Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I sort of led the charge on this, especially when it came to the Pats players. Welker, Lloyd, Branch, Gronk, and Hernandez were all going to have 1,200/10 yard seasons and Woodhead, Ridley, and Vereen were going to chip in another 2,500 yards. Doing the simple math, the Patriots were going to compile 9,000 yards and 800 points on the season. That's why for years I pitched the team spotlight concept where people would have to project the entire team offense, making the totals much more reasonable.
Hi slapdash,They've always started pretty soon after the draft IIRC. Doing a dynasty startup draft now and there is very very little useful content on the site.Bronx Bomber said:
Having written a ton of spotlights over the years, I found the projections at times to be pretty problematic. For example, if a NFL team had 3 young receivers that could emerge, people would pick one of them to be the breakout candidate and would post in that players PS thread that PLAYER X was in line for an 80-1200-10 season. They wouldn't like the other two guys very much, but they wouldn't post their projections for the other two WR. Well, the next poster would like PLAYER Y, and the next person PLAYER Z. But they would only comment and post projections for one of the 3 players. So what would happen would be that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z would all have lofty projections even though in reality only one might have any chance of having a breakout season (although the identity of breakout candidate was a mystery).
Cool, was not aware of the team pages. Looks like I timed the dynasty rankings poorly; they were pretty stale when I was looking Fri/Sat to check mine against.Hi slapdash,They've always started pretty soon after the draft IIRC. Doing a dynasty startup draft now and there is very very little useful content on the site.Bronx Bomber said:
Make sure to check out the Team Pages. We just posted Chicago yesterday http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2014/14teamreport-chi.php They're really good info I think. We also have about 600 new Player Page writeups that we just finished. For Dynasty rankings, we've got fresh content here http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=ov&type=dynasty%C2'>
J
Hi Anarchy,Personally, I would rather staffers picked someone to have a good year at those spots rather than project several players with so so numbers, as historically that has happened very often. But maybe that's just me . . .
Thanks slapdash. I hear you - we really do need to do a better job of highlighting the team pages as they're some of our best content I think. I've called them out on the email update each day but we need to get more emphasis on them on the site. That's always our problem - with a lot of stuff featured, it's hard to draw attention sometimes.Cool, was not aware of the team pages. Looks like I timed the dynasty rankings poorly; they were pretty stale when I was looking Fri/Sat to check mine against.Hi slapdash,They've always started pretty soon after the draft IIRC. Doing a dynasty startup draft now and there is very very little useful content on the site.Bronx Bomber said:
Make sure to check out the Team Pages. We just posted Chicago yesterday http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2014/14teamreport-chi.php They're really good info I think. We also have about 600 new Player Page writeups that we just finished. For Dynasty rankings, we've got fresh content here
J
Do you post a thread with the team page links? That might attract the attention of those who have the forum page bookmarked and don't navigate the homepage as often on mobile devices. Plus it would generate discussion I assume.Thanks slapdash. I hear you - we really do need to do a better job of highlighting the team pages as they're some of our best content I think. I've called them out on the email update each day but we need to get more emphasis on them on the site. That's always our problem - with a lot of stuff featured, it's hard to draw attention sometimes.Cool, was not aware of the team pages. Looks like I timed the dynasty rankings poorly; they were pretty stale when I was looking Fri/Sat to check mine against.Hi slapdash,They've always started pretty soon after the draft IIRC. Doing a dynasty startup draft now and there is very very little useful content on the site.Bronx Bomber said:
Make sure to check out the Team Pages. We just posted Chicago yesterday http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2014/14teamreport-chi.php They're really good info I think. We also have about 600 new Player Page writeups that we just finished. For Dynasty rankings, we've got fresh content here
J
J
Thanks. Here's the link for the Baltimore Team Report and then you can see links for all the other teams across the top. There are still some that we haven't entered yet for this season but many are live. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2014/14teamreport-rav.phpDo you post a thread with the team page links? That might attract the attention of those who have the forum page bookmarked and don't navigate the homepage as often on mobile devices. Plus it would generate discussion I assume.Thanks slapdash. I hear you - we really do need to do a better job of highlighting the team pages as they're some of our best content I think. I've called them out on the email update each day but we need to get more emphasis on them on the site. That's always our problem - with a lot of stuff featured, it's hard to draw attention sometimes.Cool, was not aware of the team pages. Looks like I timed the dynasty rankings poorly; they were pretty stale when I was looking Fri/Sat to check mine against.Hi slapdash,They've always started pretty soon after the draft IIRC. Doing a dynasty startup draft now and there is very very little useful content on the site.Bronx Bomber said:
Make sure to check out the Team Pages. We just posted Chicago yesterday http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2014/14teamreport-chi.php They're really good info I think. We also have about 600 new Player Page writeups that we just finished. For Dynasty rankings, we've got fresh content here
J
J
Personally, I have always found the site counter-intuitive to navigate during the off-season (In-season, it is organized very well). I've been trying to use the top bar and most of the links (Article\Reprots\Teams for example) and they come up stale.Thanks slapdash. I hear you - we really do need to do a better job of highlighting the team pages as they're some of our best content I think. I've called them out on the email update each day but we need to get more emphasis on them on the site. That's always our problem - with a lot of stuff featured, it's hard to draw attention sometimes.Cool, was not aware of the team pages. Looks like I timed the dynasty rankings poorly; they were pretty stale when I was looking Fri/Sat to check mine against.Hi slapdash,They've always started pretty soon after the draft IIRC. Doing a dynasty startup draft now and there is very very little useful content on the site.Bronx Bomber said:
Make sure to check out the Team Pages. We just posted Chicago yesterday http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2014/14teamreport-chi.php They're really good info I think. We also have about 600 new Player Page writeups that we just finished. For Dynasty rankings, we've got fresh content here
J
J
Have you ever tried ranking WR and TE stats based on QB projections? I have, and the effectiveness varies greatly depending on the team.Having written a ton of spotlights over the years, I found the projections at times to be pretty problematic. For example, if a NFL team had 3 young receivers that could emerge, people would pick one of them to be the breakout candidate and would post in that players PS thread that PLAYER X was in line for an 80-1200-10 season. They wouldn't like the other two guys very much, but they wouldn't post their projections for the other two WR. Well, the next poster would like PLAYER Y, and the next person PLAYER Z. But they would only comment and post projections for one of the 3 players. So what would happen would be that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z would all have lofty projections even though in reality only one might have any chance of having a breakout season (although the identity of breakout candidate was a mystery).
