Randy Moss and Random Shots (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

I also agree with Chet here and this take NOTHING away from the great work the staff does here. But to be honest, when I read that blurb from JB, I also raised an eyebrow. I have been a subscriber fr multiple years and I usually do use FBG as a measuring stick compared to what I am thinking. I just think his point was that he wishes he was informed of JB's masterful hunch, instead of using DD and drafting him based on what he thought the head hancho's had him ranked at(WR30)

I also don't see anywhere where said "hancho" has stated he'd play well. I have seen him post that "he'll be fine" which I interpreted as not being a trouble maker, but I don't see any actual projections saying he'll do well on the field.

Here's part of the problem. To the best of my knowledge, Joe B doesn't do projections (at least not for public consumption). I know there are rankings credited to David and Joe, but I can't tell you how involved he is in the ranking process. So I doubt that there is anywhere at FBG where Joe B would have given his projection for Moss this season. if you wanted Joe's opinion, it would mostly likely come from his daily e-mails.I suppose we can debate if that's good or bad, misleading or not, and whether this is a poor business practice, but that's how it is.And anyone that is unhappy with what they are paying for certainly has the right to go to the top and contact Joe directly. IIRC, if things are so dire people can even get a refund if they are not satisfied.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

 

[Fear The Turtle]

What was Joe's preseason ranking of Moss? What projections are used in the DD? Is it just Joe's or is it a combination of people?I understand what you're saying, Chet. To claim you were high on someone and then not have it reflect in the DD where really, that's the bottom line as far as Footballguys is concerned if you're not putting in your own projections.I respect everyone on the staff. We've all made good picks and poor ones. The other thing to look at Chet is the date you may have downloaded or used it. It can change quite a bit each week, so that could be a possibility. Having Moss as WR 30 seems kind of low.

This may have been mentioned in this thread and I missed it but I'll mention it just in case: I have a copy of the 8/29 redraft rankings in front of me and David and Joe had listed Moss as their WR #13.

 

[David Yudkin]

All we get is opinion about the guy rather than specific information about their progress.

IIRC, the latest and greatest information available on any injured player was cited in the daily emails and on the Blogger. I don't see how we could provide anything but opinion when no other information was available. IMO, asking us to predict a player's recovery time and health 4 months in advance is asking too much.Would people rather we started unconfirmed rumors instead? For example, if we said we've heard rumors that Randy Moss was limping and that people inside the locker room were starting to wonder if he'll play or even make the team, would that have helped anyone?

 

[yesitsme]

I pay for FBG to do the work--I don't have the time or the inclination to do my own projections.

So let me get this straight. You pay 25 bucks or whatever to subscribe here. You draft according to this sites cheatsheets, insert your lineups according to their projections and do absolutley nothing on your own? I don't even understand how that is any fun at all. Maybe it's time to get a new hobby, I'm sure your leaguemates are tired of having a stiff around. I guess they could look at FBGs ranking and figure out if you'd be willing to make a trade. This must be a very boring hobby for you, maybe you should take up trace art?

It's nice that your life is dominated by FF. Congrats! I guess you're a little young to hang out with the Star Wars or Star Trek dorks.My life is not consumed by FFand that's why I pay $25 for FBG. Maybe you need to look at your priorities and figure out why/how you can devote so much time to a game. Do you still live with your parents? I'd say I hope your comment is schtick, but sadly, I thought that with another dork above, and was told IT"S NOT SCHTICK!!!!!

The problem I'm starting to have here Chet and I agree with your overall point is you are continually insulting people in here. You're calling people dorks and telling people to get a life.Take a look at Bagger's comments...he's on the same side of the fence as you are in fact. Just because people don't agree with your side of the story, doesn't mean you have to resort to calling people names.You mention earlier, Wow, this place has changed. Not really, that kind of behavior still doesn't belong here. I'm all for you bringing up a very interesting topic. Just stick to the facts and fight against typing in what would be a rude comment to another board member.

 

[chet]

Apparently you not only don't have the time to do your own projections, but you also don't have the time to read any of the directions or understand how the FBG apps work.

It's pretty clear that the default projections in the DD are just those of Dodds.

If you want projections of others besides Dodds, you need to open up the Projections Dominator and set it up to weigh other staff members' projections. You then import those into the DD.

Somebody at FBG can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Joe even submits his individual projections. It's Dodds's job to do the "official" default projections.

