Randy Moss and Random Shots (1 Viewer)

[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.

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.

Projections are quite clearly opinion... an informed opinion, hopefully, but opinion nonetheless.

 

[corpcow]

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.

Well, he can send you the e-mails, but he can't make you read them. I'm a subscriber and I thought his opinion on this matter was crystal clear.

 

[thayman]

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.

Joe Bryant said that Moss would be fine in New England. His behavior would be fine, and he would have a better attitued. I have read this many times in Joe Bryant's emails. How is Joe wrong that after Moss has a good game where he is celebrating other players TDs, he points it out and says "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" That speaks more about behavior rather than performance....but that's just me.

 

[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.

Well, he can send you the e-mails, but he can't make you read them. I'm a subscriber and I thought his opinion on this matter was crystal clear.

I have a feeling that the complainers skimmed their emails in the off-season

 

[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.

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

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

 

[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.

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.

Something along the lines of their weekly disclaimerlease note that the Cheatsheets represent the OFFICIAL record of who to start in any given week. The weekly matchups are for those who want a little more detail.

 

[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.

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

Joe doesn't do the rankings correct?? I found his opinion to be very clear on how high he is on Moss. I'm sorry if you didn't take all the information into account.

 

[j3r3m3y]

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.

But I don't want to be bothered to think! $25 should give me victory in every fantasy league I am in!

 

[chet]

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.

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

 

[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.

Something along the lines of their weekly disclaimerlease note that the Cheatsheets represent the OFFICIAL record of who to start in any given week. The weekly matchups are for those who want a little more detail.

 

[dagwood]

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.

The comment is that you don't want FBG to be viewed like a sports tout sheet...giving out the Team A vs Team B as their game of the year...then giving half their clients Team A as a pick and half their clients Team B as a pick...Joe is high on Randy Moss....David is down on Randy Moss....Randy Moss goes off....Joe pats himself on the back.....Randy catches ball Week 1....David says....see I told you so....Not sure why everyone is getting so defensive....when you make predictions...some are going to be good and some bad.....but FBG subscription service "best play" is the DD and the VBD projections....so anyone's call that does not agree with that is not really a FBG call....and should just be treated as such...I ranked some folks differently than FBG....I was right on some ....and wrong on some....no biggie....just my two cents....Glad Joe was right on Randy...sorry David was wrong on Randy....by the end of the season, David may be right and Joe may be wrong....I tend to lean with Joe...but Randy went a bit earlier than I thought he should in my draft...so it really doesn't matter to me anyway...

 

[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.

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.

Something along the lines of their weekly disclaimerlease note that the Cheatsheets represent the OFFICIAL record of who to start in any given week. The weekly matchups are for those who want a little more detail.

Apparently different people prepare the cheatsheets and the weekly matchups and thus they can present conflicting opinions. Therefore, FBG adds a disclaimer similar to the one I posted above.

 

[jafo]

If you had paid attention to what Joe had to say about Randy Moss in the offseason then maybe you would have drafted him. Just because DD tells me to pick someone at Pick #3 or #4 doesn't mean I'm taking that guy. Use your gut, don't bust a nut.

 

[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.

Something along the lines of their weekly disclaimerlease note that the Cheatsheets represent the OFFICIAL record of who to start in any given week. The weekly matchups are for those who want a little more detail.

Apparently different people prepare the cheatsheets and the weekly matchups and thus they can present conflicting opinions. Therefore, FBG adds a disclaimer similar to the one I posted above.

I understand that....I thought that was pretty clear. Well at least it was to me since I signed up on day one, it has been a very user friendly website. I always understood that different people do different rankings.

 

[Andy Hicks]

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?

I wonder which staffer had him higher

 

[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.

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

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

Joe doesn't do the rankings correct?? I found his opinion to be very clear on how high he is on Moss. I'm sorry if you didn't take all the information into account.

Easy, Kreskin.

 

[chet]

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.

