Leftwich didn't do much.

Studs perform well regardless of the opponent, last week's matchup for Vick was a tough one and he was rated pretty low in the cheatsheet but he stepped up and threw 4 tds for the first time in his career.

I read the matchups for some additional info to make a decision if I have two guys at a position rated pretty close to each other but I don't use it for formulate my decision by itself. The cheatsheets are based off of projections which aren't an exact science but a better indication imo of what a player may do based off of all the factors put together (player's history vs team, home/road splits, injuries to oline/other players, matchup vs other team etc.)

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Skip the information on the matchup designation (great, good, neutral, etc.) and just read the data. Actually, just cull the statistics. I have a hard time reading the report as its written. Too much "coughed up", "rang up", "piled up" and other writing to make it pleasurable to read. I think FBG should hire an editor to reach the next level.

All IMO.

 

[Third]

It seems that the Passing Matchups and Rushing Matchups could completely ignore the offensive team's side of the equation and give the same information.

Essentially, it seems that all we're really doing with these evaluations is commenting on how the DEF matches up against the run or pass in general...not how it matches up with that particular offense during the given week. Look at the Rushing Matchups rankings this week...you can start at the bottom (with the bad matchups) and basically work your way up from the NFL's best rush DEF to the worst rush DEF. Bears, Ravens, Vikings, Chargers are Bad...49ers, Titans, and Bucs are Great. Duh.

It doesn't seem that much consideration is given as to what offense that DEF is actually facing. One poster mentioned that Peyton Manning against the Bears would be a Tough Matchup even though he might still be QB2 during the week. Well, if that's the case...is the Bears DEF against the Colts passing game really a tough matchup? No. If you balance the two units, you would say advantage Colts (if we're assuming Peyton would be ranked as one of the top QBs that week regardless).

In the same regard, look at the Browns v. Jets analysis. Jets are horrible against the run, Cleveland is a horrible rushing team. This is a good matchup for Cleveland according to the analysis. This is true, but the fact that the Jets face the Browns has no impact on the analysis. If the Jets are a good matchup against the Browns, then the Jets are a good matchup against any team in the NFL.

All the rankings are really saying is "relative to other passing DEFs that the Colts could face, the Bears present a tough matchup" and "relative to other rushing DEFs in the NFL, the Jets are a good matchup." Since this is the case, then I go back to my original proposition that you can just eliminate the offensive part of the equation and give a simple ranking of defenses against the run and defenses against the pass. It does not seem that the "matchup analysis" really brings anything to the table.

Not a rant against the "Matchups"...I just don't view them as any more valuable than a simple ranking of defensive units.

 

[Gargoylez]

It seems that the Passing Matchups and Rushing Matchups could completely ignore the offensive team's side of the equation and give the same information. Essentially, it seems that all we're really doing with these evaluations is commenting on how the DEF matches up against the run or pass in general...not how it matches up with that particular offense during the given week. Look at the Rushing Matchups rankings this week...you can start at the bottom (with the bad matchups) and basically work your way up from the NFL's best rush DEF to the worst rush DEF. Bears, Ravens, Vikings, Chargers are Bad...49ers, Titans, and Bucs are Great. Duh.It doesn't seem that much consideration is given as to what offense that DEF is actually facing. One poster mentioned that Peyton Manning against the Bears would be a Tough Matchup even though he might still be QB2 during the week. Well, if that's the case...is the Bears DEF against the Colts passing game really a tough matchup? No. If you balance the two units, you would say advantage Colts (if we're assuming Peyton would be ranked as one of the top QBs that week regardless). In the same regard, look at the Browns v. Jets analysis. Jets are horrible against the run, Cleveland is a horrible rushing team. This is a good matchup for Cleveland according to the analysis. This is true, but the fact that the Jets face the Browns has no impact on the analysis. If the Jets are a good matchup against the Browns, then the Jets are a good matchup against any team in the NFL. All the rankings are really saying is "relative to other passing DEFs that the Colts could face, the Bears present a tough matchup" and "relative to other rushing DEFs in the NFL, the Jets are a good matchup." Since this is the case, then I go back to my original proposition that you can just eliminate the offensive part of the equation and give a simple ranking of defenses against the run and defenses against the pass. It does not seem that the "matchup analysis" really brings anything to the table. Not a rant against the "Matchups"...I just don't view them as any more valuable than a simple ranking of defensive units.

Yeah... what he said. Good post!