But it's definitely been clear that Joe has been high on Moss ever since he got traded to NE. All you had to do was read his emails that he's been sending out all summer to know that. But he's probably been in the minority of FBG staff guys.

XFrom the DL page:

Draft Dominator - Quick Start Guide

The Draft Dominator starts with a default league called MyLeague. To customize it to your league, click File->Setup and enter your league variables, team names, schedule, scoring system, pick order and tweak the projections if desired.

For the Team Names and Pick Order, make sure you enter the Team Names in the order that the teams draft in the first round. This is necessary for the the standard pick orders to work correctly.

For the Schedule, if you do not know your fantasy schedule yet, either enter a temporary one, so that you get a feel for how the GameByGame works, or enter "Avg. Points" for each week.

After setting up your league, be sure to save it. Click File Save As... and give it a new name that corresponds to your league.

Click Print->Cheat Sheets to print the Individual Position Cheatsheets and the Top 200.

Click Move Player on the Draft Status screen to move players to the team on the clock. The Highlight Bar will default to the "Recommended" player based on team needs and VBD. You can also see the recommend player on the Best Value window.

Click File->My Team Mock to run an automated Mock Draft. It will pause to let you select your player each round. To start the Mock Draft over again, click File->Start Draft.

Click File->Save to save your league. You can open the league at a later time with File->Open. Saving a league will save all of the Setup information, along with the Player Pool, Keeper List, Draft Summary, Team Stats, and Team Information. This way you can pause a draft and come back later and pick up where you left off. It also gives you the ability to configure everything before your draft and to use the Draft Dominator for multiple leagues

I'm not sure what the red X is for. Everything GroveDiesel said is correct, and nothing you quoted from the DL page contradicts any of it (that I can see).

ORLY

Not that it matters, but I don't think it's clear that Joe has no input in the projections--he sends out the daily email, he is the most prominent person etc.

I would just expect that when I use the default version of the flagship product, I get the best thinking from the face of the organization. And after week 1 (when it's clear that said default version rated someone the wrong way initially) to have the owner come out and say that I was positive on him all along, rubs me the wrong way.

I don't really care that someone makes a projection mistake (although if large mistakes happen often, there's no use in using the product).

Constructive criticism is the name of this game.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I'm not sure what the red X is for. Everything GroveDiesel said is correct, and nothing you quoted from the DL page contradicts any of it (that I can see).

He may just find red X's aesthetically pleasing.

Joe said all summer long that they weren't!

 

[j3r3m3y]

It's nice that your life is dominated by FF. Congrats! I guess you're a little young to hang out with the Star Wars or Star Trek dorks.My life is not consumed by FF

Oh really?10358 posts (6 per day)

 

[switz]

Constructive criticism is the name of this game.

Nothing you've said has been constructive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think it's a big deal, but on FBGs the projections are a signature product. I don't think Chet is bashing Joe, David or anyone else for having Moss ranked at #30. There were good reasons for that. He's pointing out that it's weird to see them backslap themselves about being right about Moss when their signature product (at least thus far) wasn't actually, you know, right.

The more precise way of stating the bolded sentence would be: He's pointing out that it's weird to see Joe backlsap himself about being right about Moss when David's projections for Moss were not right.If people think Joe shouldn't congratulate himself for getting something right unless David also got it right, perhaps that's a point worth making. I'm not sure whether that's Chet's point or not.

 

[chet]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

So why is the other owner bragging about how he was so positive when none of the flagship products reflect that opinion?

 

[David Yudkin]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

So why is the other owner bragging about how he was so positive when none of the flagship products reflect that opinion?

I toot my own horn when I get things right regardless of what the flagship product had to say. But I'm not the owner, so maybe that's where the difference lies.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not that it matters, but I don't think it's clear that Joe has no input in the projections--he sends out the daily email, he is the most prominent person etc. I would just expect that when I use the default version of the flagship product, I get the best thinking from the face of the organization.

The default offensive projections on the site are clearly labeled as being from Dodds -- just like the defensive projections are from Norton, the SOS stuff is from Clayton, the depth charts are from Henry, and so on. Joe doesn't have a hand in any of that stuff. (The expert rankings do have a column labeled "Joe and David," which may be misleading. They are really just from David.)

 

[Joe T]

I gave up on fantasy football. Now I let other people draft for me and I just talk ####.