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

Joe doesn't do the rankings correct?? I found his opinion to be very clear on how high he is on Moss. I'm sorry if you didn't take all the information into account.

Easy, Kreskin.

 

[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.

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

Joe doesn't do the rankings correct?? I found his opinion to be very clear on how high he is on Moss. I'm sorry if you didn't take all the information into account.

Easy, Kreskin.

No need to get offened. It just might be a bit better before you start attacking someone to get your facts straight. Joe made it VERY clear he was high on Moss, and then when he sends a email out VERY mildly saying "Whew glad I got that right" you jump all over the guy because you didn't bother to read what he has been saying for months.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Bizarre post.Firstly, note the word "I" is the common theme in Joe's Random Shots quoted above, not "FBG". Anyone who regularly reads the email updates knows Joe has said all along he thinks Moss will work out ok in NE. It was his view, not a corporate one.2nd, the "message" was aimed at the readers of Joe's email updates etc, not the staff. They can think for themselves.3rd, the owner of the company did manage to make sure his conviction got through to his customers. Regular readers all knew Joe's thoughts about Moss. If you think he should have converted all the staff to being like-minded about every player, then I suspect you want something different from FBG to what most members do.

Thanks Lord Lucan,That pretty much hits it. Especially #3. Footballguys is a lot bigger than me. We have lots of guys here I respect a lot. And we differ on lots of players. Some we differ strongly. Moss for me was one of those guys. I said it repeatedly here. I did a long segment on the Footballguys podcast about it. But this isn't a situation where everyone on staff just to what I think. If you think we're that way, you're flattering me unjustly giving me too much credit.I hear what you're saying about trying to play both sides of the argument but I honestly try to avoid that. I don't think my track record suggests I'm a guy that does that. From the beginning, whether it's Jeff Garcia for San Francisco doing what I said or Kevan Barlow making me look bad, I try not to hide. And even if I did, too much of what I think (and write) is right here on the boards or the Podcasts.As far as the Random Shots blurb goes, I meant exactly what I said. I said Moss would be fine like Corey Dillon all spring and summer. I was starting to get worried in August with him not practicing. He looked great Sunday. That's about as deep as it goes.Ultimately, as owner of the company, I'll be judged by the public by what Footballguys as a company predicted. And I'm ok with that. So I see what you're saying there. But I also don't have any problem reiterating things I've been saying all summer. I'd look pretty stupid if Moss finishes at #30 and I were to brag about how we told you he'd be a bust. 3 seconds of searching here would show I said the opposite all summer.Bottom line is we'll always have a wide range of opinions from our staff and for what we as Footballguys put forward. The "Footballguys" prediction isn't always the same as the "Joe Bryant" predictions. And it's my opinion that most of our readers would prefer it that way.J

 

[j3r3m3y]

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.

Well, he can send you the e-mails, but he can't make you read them. I'm a subscriber and I thought his opinion on this matter was crystal clear.

I have a feeling that the complainers skimmed their emails in the off-season

Not surprising, they also blindly rely on someone else's projections...

 

[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?

I wonder which staffer had him higher

Obviously you had him higher, but here's the thing. It's one ranking out of hundreds of players. If Larry Fitzgerald crashes and burns (metaphorically), does that mean that your high ranking of Moss is worth more, the same, or less because Fitz turned out to be a disappointment? You win a few, you lose a few.I could sit here and ramble off quite an impressive lists of rankings, spotlights, faceoffs, value plays, etc. that I had as an outgrowth of last year . . . Gore, Chester Taylor, Addai, Kitna, Vick, Rivers, Driver, even Furrey. Those were all great. But I also had some major disappointments (like Randy Moss #1 at WR). Last year overall I had a pretty accurate year. Does that translate and carry over from year to year? I hope it does, but I won't slash my wrists if it doesn't. All we do is provide an opinion. Again, you win a few, you loose a few.

 

[corpcow]

Apparently different people prepare the cheatsheets and the weekly matchups and thus they can present conflicting opinions. Therefore, FBG adds a disclaimer similar to the one I posted above.