I have similar issues with player rankings in general. Like the current situation in Philadelphia. Foles is ranked and projected to have a very strong season, but the WR and TE from PHI are mostly ranked and projected on the low side. I get that there are a lot of options and there's a fair amount of risk and speculation, but the chances are that there will be a decent producer from PHI at both the WR and TE positions. It's very unlikely that the Eagles would have no TE in the Top 15 and no WR in the Top 25 if Foles ends up a Top 5 QB. Personally, I would rather staffers picked someone to have a good year at those spots rather than project several players with so so numbers, as historically that has happened very often. But maybe that's just me . . .
Everyone does thinks differently, but in the 10 years I worked for FBG, I made a projection for a team's QB first and then reversed engineered the projections for passing and running (and then the individual player projections from there).Have you ever tried ranking WR and TE stats based on QB projections? I have, and the effectiveness varies greatly depending on the team.Having written a ton of spotlights over the years, I found the projections at times to be pretty problematic. For example, if a NFL team had 3 young receivers that could emerge, people would pick one of them to be the breakout candidate and would post in that players PS thread that PLAYER X was in line for an 80-1200-10 season. They wouldn't like the other two guys very much, but they wouldn't post their projections for the other two WR. Well, the next poster would like PLAYER Y, and the next person PLAYER Z. But they would only comment and post projections for one of the 3 players. So what would happen would be that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z would all have lofty projections even though in reality only one might have any chance of having a breakout season (although the identity of breakout candidate was a mystery).
I have similar issues with player rankings in general. Like the current situation in Philadelphia. Foles is ranked and projected to have a very strong season, but the WR and TE from PHI are mostly ranked and projected on the low side. I get that there are a lot of options and there's a fair amount of risk and speculation, but the chances are that there will be a decent producer from PHI at both the WR and TE positions. It's very unlikely that the Eagles would have no TE in the Top 15 and no WR in the Top 25 if Foles ends up a Top 5 QB. Personally, I would rather staffers picked someone to have a good year at those spots rather than project several players with so so numbers, as historically that has happened very often. But maybe that's just me . . .
Using last year's Broncos team as an example, you could have realistically predicted that DT would have x% of Peyton's projected total yards and tds, Decker to have y%, Welker to have z%, etc. But New Orleans with Brees' #s? No chance. Same with Philly last season, and again this season.
I get what you're saying though, and ideally it would all add up. But some situations the projected qb #s can't be used as a starting point for TE and WR production
I very much disagree (respectfully). Yes, Brandon Weedon's spotlight from 2013 had 1 reply. But Calvin Johnson, Ryan Mathews, and MJD had 104, 163, and 97 replies, respectively. I really enjoyed posts from certain posters (TheDirtyWord particularly) and i've already finished my initial projections so I'd at least like to get my uninformed opinions out and see how they mesh with others.
Sorry but you're not understanding what I'm saying.
I have a request. Let's make the preseason SOS easier to find in the preseason. Like clockwork every year I am always scrambling to find this during my drafts. Every yearI have to put out the APB/Amber Alert for the preseason SOS. Maybe you could list it in several places or just somewhere that is easily found. I think you've had it listed under articles in the past...
Cool. I can add a Strength Of Schedule link under "Tools" in the horizontal header.
Thanks for clarifying-I read that wrong initially.
Can't wait for these to roll out!The biggest problem in the offseason seems to be inconsistent links. Every so often, I'll click on a link that will take me from a 2014 article to a 2013 article (the team reports had several initially, but I haven't found any problems lately as you plow through them all). This is always a risk for any site of this size, but it might be worth going through and moving/archiving everything from 2013 to create a fresh front end.
Thanks Steve.
