Staff dynasty rankings questions (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

Love the rankings, love to bash them. Love the guys that have their own ideas and stick to them.

With that out of the way, I shall begin with Mr. Norton.

John Norton thinks the following guys are better dynasty prospects than Calvin Johnson:

Antonio Bryant

33 year old Tony Gonzales on a new team

Owen Daniels

And about 30 other dudes that should be nowhere NEAR Johnson on a dynasty rankings list.

Really? Seriously? Honestly? For the love of Pete tell me this is a joke or a typo.

He also has Brian Westbrook at #5. What part of DYNASTY are you not understanding?

On the flip side he has Reggie Bush MUCH lower than everyone else and Felix Jones MUCH higher. I agree wholeheartedly with both of those assessments, so kudos there.

To the whole staff:

Only one of you has Donnie Avery even listed AT ALL (no one can find room for him in the top their top 75). How is that the case for a guy who is the clear #1 for his team, was the highest receiver drafted in his class, had an excellent rookie season, has outstanding measurables, and is now entering the prime of his career?

 

[mikel0254]

Wow, Calvin Johnson is low. I'd rank him in the top 3 WR's, and very low teens (13 or 14 range) overall.

I'm sure Norton has his reasons whether you agree with them or not, and he clearly knows what a dynasty league is. Part of it could be that he's on my beloved Lions...

 

[The Man With No Name]

The only beef I have is that all the rankings always say "always current" and they always aren't. That always current notation should go away because it is not true.

 

[Biabreakable]

IIRC Avery is recovering from a knee surgury?

Maybe that is part of the reason for lower rankings on him at this time.

 

[madd futher]

One thing I'd really like to see is a box under each staff member's name that you can check if you want them EXCLUDED from the averages. That way for instance, if I wanted to exclude all but Waldman and Bloom I could do it. Or if I thought Norton's rankings were full of ####, I could just check a box and - presto - he's gone (not to pile it on you John, but Calvin at #38 over-all? What ARE you smokin'?)

Seriously, a feature like that should be very easy to program.

Edit: does the censor allow you to use the word 'crap' instead of the word I used there?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

One thing I'd really like to see is a box under each staff member's name that you can check if you want them EXCLUDED from the averages. That way for instance, if I wanted to exclude all but Waldman and Bloom I could do it. Or if I thought Norton's rankings were full of ####, I could just check a box and - presto - he's gone (not to pile it on you John, but Calvin at #38 over-all? What ARE you smokin'?)Seriously, a feature like that should be very easy to program.Edit: does the censor allow you to use the word 'crap' instead of the word I used there?

The feature you speak of is in the rankings - look above the "date submitted"

 

[Holy Schneikes]

IIRC Avery is recovering from a knee surgury?Maybe that is part of the reason for lower rankings on him at this time.

Knee surgery would be news to me. Maybe I missed it?He did play with a cracked hip last year, but to me that could be a positive indication that he's willing/able to play through pain.

 

[gonzobill5]

Love the rankings, love to bash them. Love the guys that have their own ideas and stick to them.

You hit the nail on the head there. The only use these ranking have for me is to see an opinion that I can trust is well thought out and compare it to my own. For instance, I think Jeff ranking Stewart ahead of DeAngelo is shocking - but it tells me that if I take DeAngelo in round 1 I've got little chance of grabbing Stewart at a discount the way some people swiped LJ as Priest's handcuff few years back.

 

[identikit]

The only beef I have is that all the rankings always say "always current" and they always aren't. That always current notation should go away because it is not true.

Nail on the head....

 

[identikit]

Mark Wimer's WR (redraft) ranking of 48 for Ocho Cinco.

Nate Washington, Patrick Crayton ahead of him.

Still waiting for the rationale on that one.

 

[The Future Champs]

I'd like to see more commentary on the rankings by the ranker, which (should be mandatory) anytime they rank a player significantly higher or lower (+/- 30% ?) than the current average. That would be very beneficial to anyone trying to learn the nuances of FF, and might even cut down on the amount of whining on the FF boards.

 

[Avery]

I'd like to see more commentary on the rankings by the ranker, which (should be mandatory) anytime they rank a player significantly higher or lower (+/- 30% ?) than the current average. That would be very beneficial to anyone trying to learn the nuances of FF, and might even cut down on the amount of whining on the FF boards.

I'm not looking just to parrot someone's rankings but rather look at other informed opinions to solidify and question my own opinions.Raw numbers help with this far less then the numbers with the thinking behind them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Hester has gone as the #25(!), #32, #34, #35, #36 WR in the startups I've tracked this year. Staff ranking? 55.

Someone's wrong.

 

[Biabreakable]

IIRC Avery is recovering from a knee surgury?Maybe that is part of the reason for lower rankings on him at this time.

Knee surgery would be news to me. Maybe I missed it?He did play with a cracked hip last year, but to me that could be a positive indication that he's willing/able to play through pain.