I kind of did that for years. Fantasy football kind of IS a boring hobby. Particularly since everyone has started getting "expert" advice. So this year, I arrived at the draft completely unprepared (I did pay the subscription and download the apps, but I didn't use them other than to keep track of who got picked). I got drunk and drafted from my gut. I had a much better time. My team might suck, but at least I wasn't doing the same thing everyone else was.

You should try quitting after the second round. I hear that really throws a wrench into things.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

So why is the other owner bragging about how he was so positive when none of the flagship products reflect that opinion?

Same reason I might toot my own horn about Ronald Curry even though Dodds' projections didn't reflect my opinion.

 

[chet]

I don't think it's a big deal, but on FBGs the projections are a signature product. I don't think Chet is bashing Joe, David or anyone else for having Moss ranked at #30. There were good reasons for that. He's pointing out that it's weird to see them backslap themselves about being right about Moss when their signature product (at least thus far) wasn't actually, you know, right.

The more precise way of stating the bolded sentence would be: He's pointing out that it's weird to see Joe backlsap himself about being right about Moss when David's projections for Moss were not right.If people think Joe shouldn't congratulate himself for getting something right unless David also got it right, perhaps that's a point worth making. I'm not sure whether that's Chet's point or not.

My point is that:1) the default DD that I used (the flagship product of FBG) ranked Randy very low;

2) Randy had a great first week;

3) the owner of FBG bragged about being being positive about Randy all summer and claimed he got it right.

I really don't care who did the projections for the DD or whether they were right or not. I care that the owner of the site bragged about being right about a player and his flagship product he sells to customers didn't reflect that.

It's quite simple really.

 

[Judge Smails]

C'mon. Did anybody really need even Footballguys telling us about the pros and cons of Moss?? You knew he had HOF type talent. You knew he was going to a much better passing situation with a HOF QB. He was going to a team that has a history of turning malcontents into team players. So, the only question with Moss would be a) is he healthy? and b) would NE spread the ball around so much with the signings of Stallworth and Welker that it would make him a Tier 2 WR anyway?Anybody who didn't covet Moss early obviously felt that the risks were too great. All the info was out there. It's a decision not made in a vacuum. As an example, the LT owner probably felt comfortable in taking a risk on a guy like Moss. The Gore/SAlex owners, maybe not so much.The guy who drafted Moss in round 3 in our 12 teamer was almost laughed at. He's laughing now. And it nothing to do with projections on this or any other site. Weak, weak argument by the OP.

Nothing in this post has anything to do with the argument by the OP.

+1

OK. I re-read your post. I knew exactly where Joe stood on Moss the entire time. Countless email updates. Never questioned his ability to fit in. Gave the Dillon analogy over and over. Late in preseason he did say he was getting more concerned that he wasn't getting any action but that was it. You had that info I presume. You just chose to take the concensus opinion over Joe's. Your choice.

 

[Joe T]

I don't think it's a big deal, but on FBGs the projections are a signature product. I don't think Chet is bashing Joe, David or anyone else for having Moss ranked at #30. There were good reasons for that. He's pointing out that it's weird to see them backslap themselves about being right about Moss when their signature product (at least thus far) wasn't actually, you know, right.

The more precise way of stating the bolded sentence would be: He's pointing out that it's weird to see Joe backlsap himself about being right about Moss when David's projections for Moss were not right.If people think Joe shouldn't congratulate himself for getting something right unless David also got it right, perhaps that's a point worth making. I'm not sure whether that's Chet's point or not.

I think a better point might be that there are so many conflicting rankings, projections, strong vs weak passing games, etc that no matter who does well each week FBG will have spewed out the correct answer and then you can be damn well sure they are going to point to the fact that they were right somewhere.

 

[yesitsme]

I don't think it's a big deal, but on FBGs the projections are a signature product. I don't think Chet is bashing Joe, David or anyone else for having Moss ranked at #30. There were good reasons for that. He's pointing out that it's weird to see them backslap themselves about being right about Moss when their signature product (at least thus far) wasn't actually, you know, right.

The more precise way of stating the bolded sentence would be: He's pointing out that it's weird to see Joe backlsap himself about being right about Moss when David's projections for Moss were not right.If people think Joe shouldn't congratulate himself for getting something right unless David also got it right, perhaps that's a point worth making. I'm not sure whether that's Chet's point or not.

My point is that:1) the default DD that I used (the flagship product of FBG) ranked Randy very low;

2) Randy had a great first week;

3) the owner of FBG bragged about being being positive about Randy all summer and claimed he got it right.