I don't think that's the point of the disclaimer.The weekly matchups talks about who has the advantage. The Bears defense is a "tough matchup" for the Chargers rushing attack, while the Giants were a "good matchup" for the Cowboys. Does that mean you should sit LT for Barber or Jones? Probably not - it just means that LT is less likely to run wild.

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.

Also note, just because a player has a "bad" matchup, it does NOT mean he's not a starter in your league. If Peyton Manning is playing the toughest pass defense in the league, that just means he's got a tough matchup that week. He's also your starter unless you're loaded at QB. In the same way, if the worst QB on your roster has a "great" matchup that week, it doesn't necessarily mean he's your starter. It means we think he'll fare better than normal that week.

Bottom line is that the cheatsheets are the final say.

The point is that the cheatsheet take in a number of factors, including the difficulty of the matchup, and come out with a number where they feel that player will probably perform in a given week. The more data points, the better chance you have of that projection being close to the truth.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Bottom line is we'll always have a wide range of opinions from our staff and for what we as Footballguys put forward. The "Footballguys" prediction isn't always the same as the "Joe Bryant" predictions. And it's my opinion that most of our readers would prefer it that way.

 

[Nigel]

Joe - Can you clarify whether or not you have any input into the preseason ranking attributed to "David & Joe"? If not, why label them as such?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Let me again state my beef:FBG's flagship product ranks Randy Moss WR30 -- I have no issue with thisRandy Moss has a great week one and FBG ups his rank to WR13--again, I realize people and projections can be wrong and I have no real issue here other than it's a very dramatic move.After week 1, FBG owner brags about how he was high on Moss all summer. This is where I have an issue--his flagship product didn't reflect this opinion and I have to read about how positive Joe was on Randy but apparantly didn't bother to make sure it was communicated to paying customers.This is meant as constructive criticism for Joe.

To clarify, Dodds was the one that made the projections. Bryant was the one that said he was high on Moss. Since they are not the same people and don't have the same opinion, I think this is basically pointing out that two people had different opinions. There are plenty of times that I do not agree with Dodds' projections . . . but they are HIS projections, so he's entitled to his opinion.

In the preseason rankings, aren't Joe and David coupled? I assumed the VBD app was based on their coupled rankings.

David does the heavy lifting and creating of the projections. But he and I will agree on the final numbers. While we do agree on a great majority of players, that does not always mean I agree with David. Sometimes we differ strongly. Sometimes he yields to me. Sometimes I yield to him. But he does the hard work on them. I just sit back and throw rocks So I do see what chet's saying. But I also think I've been pretty clear here with where I stand on Moss. This is one of those (rare) cases where the FBG projections differ from what I personally felt. I understand his criticism.Similar thing happened with David Garrard. David wanted to rank Garrard actually higher than where we had Leftwich once the move was announced. I disagreed and David yielded to me. Turns out I think now I probably should have yielded to him. It works that way sometimes. J

 

[Disco Stu]

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.

Well, he can send you the e-mails, but he can't make you read them. I'm a subscriber and I thought his opinion on this matter was crystal clear.

I have a feeling that the complainers skimmed their emails in the off-season

Not surprising, they also blindly rely on someone else's projections...

GB sharky sharks. Serious business.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Oy. This site would be very dull if the entire staff agreed all the time. It's the diverse opinions that keep me coming back here every year.

 

[John Mamula]

Let me again state my beef:FBG's flagship product ranks Randy Moss WR30 -- I have no issue with thisRandy Moss has a great week one and FBG ups his rank to WR13--again, I realize people and projections can be wrong and I have no real issue here other than it's a very dramatic move.After week 1, FBG owner brags about how he was high on Moss all summer. This is where I have an issue--his flagship product didn't reflect this opinion and I have to read about how positive Joe was on Randy but apparantly didn't bother to make sure it was communicated to paying customers.This is meant as constructive criticism for Joe.