It might not have been the knee but I read something about him missing time in OTA and recovering from an injury I hadn't heard about until just the other day.I will try to find out what it was again. And let you know.Avery not real high on my list of guys I'm tracking. I did consider him the best WR coming in last year though before the draft.ETA- did a cursory search and I don't see anything from the news feeds on this. Then I see that WR Derek Stanley of the Rams has a knee injury keeping him out. Sorry for the mix up.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I'd like to see more commentary on the rankings by the ranker, which (should be mandatory) anytime they rank a player significantly higher or lower (+/- 30% ?) than the current average. That would be very beneficial to anyone trying to learn the nuances of FF, and might even cut down on the amount of whining on the FF boards.

I'm not looking just to parrot someone's rankings but rather look at other informed opinions to solidify and question my own opinions.Raw numbers help with this far less then the numbers with the thinking behind them.

Agreed. I like the little rollover text box that a lot of the rankers use to explain their thinking. Matt and both Jeffs do an excellent with this.Would love to have one of those boxes for Johnson's ranking (and some of the others that are "out there", whether I agree with them or not).

 

[Truman]

I'd like to see Matt Waldman's TE rankings

 

[FUBAR]

I'd like to see more commentary on the rankings by the ranker, which (should be mandatory) anytime they rank a player significantly higher or lower (+/- 30% ?) than the current average. That would be very beneficial to anyone trying to learn the nuances of FF, and might even cut down on the amount of whining on the FF boards.

I'm not looking just to parrot someone's rankings but rather look at other informed opinions to solidify and question my own opinions.Raw numbers help with this far less then the numbers with the thinking behind them.

Agreed. I like the little rollover text box that a lot of the rankers use to explain their thinking. Matt and both Jeffs do an excellent with this.Would love to have one of those boxes for Johnson's ranking (and some of the others that are "out there", whether I agree with them or not).

Is there a spot where the staff explains their philosophy behind their rankings? What system they use - whether that's simply that they watch the games, use stats, BMI, etc. I can see if someone prefers WRs overall or doesn't care much about age, but to actually see them explain their system would be beneficial.

 

[rct]

I'd like to see more commentary on the rankings by the ranker, which (should be mandatory) anytime they rank a player significantly higher or lower (+/- 30% ?) than the current average. That would be very beneficial to anyone trying to learn the nuances of FF, and might even cut down on the amount of whining on the FF boards.

I'm not looking just to parrot someone's rankings but rather look at other informed opinions to solidify and question my own opinions.Raw numbers help with this far less then the numbers with the thinking behind them.

Commentary should be mandatory on all picks. Otherwise, as far as we know, rankings are arbitrary or picked out of a hat.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Hester has gone as the #25(!), #32, #34, #35, #36 WR in the startups I've tracked this year. Staff ranking? 55.Someone's wrong.

And I don't think it's the staff.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I think Benson at 42 is RIDICULOUS given his last 8 games, and the faith the bengals seem to have in him.

 

[FUBAR]

Hester has gone as the #25(!), #32, #34, #35, #36 WR in the startups I've tracked this year. Staff ranking? 55.Someone's wrong.

And I don't think it's the staff.

IMO, the true value s somewhere in between. Hester certainly could produce good stats with Cutler, but I know I won't be looking his way until the 40s or later. Hester is along the "shiny new toys" line of drafting, Cutler + big play potential =

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I think Benson at 42 is RIDICULOUS given his last 8 games, and the faith the bengals seem to have in him.

I'm not as impressed by his last 8 games. The three 100 yard games were wins that the Bengals controlled throughout, and Benson got 24+ carries. There are a lot of backups, and even some third stringers that probably could have gotten the same numbers in those games. Other than the nice catch and run against Washington, he was pretty much a non-factor in the other games.He also had little to no competition for touches last year because the RB corps was decimated. This year the Bengals added Brian Leonard and drafted Bernard Scott, who should at least take away 3rd downs and some change of pace carries.Bottom line is that Benson is only going to be a good start when the Bengals can control the game, and they're not at a place yet where that is going to happen often. Benson is only on a two year deal, so he's far from cemented as the long term feature back, and even when he was putting up numbers last year, he looked like an average NFL talent at RB, not a former top 5 pick. I do still have Benson at 35 -The five guys I have directly ahead of Benson - LJ, Ward, Greene, Sproles, Addai - which do you think (if any) should be behind him? LJ is the best case, but I have a feeling he'll have some mileage left after KC and maybe even have a Dillon-esque late career resurgence. It also seems like more and more backs are remaining solid NFL backs into their 30s.

 

[mikel0254]

Like many have said, I'd like it if there was some commentary about each ranking in the top 100, not just random rankings. Not a paragraph each, just a blurb about why they belong in range X (such as RB2, WR1, QB2, etc) over range Y

 

[Zoomanji]

My beef is that there are only 3 to choose from and none are PPR

 

[Fodasme69]

My beef is that there are only 3 to choose from and none are PPR

 

[Mark Wimer]

Mark Wimer's WR (redraft) ranking of 48 for Ocho Cinco.