I really don't care who did the projections for the DD or whether they were right or not. I care that the owner of the site bragged about being right about a player and his flagship product he sells to customers didn't reflect that.

It's quite simple really.

I'm on board with your thinking...but what you're not entirely putting into your argument is their's more than one owner here. You use owner as if it's just Joe, it's not.For whatever reason, Dodds does those projections. Joe must be in charge of many other things, one being the emails. I do agree with you, as much as I love the information they provide and this site that part is confusing. You get Joe's opinions on the emails but then you get could get an entirely different ranking on the projections because it's done by Dodds.

 

[corpcow]

My point is that:1) the default DD that I used (the flagship product of FBG) ranked Randy very low;2) Randy had a great first week;3) the owner of FBG bragged about being being positive about Randy all summer and claimed he got it right.I really don't care who did the projections for the DD or whether they were right or not. I care that the owner of the site bragged about being right about a player and his flagship product he sells to customers didn't reflect that.It's quite simple really.

Oh, and I'd also point out that Dodds had Moss projected as WR11 for the first week. The cheatsheets/rankings/pre-season projections need to account for the risk of him staying happy and healthy for a full year, so they are tempered. They may assume, for example, that he isn't playing a full 16 games.

 

[yesitsme]

I don't think it's a big deal, but on FBGs the projections are a signature product. I don't think Chet is bashing Joe, David or anyone else for having Moss ranked at #30. There were good reasons for that. He's pointing out that it's weird to see them backslap themselves about being right about Moss when their signature product (at least thus far) wasn't actually, you know, right.

The more precise way of stating the bolded sentence would be: He's pointing out that it's weird to see Joe backlsap himself about being right about Moss when David's projections for Moss were not right.If people think Joe shouldn't congratulate himself for getting something right unless David also got it right, perhaps that's a point worth making. I'm not sure whether that's Chet's point or not.

I think a better point might be that there are so many conflicting rankings, projections, strong vs weak passing games, etc that no matter who does well each week FBG will have spewed out the correct answer and then you can be damn well sure they are going to point to the fact that they were right somewhere.

Aye....but if you think about it many of us probably do that same. I'm in multiple leagues and I'm sure you are too JoeT, and in those multiple leagues we have many, many players. You are bound to draft someone who's solid as a flyer and I'm sure we've taken credit for doing so. But when you think about it, you're bound to find someone decent if you draft in enough leagues but we certainly don't act like that when we're talking about, we omit that part and simply say, "Hey, I got Amani Toomer in the 18th round, last pick of the draft. Who says the last pick is wasted!"But in the other 4 drafts we had, our last picks were David Boston etc....guys who are already dropped this week and we keep to ourselves.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think it's a big deal, but on FBGs the projections are a signature product. I don't think Chet is bashing Joe, David or anyone else for having Moss ranked at #30. There were good reasons for that. He's pointing out that it's weird to see them backslap themselves about being right about Moss when their signature product (at least thus far) wasn't actually, you know, right.

The more precise way of stating the bolded sentence would be: He's pointing out that it's weird to see Joe backlsap himself about being right about Moss when David's projections for Moss were not right.If people think Joe shouldn't congratulate himself for getting something right unless David also got it right, perhaps that's a point worth making. I'm not sure whether that's Chet's point or not.

My point is that:1) the default DD that I used (the flagship product of FBG) ranked Randy very low;

2) Randy had a great first week;

3) the owner of FBG bragged about being being positive about Randy all summer and claimed he got it right.

I really don't care who did the projections for the DD or whether they were right or not. I care that the owner of the site bragged about being right about a player and his flagship product he sells to customers didn't reflect that.

It's quite simple really.

I understand your point. You don't think Joe should claim he was right about something unless David also got it right, because you perceive Joe as being the face of the company and you therefore expect Dodds' projections -- which are FBG's flagship product -- to reflect Joe's opinion.It's a fair point.

I'm just explaining that Dodds' projections don't necessarily reflect Joe's opinion. The owners and staffers all have different roles at FBG, including Joe, and doing projections doesn't happen to be one of Joe's roles. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just telling you how it is. Your constructive criticism regarding "how it is" is appreciated, and maybe Joe will be more sensitive to the point you raised in the future. That's up to him -- telling him whether to keep quiet about Randy Moss isn't one of my roles.

 

[chet]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

So why is the other owner bragging about how he was so positive when none of the flagship products reflect that opinion?

