Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ranking the rooks -- 2004 vs 2005 vs 2006 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter purplehaze67
- Start date
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
And they even have Quinn on the cover. But have him there as "Biggest Risk: Brady Quinn"These rankings just jumped the shark.I can understand maybe Calvin not being rated higher than Fitz... but being in the same general position as Mike Williams and Troy Williamson? He has the best combination of size, speed, hands and attitude perhaps ever.Brady Quinn's rating is a joke too. Like the guy or not, I don't see how you can rate him in the same general class as Brodie Croyle and Dan Orlovsky.
ILoveMyLions
Footballguy
If you go back and read my original post, I added 9 points to the 2001 rankings so they would be more comparable. Otherwise, it is comparing apples and oranges...Also, if you have the 2000 rankings add them in if you could...I lost my book at some point...Got it right here in front of me. 2001- TWR's rating system: 8-- Franchise player, 7-- potential Pro Bowler, 6--Could start as rookie, 5--Eventual starter, 4--Quality backup, 3--Should make roster, 2--Chance to make roster, 1--not likely to make roster.1.McAllister 7.72.Bennett 7.23.Tomlinson 6.94.Jordan 6.75.Henry 6.56.A. Thomas 6.47.Barlow 6.28.J. Jackson 5.69.D. Allen 5.310.Minor 5.111.R. Johnson 4.812.Blaylock 4.513.Buckhalter 4.214.K. Brown 4.115.C. Washington 4.016.M. Shipp 3.722.Dee Brown 2.131. D. Rhodes ---
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
Just looked at 2000- they rated each player in 5 category's with each category being up to 8 points, which according to the magazine, 8= rare. For the final grades all they do is add the 5 category's together. So, for instance Thomas Jones is a 31.5, Alexander a 31.0, Ron Dayne 28.5, Jamal Lewis 27.5, and so on. You really can't do anything with these numbers to compare them with the other years.I assume this was their 1st year with numerical grades since the 1999 magazine has no numbers, just rankings.
Why couldn't you just divide each score by 5 to arrive at a value comparable to other years for each player?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
Because in '00 8= rare, 7= outstanding, 6= good, 5= adequate, 4= marginal, 3= poor. Since 2002- 9= Franchise player, 8= Potential pro Bowler, 7=Could Start as Rookie, 6= Eventual starter, 5= Quality backup, 4=Should make roster, 3= Chance to make roster, 2= Not likely to make roster, 1= free agent possibility.It's totally different. Top rb's Jones and Alexander would be 6.3 and 6.2. Darrell Jackson, despite a nice writeup would only be 5.4 It just doesn't compare.
Last edited by a moderator:
ILoveMyLions
Footballguy
I still think that adding .9 (on a 9 point scale) to the overall score of those listed in '01 and before wouldn't make it close and at least comparable...
Couch Potato
Footballguy
So Ciatrick Fason at 8.1 should be better than LT at 7.8. Works for me.
Note to self - send trade offer to LT owner. Tell him he'll have to throw in something extra too if he wants Fason.
Note to self - send trade offer to LT owner. Tell him he'll have to throw in something extra too if he wants Fason.
Riffraff
Footballguy
switz
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