Nate Washington, Patrick Crayton ahead of him.

Still waiting for the rationale on that one.

OchoCinco has royally PO'd Carson Palmer. Palmer said on May 21

"T.J.'s (Houshmandzadeh) gone and Chad's pretty much gone, he hasn't been here, so we've got guys that want those two spots, guys that compete day in and day out, when we're out there on the field, running, conditioning and in the weight room lifting. They're guys that want to take over for those two spots. They look every bit capable of doing what we're going to ask them to do."

Laveranues Coles and Chris Henry are getting all the offseason reps with Carson Palmer. OchoCinco isn't participating in OTAs. He doesn't have Houshmandzadeh across from him to worry opposing defenses anymore, and he's unhappy with his contract/pushing to be traded to another team. OchoCinco got in a shouting match with the head coach Lewis last season and was suspended for a game due to insubordination in week 12, I believe.

Tons of "intangible" issues with OchoCinco. No Way I advise anyone to draft him. I think he'll be lucky to finish in the top 50 this season unless his attitude/his relationship with Carson Palmer is rectified. As of late May, I view Chad OchoCinco as an undesirable fantasy WR.

 

[Jack Black]

One thing I'd really like to see is a box under each staff member's name that you can check if you want them EXCLUDED from the averages. That way for instance, if I wanted to exclude all but Waldman and Bloom I could do it. Or if I thought Norton's rankings were full of ####, I could just check a box and - presto - he's gone (not to pile it on you John, but Calvin at #38 over-all? What ARE you smokin'?)Seriously, a feature like that should be very easy to program.Edit: does the censor allow you to use the word 'crap' instead of the word I used there?

The feature you speak of is in the rankings - look above the "date submitted"

another way to do this is to click on the median score rather than the average ... that is how I sort w/o excluding scores

 

[NorrisB]

Bloom and Waldman are my favorites, Jeff Pasquino well I just never understand his rankings, he's very smart it's just his style doesn't fit my own.

Non ppr is a big beef with me I dont like non ppr, I dont think Id play in a non ppr league and I dont think most leagues are non ppr and FBG should change it.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Bloom and Waldman are my favorites, Jeff Pasquino well I just never understand his rankings, he's very smart it's just his style doesn't fit my own. Non ppr is a big beef with me I dont like non ppr, I dont think Id play in a non ppr league and I dont think most leagues are non ppr and FBG should change it.

 

[munchkin]

Bloom and Waldman are my favorites, Jeff Pasquino well I just never understand his rankings, he's very smart it's just his style doesn't fit my own. Non ppr is a big beef with me I dont like non ppr, I dont think Id play in a non ppr league and I dont think most leagues are non ppr and FBG should change it.

Zealots is all non-PPR as far as I know. I believe that there are more leagues, unfortunately, playing non-PPR.

 

[Fodasme69]

Bloom and Waldman are my favorites, Jeff Pasquino well I just never understand his rankings, he's very smart it's just his style doesn't fit my own. Non ppr is a big beef with me I dont like non ppr, I dont think Id play in a non ppr league and I dont think most leagues are non ppr and FBG should change it.

Zealots is all non-PPR as far as I know. I believe that there are more leagues, unfortunately, playing non-PPR.

doesn't mean you can't supply both

 

[Zoomanji]

Bloom and Waldman are my favorites, Jeff Pasquino well I just never understand his rankings, he's very smart it's just his style doesn't fit my own. Non ppr is a big beef with me I dont like non ppr, I dont think Id play in a non ppr league and I dont think most leagues are non ppr and FBG should change it.

Zealots is all non-PPR as far as I know. I believe that there are more leagues, unfortunately, playing non-PPR.

doesn't mean you can't supply both

agreeand Zealots is a free league. Why would someone pay for rankings to play in a free league?

 

[Truman]

Love the rankings, love to bash them. Love the guys that have their own ideas and stick to them.With that out of the way, I shall begin with Mr. Norton.John Norton thinks the following guys are better dynasty prospects than Calvin Johnson:Antonio Bryant33 year old Tony Gonzales on a new teamOwen DanielsAnd about 30 other dudes that should be nowhere NEAR Johnson on a dynasty rankings list.

Still waiting on a reply

 

[Biabreakable]

If there are projections it would be easy enough to form PPR rankings from them.

The ranker may have philosophical or strategy based differences due to the difference in scoring.

For example I might have Hakeem Nicks higher than DHB in that scenario because the consistency of 60-80 catches compared to 50-70 catches would outweigh the expected difference in TD potential where I favor DHB over Nicks.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Matt, on your wr comments it looks like these are redraft instead of dynasty rankings. You mention "this year" and team circumstances a lot which shouldn't matter so much for dynasty.