Same reason I might toot my own horn about Ronald Curry even though Dodds' projections didn't reflect my opinion.

Not really. When the owner of the site, and the main face for the site claims he was right about a player, I'd expect the flagship product to reflect that. It's a different for a staffer (no offense intended).

 

[harryhood]

The google analogy makes this argument work, if you think of it that way, you could see where Chet is coming from.

 

[Nipsey]

I don't see how we could provide anything but opinion when no other information was available.

So you're saying you were just taking a stab in the dark? That's fine. Just don't say you knew the guy'd be great all along.There are other Random Shots where Joe says sarcastically..."XXXXXX ran wild on the XXXXXX defense...yeah we saw that coming." Why not pimp that running back after the fact?How about the knock on a certain NFC running back? "He still sucks". Thanks for pimping him in off season.Just frustrating. It's easy to be right when the season starts. We'd prefer this seemingly guarded information be released before the season starts and not the exact opposite of it. Being wrong is OK, it's bound to happen. Just don't say you knew it all along but told us differently. Why bluff us?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think a better point might be that there are so many conflicting rankings, projections, strong vs weak passing games, etc that no matter who does well each week FBG will have spewed out the correct answer and then you can be damn well sure they are going to point to the fact that they were right somewhere.

Can you give any examples of this ever having happened?

 

[Liquid Tension]

From today's Random Shots:

I'll be honest. For the last couple of weeks in August I was wondering if Randy Moss was going to make me look bad. Since the NFL Draft, I'd been telling everyone who'd listen that Moss was going to be fine and that he'd be like the last "bad apple" that went to New England in Corey Dillon.

With all due respect Joe, apparantly no one on your staff got the message. Randy was ranked as WR30 pre-season and now he's WR13 after week 1. I have an issue with the owner of a company having a conviction but not making sure it gets through to the customers.

I think Chet is clueless in where he is targeting this, however, one thing I would like to be able to do is to get an average ranking of projections into the DD so that I can then tweak them. Because the base is Dodds, one will tend to work from that base (even if just a little). Also, many of us do not do projections for every single player so having the consensus (much like the rankings) would be of great help. You could even allow us to pick and choose who we want to include in the projections (if all staff members do projections for every player)...Myabe this belongs in a suggestion box?

 

[chet]

The google analogy makes this argument work, if you think of it that way, you could see where Chet is coming from.

+1Thanks.

 

[Joe T]

I think a better point might be that there are so many conflicting rankings, projections, strong vs weak passing games, etc that no matter who does well each week FBG will have spewed out the correct answer and then you can be damn well sure they are going to point to the fact that they were right somewhere.

Can you give any examples of this ever having happened?

Absolutely, but I don't think you really want me to.Two years ago one of the weekly rankings was sent out that had Bulger as the #1 ranked QB and Manning as #4. One of my GB's started Bulger that week and it cost him his playoff game. My GB emailed the owner of this site (the same owner in question here) and the owners basic response was "we've had Manning as the #1 overall QB all year, you should never bench him."If you send out 50 different types of rankings each week, of course one of them will be right.

 

[Disco Stu]

Not that it matters, but I don't think it's clear that Joe has no input in the projections--he sends out the daily email, he is the most prominent person etc.

I would just expect that when I use the default version of the flagship product, I get the best thinking from the face of the organization.

The default offensive projections on the site are clearly labeled as being from Dodds -- just like the defensive projections are from Norton, the SOS stuff is from Clayton, the depth charts are from Henry, and so on. Joe doesn't have a hand in any of that stuff. (The expert rankings do have a column labeled "Joe and David," which may be misleading. They are really just from David.)

May be misleading? For anyone questioning where David and Joe had Moss in their final preseason rankings, it's still available here. I should point out that we're looking for Randy Moss, since Santana will be the first Moss (by 10 spots) you come across.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think Chet is clueless in where he is targeting this, however, one thing I would like to be able to do is to get an average ranking of projections into the DD so that I can then tweak them. Because the base is Dodds, one will tend to work from that base (even if just a little). Also, many of us do not do projections for every single player so having the consensus (much like the rankings) would be of great help. You could even allow us to pick and choose who we want to include in the projections (if all staff members do projections for every player)...Myabe this belongs in a suggestion box?

We've got this -- it's the Projections Dominator.

 

[kensat30]

What happens if Welker goes 9/100/1 this week and Moss is 3/40/0 ?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What happens if Welker goes 9/100/1 this week and Moss is 3/40/0 ?