To clarify, Dodds was the one that made the projections. Bryant was the one that said he was high on Moss. Since they are not the same people and don't have the same opinion, I think this is basically pointing out that two people had different opinions. There are plenty of times that I do not agree with Dodds' projections . . . but they are HIS projections, so he's entitled to his opinion.

In the preseason rankings, aren't Joe and David coupled? I assumed the VBD app was based on their coupled rankings.

David does the heavy lifting and creating of the projections. But he and I will agree on the final numbers. While we do agree on a great majority of players, that does not always mean I agree with David. Sometimes we differ strongly. J

 

[Joe T]

For the record, Joe B called my house the night before the draft (part of the premium subscriber package) and left a voicemail begging me to take Randy Moss this year because he will "significantly outperform his draft position." I was to get this message when I returned from my weekend trip to the lake with the boys for the draft.

 

[BlackHole]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.

Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

 

[chet]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

 

[j3r3m3y]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

He has a point, either you read the e-mails or you don't. If you do, you should have known Joe's position. If you don't you couldn't have seen his gloating. Sounds like sour grapes.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

He has a point, either you read the e-mails or you don't. If you do, you should have known Joe's position. If you don't you couldn't have seen his gloating. Sounds like sour grapes.

Why would Joe's position not be reflected on the site? You can't say I've been telling you all along when the rankings on YOUR sight do not reflect that

 

[j3r3m3y]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.

Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

He has a point, either you read the e-mails or you don't. If you do, you should have known Joe's position. If you don't you couldn't have seen his gloating. Sounds like sour grapes.

Why would Joe's position not be reflected on the site? You can't say I've been telling you all along when the rankings on YOUR sight do not reflect that

If this were only Joe's site you would have a point. I thought it was called "Footballguys.com"

 

[thayman]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

He has a point, either you read the e-mails or you don't. If you do, you should have known Joe's position. If you don't you couldn't have seen his gloating. Sounds like sour grapes.

Why would Joe's position not be reflected on the site? You can't say I've been telling you all along when the rankings on YOUR sight do not reflect that

I found it very clear that Joe Bryant was high on Moss. David Dodds maybe not so much. It sounds like there are two groups of people here, those who read the emails in the off/pre-season and those who didn't

 

[CGRdrJoe]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

He has a point, either you read the e-mails or you don't. If you do, you should have known Joe's position. If you don't you couldn't have seen his gloating. Sounds like sour grapes.

Why would Joe's position not be reflected on the site? You can't say I've been telling you all along when the rankings on YOUR sight do not reflect that

I found it very clear that Joe Bryant was high on Moss. David Dodds maybe not so much. It sounds like there are two groups of people here, those who read the emails in the off/pre-season and those who didn't

You mean the emails that I get that say Eli Manning will be out for 4 weeks then 1 minute later an email saying that Eli may not miss any time? Oh those emails I usually delete right away because the meat and potatoes of what I want is on the website.

 

[j3r3m3y]

You mean the emails that I get that say Eli Manning will be out for 4 weeks then 1 minute later an email saying that Eli may not miss any time? Oh those emails I usually delete right away because the meat and potatoes of what I want is on the website.

Then don't get your panties in a bunch when you ignore a good chunk of the benefit of being a subscriber.

 

[BlackHole]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

As for your google point. If you were with an investment firm that actually had an owner send out daily emails with his thoughts and you failed to read those emails, you'd be pretty stupid for being so lazy and sticking with one tool the investment firm offered it's customers, right? You CHOSE not to read and use the personal insights and information the owner is hand feeding you daily with his emails and now you complain because of your laziness? Talk about schtick

 

[CGRdrJoe]

You mean the emails that I get that say Eli Manning will be out for 4 weeks then 1 minute later an email saying that Eli may not miss any time? Oh those emails I usually delete right away because the meat and potatoes of what I want is on the website.

Then don't get your panties in a bunch when you ignore a good chunk of the benefit of being a subscriber.

