Questioning Footballguys ranking of NYG having only 'great" (1 Viewer)

[Judge Smails]

As I was reading Joe/Mark's matchup analysis yesterday before the game it seemed entirely based on Dallas' weak secondary from LAST year, and not factoring in the massive upgrade they made at 2 critical CB positions. The simple fact that they had a new $50M corner and the highest ranked corner in the draft on the other side would seem to disqualify this as the only "great" passing matchup on the NFL slate this week.

So are the week 1 matchup analysis based entirely on last year (seems lazy to me), or are off season moves, injuries, preseason, etc factored in?

 

[Novice2]

Totally lazy. I'd ask for a refund. Good luck getting a reply.

 

[whatadai]

Totally lazy. I'd ask for a refund. Good luck getting a reply.

This.

 

[duaneok66]

You can't go wrong a better option: FootballOutsiders Almanac 2012 - it's all the info you need. Money well spent.

 

[pwtrash]

As I was reading Joe/Mark's matchup analysis yesterday before the game it seemed entirely based on Dallas' weak secondary from LAST year, and not factoring in the massive upgrade they made at 2 critical CB positions. The simple fact that they had a new $50M corner and the highest ranked corner in the draft on the other side would seem to disqualify this as the only "great" passing matchup on the NFL slate this week.So are the week 1 matchu analysis based entirely on last year (seems lazy to me), or are off season moves, injuries, preseason, etc factored in?

I too thought that was really odd. I like FBG, but this struck me as a little silly. The #1 priority for the Cowboys this offseason was specifically to stop the Giants passing attack. Not mentioning that seemed like a really obvious oversight.I have found that they do a pretty good job of analysis when they have actual data, so I'm just attributing it to a weakness in their approach that is much bigger in week 1 than any other week - relying heavily on past performance.

 

[Black]

All early season matchups have to be based on last year's data. That's all anyone has.

 

[ImTheScientist]

PRO TIP: They know as much as you. Fantasy football is just that....Fantasy. Its all guess work and if you need to see them write its an "average" matchup or "poor" matchup to feel its poor you are not doing it right. Form your own opinions and don't rely on websites.

 

[Judge Smails]

All early season matchups have to be based on last year's data. That's all anyone has.

Complete BS. Denver's passing attack was horrible last year with Tebow, so Denver's got to be a great matchup vs. defenses now, right? Cutler, with Johnny Knox and Hester to throw to should be downgraded. I mean he's got horrible receivers to work with, right? Guys, this isn't a whining thread or asking for my money back. I'm an FBG'r for life. Just want to know how week 1 rankings are done so I can further consider/not consider them going forward.

 

[greggorymac]

All early season matchups have to be based on last year's data. That's all anyone has.

Complete BS. Denver's passing attack was horrible last year with Tebow, so Denver's got to be a great matchup vs. defenses now, right? Cutler, with Johnny Knox and Hester to throw to should be downgraded. I mean he's got horrible receivers to work with, right? Guys, this isn't a whining thread or asking for my money back. I'm an FBG'r for life. Just want to know how week 1 rankings are done so I can further consider/not consider them going forward.

It sure sounds like a whining thread.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

The Dallas secondary did look pretty good, but it's not fair to say anyone knew that would be the case with so many new faces there. And even though the tight coverage they provided looked like a great improvement from last year as the OP says, Cruz's several drops and the no-PI call in the end zone definitely helped their cause. Yea yea, that's why they play the game. I'm just saying, with how bad the NYG passing game was compared to what I would consider their norm, it's too early for this.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

All early season matchups have to be based on last year's data. That's all anyone has.

We also know who a team added in free agency and the draft.By this logic, you are basically also saying that a fantasy website would have no business projecting any numbers for rookies since they wouldn't have any data to base it on or that they would have to project Eric Decker's receptions based on Tim Tebow throwing to him because....

 

[stbugs]

All early season matchups have to be based on last year's data. That's all anyone has.

Complete BS. Denver's passing attack was horrible last year with Tebow, so Denver's got to be a great matchup vs. defenses now, right? Cutler, with Johnny Knox and Hester to throw to should be downgraded. I mean he's got horrible receivers to work with, right? Guys, this isn't a whining thread or asking for my money back. I'm an FBG'r for life. Just want to know how week 1 rankings are done so I can further consider/not consider them going forward.

A few thoughts. First, Dallas was bad against the pass last year. They made upgrades, one of whom was a rookie. Hard to know that it would all "work" the first week. Second, how did the Giants play? Cruz dropped 3 passes he shouldn't have. Not sure what all the distances were, but one had no defenders around him with room to run, so honestly, he could have gone 9-100. Hixon was 3-55 and Eli overthrew him on what could have been a long TD. Bennett was 4-40 1TD, not bad for him. Then we have Nicks, who was 4-38 and to me, looked gimpy. Based on previous Questionable injuries for Nicks where he went off, I could see FBGs thinking he might still do well. Joe even mentioned it in his emails.So, take into account the drops/bad throw and Nicks really looking affected by the foot and you might think Eli could have gotten to 300-2TD. It was a bad call in hindsight, but if Nicks really is back (we all knew he would play), it isn't that much of a stretch to see Eli having a great matchup. I don't recall Dallas' D having any impact on Cruz's drops or Eli overthrowing Hixon or Nicks' foot, so I think the Giants played badly and maybe made Dallas look more improved than they are.We'll see as the season goes along and I am not making excuses, but I am pretty sure that FBGs took the changes into account. Its just that with a rookie and FA at CB, it is hard to assume that it will improve. Take the Eagles and Asomugha, wasn't he supposed to turn them into a lockdown passing defense? Well the Eagles passing game went up a bit in Y/A in 2011 and they only allowed 4 yards less per game, but one attempt less per game. In essence the 2011 Eagles pass defense = 2010 Eagles pass defense even though they added arguably one of the best corners in the NFL. Sometimes rookies/FAs have an impact good or bad and sometimes they don't.

 

[stbugs]

All early season matchups have to be based on last year's data. That's all anyone has.

We also know who a team added in free agency and the draft.By this logic, you are basically also saying that a fantasy website would have no business projecting any numbers for rookies since they wouldn't have any data to base it on or that they would have to project Eric Decker's receptions based on Tim Tebow throwing to him because....

I don't think Black is saying to ignore going from Tebow to Manning. That is a quantifiable difference. We know Tebow isn't a great passer. What we don't know is how the new pieces will gel and when you are talking Tebow to Manning when it comes to Decker, that is one player. On defense there are 11 so, 1 guy may play well and still not have a huge impact like Manning will for Decker. Look at my example above, Philly added the #1 defensive FA last year and their passing D was unchanged in 2011 from 2010.

 

[Dragon1952]

I don't see any reason why they can't mention offseason/rookie adds and their potential impact. It does seem rather risky to totally base an assumption on the performance from last year. But then again, if we know what we are doing we can add that part to the equation. For those that totally rely on the information provided here though and don't do their own research I can kind of see their point.

 

[Wrigley]

ointstoshirt:

 

[jackdubl]

ointstoshirt:

There you go.