The Patriots will lose 27-14 instead of 35-14.

 

[David Yudkin]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

So why is the other owner bragging about how he was so positive when none of the flagship products reflect that opinion?

Same reason I might toot my own horn about Ronald Curry even though Dodds' projections didn't reflect my opinion.

Not really. When the owner of the site, and the main face for the site claims he was right about a player, I'd expect the flagship product to reflect that. It's a different for a staffer (no offense intended).

Maybe Joe should have said he got it right but Dodds got it wrong. Would that have been better?I have pretty much given no opinion on this at all and have been only pointing out how things work around here.I do admit that there are times when things make very little sense and to that I concur. For example, there are times where I am assigned something that does not align with my personal opinion, but yet I do what I am asked to do. For example, there may be a player where I have to argue the low side in a faceoff, yet I have that player ranked in the Top 5.I don't have a problem researching that player and making a case that PLAYER X will underperform and why, but to the common reader things will get very distorted if I call PLAYER X a bust in a faceoff but in the rankings I have him in the Top 5. Especially when people e-mail me and say that I made such a compelling argument why on earth would I have the guy ranked so high?Unfortunately, weird things happen when you try to get opinions form a couple dozen people and then try to call them experts. I also agree that someone, somewhere on staff will likely have hit the mark on practically every player, but I don't see FBG as a whole clamoring that we got everything right. And I don't think that that's what this site is about. I believe it's more a community to be a part of and people will learn to consider some people's opinions more than others, but for the person looking to spend the $27 and plug and play guys for a lineup each week that part will get overlooked.There are guys (and gals) on staff whose opinions I will consider more than other staffers, just like there are posters that I would consider their comments more than other staff folks. It depends on the topic and the subject matter. For example, I am in New England and hear a lot about the Pats. But I don't here much of anything on say the Lions or Broncos. So if I wanted more insight on those teams, I would seek out other opinions. Some could be staffers, some could be posters.I fairly often have completely different conclusions than Dodds does on the projections and sometimes I point that out and sometimes they get tweaked becasue of it. But overall they are not my projections and there is very little I can do about it. The projections are great for what they are: basically one man's opinion. I certainly hope they are right more than they are wrong, but I won't lose sleep either way.I have the option to make and revise my own projections, and at this point I have not elected to do that. Maybe next year I'll consider doing that and people can laugh at me when I go against the grain. And then people may be able to say after the fact that someone was closer on the projections for Welker, Moss, Curry, etc. And I could be equally wrong on many other guys, which is why it's tough for us to be right on everything.

 

[Disco Stu]

What happens if Welker goes 9/100/1 this week and Moss is 3/40/0 ?

9/19 Random Shots..."Like we said in our preseason projections, anyone expecting Moss to return to his previous all-world levels will be disappointed."

 

[corpcow]

I don't see how we could provide anything but opinion when no other information was available.

So you're saying you were just taking a stab in the dark? That's fine. Just don't say you knew the guy'd be great all along.There are other Random Shots where Joe says sarcastically..."XXXXXX ran wild on the XXXXXX defense...yeah we saw that coming." Why not pimp that running back after the fact?How about the knock on a certain NFC running back? "He still sucks". Thanks for pimping him in off season.Just frustrating. It's easy to be right when the season starts. We'd prefer this seemingly guarded information be released before the season starts and not the exact opposite of it. Being wrong is OK, it's bound to happen. Just don't say you knew it all along but told us differently. Why bluff us?

It's been said ad nauseum already, but Joe made his opinions about Moss well-known, whether or not that was reflected in the projections made by other people on the staff. But let's also look at what was actually said in his e-mail:

I'll be honest. For the last couple of weeks in August I was wondering if Randy Moss was going to make me look bad. Since the NFL Draft, I'd been telling everyone who'd listen that Moss was going to be fine and that he'd be like the last "bad apple" that went to New England in Corey Dillon.

Those are gentle words, hardly "I told you so".

 

[David Yudkin]

Not that it matters, but I don't think it's clear that Joe has no input in the projections--he sends out the daily email, he is the most prominent person etc.

I would just expect that when I use the default version of the flagship product, I get the best thinking from the face of the organization.

The default offensive projections on the site are clearly labeled as being from Dodds -- just like the defensive projections are from Norton, the SOS stuff is from Clayton, the depth charts are from Henry, and so on. Joe doesn't have a hand in any of that stuff. (The expert rankings do have a column labeled "Joe and David," which may be misleading. They are really just from David.)