You do know that those emails are free during the offseason right?

 

[Joe Bryant]

It cracks me up that the same guy that states he doesn't have time to read Joe's daily emails to see that Joe was high on Moss, is pissed off due to Joe's daily email stating Joe is happy to have been correct about Moss.

Which one is it there Chet? Flagship this and flagship that all you want, the daily emails are and have been a flagship of this site prior to DD's invention, so your flagship that your hanging onto tooth and nail is a flagship according to YOU, not everyone else. Get off your high horse dude.

HAS to be schtick!! Flagship schtick!!

He has a point, either you read the e-mails or you don't. If you do, you should have known Joe's position. If you don't you couldn't have seen his gloating. Sounds like sour grapes.

Why would Joe's position not be reflected on the site? You can't say I've been telling you all along when the rankings on YOUR sight do not reflect that

I found it very clear that Joe Bryant was high on Moss. David Dodds maybe not so much. It sounds like there are two groups of people here, those who read the emails in the off/pre-season and those who didn't

You mean the emails that I get that say Eli Manning will be out for 4 weeks then 1 minute later an email saying that Eli may not miss any time? Oh those emails I usually delete right away because the meat and potatoes of what I want is on the website.

Actually that was a breaking news email for a story reported by several sources covering the team that Manning's injury wasn't serious. A few minutes later, Mortensen broke his story that Manning would be out for four weeks. I passed that along to our guys with the title of "Conflicting Reports Regarding Eli Manning"Body of the email:

Hi Folks,

As a followup to the Ralph Vacchiano article on Eli Manning, it's only fair to let

you know ESPN is reporting the injury is more serious.

Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3013266

Clipped from the Chris Mortensen article:

New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning has a slightly separated shoulder which is

expected to keep him out at least a month, sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen on

Monday.

Doctors told the team that Manning should not need surgery, but the quarterback

will get a second opinion from orthopedic specialist Dr. James Andrews in

Birmingham, Ala.

It was feared that Manning also had torn his labrum in Sunday night's 45-35 loss

to the Dallas Cowboys, but an MRI determined that was not the case, sources said.

Giants spokesman Pat Hanlon emphatically denied that Manning had separated the

shoulder and said that it was a contusion of the AC joint and he is day-to-day.

Hanlon added: "Don't be shocked if you see him playing on Sunday."

Manning bruised his throwing shoulder late in Sunday's game.

Afterward, Manning said the shoulder was just bruised and sore.

[[[[[[[[[ OUR VIEW ]]]]]]]]]]]

It's not unusual to see conflicting reports when a story is still developing as this

one is. That's why we wanted to give you both sides. Several other reporters in the

New York media are in line with Vacchiano that it's not as serious as ESPN is

reporting.

I'd be lying if I told you I had any inside information better than what they're

reporting. So for this second, it means we sit tight and see how this plays out.

I'd rather tell you what I know, than try to guess on something I don't know when

it comes to things like this.

I feel like I have an obligation to give our guys both sides of the story. Especially when it doesn't appear clear to me which side is right. Some of our readers don't read the emails I'm sure. But a good number do.

J

 

[j3r3m3y]

You mean the emails that I get that say Eli Manning will be out for 4 weeks then 1 minute later an email saying that Eli may not miss any time? Oh those emails I usually delete right away because the meat and potatoes of what I want is on the website.

Then don't get your panties in a bunch when you ignore a good chunk of the benefit of being a subscriber.

You do know that those emails are free during the offseason right?

Did I say "paying subscriber"? Everything is free in the offseason, including DD.

 

[Chop_Block]

Someone seems to have an axe to grind here.

I think Chet has a point - perhaps made a bit brusquely, but a valid point nonethelsess. I would love to see Joe's own rankings each week.

But he was crystal clear on how he felt about Moss - I know this because it mirrored my own thoughts when a lot of folks around me said they thought I was crazy for thinking it. he said it almost weekly in the newsletter.

