Random Footballguys staff discussion today. Do people think there's a difference between "Cheatsheets" and "Rankings"?
And if they're different, how so?
And if they're different, how so?
Firmly in the "No Difference" camp.Joe Bryant said:Random Footballguys staff discussion today. Do people think there's a difference between "Cheatsheets" and "Rankings"?
And if they're different, how so?
I voted “much different”.Joe Bryant said:Random Footballguys staff discussion today. Do people think there's a difference between "Cheatsheets" and "Rankings"?
And if they're different, how so?
I incorporate tiers into my cheat sheets.I'll play....
There's no difference because they are both inferior to Tiers.
I am struggling with a similar situation....FBG has 3 PIT WR's ranked in the top 28 PPR.....but Ben is like QB22....it doesn't seem to add up.....when Manning made 3 WR's serviceable/startable....he was easily in the top 10 or top 5.....seems like either the PIT WR's are being overvalued as a group or Ben is being seriously undervalued.....Firmly in the "No Difference" camp.
Unless they are backed up by full team projections, neither one is all that valuable to me. For instance I've seen plenty of places where MIN has a top10 WR with high upside, a top 15 WR with a very high floor, and a top 15 "sleeper" TE with high upside to outperform his ranking by a fairly wide margin. But somehow I almost never see Cousins ranked even in the top half of starting QB rankings. If more people in the industry actually put in the time to show their work as to how that happens it would be easier for me to take their rankings more seriously.... even if I disagreed with them. I'm not saying popular websites don't have full team projections rather I'm saying if there are staff members on those sites that are pushing out rankings without projections to back them up then why even bother? If they aren't willing to put in the work than just make a top-3 underated/overated article for each position and be done with it.
Maybe Ben is not expected to play 16 games?Stinkin Ref said:I am struggling with a similar situation....FBG has 3 PIT WR's ranked in the top 28 PPR.....but Ben is like QB22....it doesn't seem to add up.....when Manning made 3 WR's serviceable/startable....he was easily in the top 10 or top 5.....seems like either the PIT WR's are being overvalued as a group or Ben is being seriously undervalued.....
which is a whole nuther discussion its its own right.....I mean, people that predict say only 14-15 games or something....where exactly does that come from.....are they "predicting" an injury....or just basing it off what the guy "seems to average"....IDK....it seems kind of silly IMO to factor in injury in predictions.....I really don't want my "rankings experts" to somehow think they are "injury predictors".....IMO rankings should be based on playing every game in this case it is (17)....and then let me decide if I want to dial that back because of injury or something.....cause I am probably as "qualified" at predicting an injury as anybody else......TBH the only case might be if a ranker thinks a team will have locked up a bye and "sit" their guys in the last game (ala KC last year)....but even that is a reach, especially with only one bye now....Maybe Ben is not expected to play 16 games?
Rudolph getting 10% of the passing yards basically predicts Ben to miss two games though.FBG does provide their projections by team broken down by player so you could see how the projections for say all PIT QBs was broken down and also the receiving projections for all of their players (RB/WR/TE), and also had a listing of their projections by position so one could see how that teams players stacked up against other players in that position.
In this case, and not to reveal too much of the paid content, the vast majority of Pittsburg passing yards are projected to go to the WRs, and it is spread very evenly. Ben is projected with about 90% of the Pit passing yards with Rudolph getting about 10%. The 3 PIT Wrs are all projected in the top 28, but what is not mentioned is that the highest rated one is at 24, the 3rd highest is at 28, as their projections are near identical.
Right or wrong, they do have the data out there in the open to look at to see how they are coming up with the rankings based on the projections. It's up to us to determine how much agreement/disagreement with the projections we have.
Is your assertion that injury history and likelihood to miss games should not be factored into projections/rankings? I personally think it should so long as it is identified, such as in this case. Roth can be flagged as an injury risk. Again, digging into paid content so I'll be a bit vague, but for Roth, of the 6 projections used to build up the consensus projection, 3 of the projectors show Roth playing less than 17 games this season, which given recent history with him, I believe is a fair expectation and a factor that needs to be considered.Rudolph getting 10% of the passing yards basically predicts Ben to miss two games though.
Mike Clay does some very good projections in my opinion and he pretty consistently has players missing a game or two in his numbers.which is a whole nuther discussion its its own right.....I mean, people that predict say only 14-15 games or something....where exactly does that come from.....are they "predicting" an injury....or just basing it off what the guy "seems to average"....IDK....it seems kind of silly IMO to factor in injury in predictions.....I really don't want my "rankings experts" to somehow think they are "injury predictors".....IMO rankings should be based on playing every game in this case it is (17)....and then let me decide if I want to dial that back because of injury or something.....cause I am probably as "qualified" at predicting an injury as anybody else......TBH the only case might be if a ranker thinks a team will have locked up a bye and "sit" their guys in the last game (ala KC last year)....but even that is a reach, especially with only one bye now....
Not necessarily overkill/nitpick, but, and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here and stating the obvious, but they all feed into each other. Here is how I view it:I realize this is kind of overkill and nitpicking.....but thought it was relevant to the thread about rankings vs. cheatsheets and how projections factor in and are part of that...
That is a good thought, but if that's the case and PIT is rolling with Rudolph at QB I don't think many of those PIT receivers are going to hit their ADP. If I'm being completely honest I would admit @Stinkin Ref used a great example that I hadn't considered because I think most people are over projecting the entire PIT passing game for 2021. Maybe I'm underestimating how badly the losses in the secondary will hit them, but to me it's going to be all Defense and Harris.Maybe Ben is not expected to play 16 games?
Same here. Rankings and ADP are only useful to me as a tool to let me know how long I can wait on the guy I really want. It works better at the start of September than it does in July, though. Maybe it's because there are fewer data points and they disagree more in July. By September a lot of group think and popular narratives have set in across the hobby as a whole.Step 4 - Applying it - Personally, I'm not a big fan of overall top 50-60 or whatever rankings, but I see how they can be useful. When my pick comes up, I look at my top player at each position, then I try and make a best guess at which players at each position will be available at my next pick (or next two picks) to come to a best guess on which combination of those next 2-3 picks will give me the greatest overall value. Sometimes this means I will take a player that I have rated as a lower value over a higher value player at a different position, because I think that the likely value drop is less in that position and I will end up with the higher overall value for the team. More art than science at this point.
I understand where you are coming from.it just feels to me that when you start factoring in "predicting players to miss games because of injury", things get wonky and kind of sideways.....there should be the same baseline (17 games) for everybody and then leave it up to us to determine if we should factor in a player missing games because of injury.....
being replaced is maybe a little bit different story....but still I would want FBG to give me Dalton's ranking based on 17 games.....I will already be factoring in on my own the odds of him being replaced by week 10 or whatever.....but who knows....maybe it doesn't happen.....maybe Fields breaks a leg in preseason or whatever...saying you will "adjust Dalton's rankings" when/if that happens doesn't really help me with drafts that are happening now or have already happened...