May be misleading? For anyone questioning where David and Joe had Moss in their final preseason rankings, it's still available here. I should point out that we're looking for Randy Moss, since Santana will be the first Moss (by 10 spots) you come across.

I had Randy Moss 9th. Do I get a prize?But this once again is a situation where we all are in a bind. Moss could be the #5 WR for 12 weeks and then miss the last month and rank 28th overall. Then what. Were we right or wrong?

 

[Disco Stu]

How about the knock on a certain NFC running back? "He still sucks". Thanks for pimping him in off season.

Final David and Joe rankings for said RB:#17 RB#27 overall

 

[Nipsey]

I'll be honest. For the last couple of weeks in August I was wondering if Randy Moss was going to make me look bad. Since the NFL Draft, I'd been telling everyone who'd listen that Moss was going to be fine and that he'd be like the last "bad apple" that went to New England in Corey Dillon.

Those are gentle words, hardly "I told you so".

Apparently he told everyone except subscribers to his fantasy football information website.

 

[Nigel]

Not that it matters, but I don't think it's clear that Joe has no input in the projections--he sends out the daily email, he is the most prominent person etc.

I would just expect that when I use the default version of the flagship product, I get the best thinking from the face of the organization.

The default offensive projections on the site are clearly labeled as being from Dodds -- just like the defensive projections are from Norton, the SOS stuff is from Clayton, the depth charts are from Henry, and so on. Joe doesn't have a hand in any of that stuff. (The expert rankings do have a column labeled "Joe and David," which may be misleading. They are really just from David.)

May be misleading? For anyone questioning where David and Joe had Moss in their final preseason rankings, it's still available here. I should point out that we're looking for Randy Moss, since Santana will be the first Moss (by 10 spots) you come across.

But those aren't really David & Joe's picks. They're just David's. They just call them David & Joe's. Joe doesn't do rankings.

 

[switz]

The google analogy makes this argument work, if you think of it that way, you could see where Chet is coming from.

+1Thanks.

How does the Google analogy work?

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't see how we could provide anything but opinion when no other information was available.

So you're saying you were just taking a stab in the dark? That's fine. Just don't say you knew the guy'd be great all along.

Like many others, you are taking my comments but attributing your example to Joe B. Using Moss as the example:Moss gets banged up and doesn't play for a month. The Pats don't divulge any information at all. What are we supposed to take from that? There was nothing else to go on?Sometimes some of us have other sources or can get some insider information (or at least additional info that may or may not be helpful). Different staffers have different sources for different teams. Sometimes we find out interesting tidbits, but many times we can't go on record and say them. There are plenty of reasons for that, but if one of our sources hasn't reported something as fact we certainly can't do an end around and report it as such when the source hasn't even made the information available to the public.Again, I think some people expect too much as we are not ESPN and don't go to lunch with team officials and get invited to someone's ranch or yacht. We take what we know (or think we know) and then develop our opinion. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they are based on guesses, other times on more concrete information. But we have to say something, and it's hard to put a description on how solid the information is and why we said what we did.

 

[John Mamula]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

fair enough. but if that if the case i think Joe shouldn't be crowing about saying he is right about Moss in an email. it makes FBG lose credibility.to me it is more about a consistant message. and i can certainly see why a paying customer would be pissed off that he gets an "I told you so" email from the owner when his product didn't reflect that (regardless of who did those projections).chet's stock analogy is 100% correct. you get an analyst telling people to sell, then when it goes through the roof he drives up in his ferrari and brags about how smart he was for buying. as someone who relies on an "expert" giving you information that really erodes trust.everyone knows people miss on players. but this isn't about missing on projections. this is misleading your customer base, intentional or not.

 

[chet]

What happens if Welker goes 9/100/1 this week and Moss is 3/40/0 ?

9/19 Random Shots..."Like we said in our preseason projections, anyone expecting Moss to return to his previous all-world levels will be disappointed."

 

[John Mamula]

Not that it matters, but I don't think it's clear that Joe has no input in the projections--he sends out the daily email, he is the most prominent person etc.

I would just expect that when I use the default version of the flagship product, I get the best thinking from the face of the organization.

The default offensive projections on the site are clearly labeled as being from Dodds -- just like the defensive projections are from Norton, the SOS stuff is from Clayton, the depth charts are from Henry, and so on. Joe doesn't have a hand in any of that stuff. (The expert rankings do have a column labeled "Joe and David," which may be misleading. They are really just from David.)