That email from Joe with the random shots sounded more relieved than 'I told you so' anway. I think people need to settle down.

FWIW even though I don't have a million hours each week to read the site or the newsletters, I prefer a number of opinions to just one. I'm sorry, I'd rather hear two sides to the same story than just 'Randy is a god this year' or 'Randy will suck this year' - because there is no 100% absolute answers. I just want the info to process as I can.

just my nickel, do with it what you will.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Joe,

Sometimes it's better to say nothing than try and be the first to report something, I don't want to risk a waiver wire move on an assumption.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Joe,Sometimes it's better to say nothing than try and be the first to report something, I don't want to risk a waiver wire move on an assumption.

I would rather have as much information as possible and evaluate the source and significance myself.

 

[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.

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

Curious as to the low pre-draft ranking then.

Joe doesn't do the rankings correct?? I found his opinion to be very clear on how high he is on Moss. I'm sorry if you didn't take all the information into account.

Easy, Kreskin.

No need to get offened. It just might be a bit better before you start attacking someone to get your facts straight. Joe made it VERY clear he was high on Moss, and then when he sends a email out VERY mildly saying "Whew glad I got that right" you jump all over the guy because you didn't bother to read what he has been saying for months.

I'm not offended at all, just backing up the OP. Why are you offended? It's like some here feel the owner of the site is above criticism. Why is that? Joe has a great site, he's a great guy, does a heck of a job and puts a ton of sweat and hard work into it. I can recognize that and still voice an opinion when I feel like something's awry. Last I checked there should be only one guy who's above criticism, and his name is Tony Romo (God bless you Tony).FWIW I pulled up my DraftDominator with expert rankings from Sept. 3rd and Moss is ranked WR30 just ahead studs Mark Clayton, Isaac Bruce and DJ Hackett. Doesn't seem like he was that high on him. I guess I put more stock into the paysite then I did the free e-mails. My bad.

 

[Biabreakable]

I had him ranked #2 overall WR but the negativity on these boards influenced me to knock him down a few notches. :(

Good projection--at least it looks that way.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=6721450

I think I got too conservative with my Moss projections also. Should have stuck with my gut and the 22+ TDs.

 

[thayman]

I'm not offended at all, just backing up the OP. Why are you offended? It's like some here feel the owner of the site is above criticism. Why is that? Joe has a great site, he's a great guy, does a heck of a job and puts a ton of sweat and hard work into it. I can recognize that and still voice an opinion when I feel like something's awry. Last I checked there should be only one guy who's above criticism, and his name is Tony Romo (God bless you Tony).

FWIW I pulled up my DraftDominator with expert rankings from Sept. 3rd and Moss is ranked WR30 just ahead studs Mark Clayton, Isaac Bruce and DJ Hackett. Doesn't seem like he was that high on him. I guess I put more stock into the paysite then I did the free e-mails. My bad.

I'm not offended....It's just rather stupid for you and Chet to be critizing Joe because you are too lazy to read the emails he sends out.

Actually, it's stupid for you criticize us without reading (or perhaps understanding) our point.

I understand your point perfectly. It's just a moronic one.

 

[ready5]

if you check out FBG's real flagship product, it has moss as the #2 WR:

http://blackeyedjoe.com/07bej_top200.htm

in all seriousness, if joe could accurately predict the outcomes of an entire NFL season, then:

- a subscription would cost a lot more than $27

- he wouldn't need an entire staff

- he'd be a billionaire on wall street

all i know is, the advice that i paid for has been well worth it so far.

 

[-Crippler-]

Moss won't do that well every week, but WR30? Even Yahoo had him ranked higher than that

 

[HoTnickZ]

Moss won't do that well every week, but WR30? Even Yahoo had him ranked higher than that

Did the timing of this coincide with the Moss might be cut smokescreen, and cause an overreaction ?And why isn't Projections Dominator just used as the default on DD anyway? Bunch of experts > than 1, or am I missing something?