May be misleading? For anyone questioning where David and Joe had Moss in their final preseason rankings, it's still available here. I should point out that we're looking for Randy Moss, since Santana will be the first Moss (by 10 spots) you come across.

But those aren't really David & Joe's picks. They're just David's. They just call them David & Joe's. Joe doesn't do rankings.

this is what confuses me. if joe doesn't do rankings, why is he bragging about calling randy moss? if you are not going to put your projections out there for accountability, any claim of success is hollow.

 

[chet]

The google analogy makes this argument work, if you think of it that way, you could see where Chet is coming from.

+1Thanks.

How does the Google analogy work?

Maybe you should read and process it instead of claiming I made no constructive arguments.

 

[chet]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

fair enough. but if that if the case i think Joe shouldn't be crowing about saying he is right about Moss in an email. it makes FBG lose credibility.to me it is more about a consistant message. and i can certainly see why a paying customer would be pissed off that he gets an "I told you so" email from the owner when his product didn't reflect that (regardless of who did those projections).chet's stock analogy is 100% correct. you get an analyst telling people to sell, then when it goes through the roof he drives up in his ferrari and brags about how smart he was for buying. as someone who relies on an "expert" giving you information that really erodes trust.everyone knows people miss on players. but this isn't about missing on projections. this is misleading your customer base, intentional or not.

 

[thayman]

I'll be honest. For the last couple of weeks in August I was wondering if Randy Moss was going to make me look bad. Since the NFL Draft, I'd been telling everyone who'd listen that Moss was going to be fine and that he'd be like the last "bad apple" that went to New England in Corey Dillon.

Those are gentle words, hardly "I told you so".

Apparently he told everyone except subscribers to his fantasy football information website.

Then you don't read. I have got countless daily emails where Joe has been high on Moss.

 

[thayman]

the question is why would the DD, that some would consider the FBG flagship product, not reflect the feelings of the owner?

The DD ranks players according to the projections you feed it. The default projections are from Dodds, who is an owner. So the projections do reflect the feelings of the owner.Joe doesn't submit projections.

fair enough. but if that if the case i think Joe shouldn't be crowing about saying he is right about Moss in an email. it makes FBG lose credibility.to me it is more about a consistant message. and i can certainly see why a paying customer would be pissed off that he gets an "I told you so" email from the owner when his product didn't reflect that (regardless of who did those projections).chet's stock analogy is 100% correct. you get an analyst telling people to sell, then when it goes through the roof he drives up in his ferrari and brags about how smart he was for buying. as someone who relies on an "expert" giving you information that really erodes trust.everyone knows people miss on players. but this isn't about missing on projections. this is misleading your customer base, intentional or not.

But he has been saying how high he is on Moss, even before the pre-season he was high on the guy. Gust like Joe seemed a bit higher on Travis Henry than most.I don't understand the complaints here, Joe has been sending out emails touting Randy Moss, going on about how it's going to be a Dillon situation in NE, and once Moss gets in there his behavior will be fine and he will put up some numbers. It looks like he was right. If you haven't been reading or checking your email then that's your problem.

 

[Nipsey]

I don't see how we could provide anything but opinion when no other information was available.

So you're saying you were just taking a stab in the dark? That's fine. Just don't say you knew the guy'd be great all along.

Like many others, you are taking my comments but attributing your example to Joe B. Using Moss as the example:Moss gets banged up and doesn't play for a month. The Pats don't divulge any information at all. What are we supposed to take from that? There was nothing else to go on?Sometimes some of us have other sources or can get some insider information (or at least additional info that may or may not be helpful). Different staffers have different sources for different teams. Sometimes we find out interesting tidbits, but many times we can't go on record and say them. There are plenty of reasons for that, but if one of our sources hasn't reported something as fact we certainly can't do an end around and report it as such when the source hasn't even made the information available to the public.Again, I think some people expect too much as we are not ESPN and don't go to lunch with team officials and get invited to someone's ranch or yacht. We take what we know (or think we know) and then develop our opinion. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they are based on guesses, other times on more concrete information. But we have to say something, and it's hard to put a description on how solid the information is and why we said what we did.

I appreciate your response and understand what you're saying. Maybe it's just an internal communication issue. Tough enough to see a guy go off after analysis suggested he wouldn't. Even tougher to see analysis say they knew said guy would go off after suggesting he wouldn't.