What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Troy Polamalu (1 Viewer)

Big Log

Footballguy
According to the SOS, Cincy is a good matchup this week for DBs (dbs and safeties I presume). Not sure why he's so low but unless he has an injury we haven't heard of, I would start him with confidence.Just my opinion..Chris

 

WhoDat

Footballguy
The only thing I can think of that would bump him down this far would be if the Bengals decided to stretch the Steelers defense all game long. By that I mean to say that the Bengals play mostly from 3 or, more specifically, 4 WR sets most of the game. Force Polamalu into pass coverage more often than not. From a tactical standpoint that would force Lebeau and Polamalu's hand to a certain extent and not let him, Polamalu, freelance as much. It would limit his ability to stack the line and blitz as frequently as he does. Even then, though, one would think he would still be as active as ever on the field. Unless the Bengals did something in the previous game to compeltely neautralize him I too do not understand the ranking. As an IDP new guy that owns Polamalu, even I know you play the guy each week without question. The guy is a monster.He had 4 tackles and an assist in the last meeting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bonscott

Footballguy
You guys can't focus so much on his ranking number, look at the points.So he's ranked 65th with 6 points. If he gets just one more tackle then projected he's all of a sudden Top 20 at that is in the 8 point range. Get's a sack or INT? Top 5.So don't sweat the ranking number, look at the points.

 

ConstruxBoy

Kate's Daddy
You guys can't focus so much on his ranking number, look at the points.

So he's ranked 65th with 6 points. If he gets just one more tackle then projected he's all of a sudden Top 20 at that is in the 8 point range. Get's a sack or INT? Top 5.

So don't sweat the ranking number, look at the points.
Thanks and that's a good point. I'm a IDP newbie this year and I'm still getting used to how they are usually so closely spaced together in the projections.
 

Otter

Footballguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous. If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke. Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over. Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup. So don't let the rankings change your mind.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous. If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke. Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over.

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup. So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Is it just because the projections are so close together, or is there something inherently wrong with the process?
 

Lord of the Rings

Footballguy
I wonder how much his low ranking has to do with his performance the last time the Steelers faced the Bengals: 4 solo 1 assist. One of his lowest scoring outputs of the year.Still no way I sit him.

 

bonscott

Footballguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous. If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke. Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over.

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup. So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Did you read anything I wrote above?He's projected to have 6 pts (with the scoring system that FBG use).

That puts him in the mid 60s ranking wise.

All of 2 more points at 8 pts is #26!!

A whole 3 points more at 9 is #14!!

You're just not getting it. The ranking number is useless and you need to STOP looking at it. Of course you don't bench Polamalu. And he's only projected 1 tackle lower then a guy at #15!

So what exactly is the problem here? Any guy projected to have 5 tackles is a nearly must start in my league. Is that not the case in yours? Heck, Mike Furrey is down at #88 but also projected at 5 tackles. He'll be in my starting lineup this week as he has the past few and he has done well for me. If they projected 1 more tackle for him he'd shoot up the list to in Top 30 or so.

Starting to sink in now? Ignore the dang ranking number!! Look at the actual projected numbers for crying out loud. This is different then an offensive ranking cheatsheet.

Perhaps what you need to do is copy the entire ranking table into Excel and then resort it by tackles or something.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous. If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke. Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over.

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup. So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Did you read anything I wrote above?He's projected to have 6 pts (with the scoring system that FBG use).

That puts him in the mid 60s ranking wise.

All of 2 more points at 8 pts is #26!!

A whole 3 points more at 9 is #14!!

You're just not getting it. The ranking number is useless and you need to STOP looking at it. Of course you don't bench Polamalu. And he's only projected 1 tackle lower then a guy at #15!

So what exactly is the problem here? Any guy projected to have 5 tackles is a nearly must start in my league. Is that not the case in yours? Heck, Mike Furrey is down at #88 but also projected at 5 tackles. He'll be in my starting lineup this week as he has the past few and he has done well for me. If they projected 1 more tackle for him he'd shoot up the list to in Top 30 or so.

Starting to sink in now? Ignore the dang ranking number!! Look at the actual projected numbers for crying out loud. This is different then an offensive ranking cheatsheet.

Perhaps what you need to do is copy the entire ranking table into Excel and then resort it by tackles or something.
Wow...You're a pretty angry guy.

 

bonscott

Footballguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous. If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke. Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over.

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup. So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Did you read anything I wrote above?He's projected to have 6 pts (with the scoring system that FBG use).

That puts him in the mid 60s ranking wise.

All of 2 more points at 8 pts is #26!!

A whole 3 points more at 9 is #14!!

You're just not getting it. The ranking number is useless and you need to STOP looking at it. Of course you don't bench Polamalu. And he's only projected 1 tackle lower then a guy at #15!

So what exactly is the problem here? Any guy projected to have 5 tackles is a nearly must start in my league. Is that not the case in yours? Heck, Mike Furrey is down at #88 but also projected at 5 tackles. He'll be in my starting lineup this week as he has the past few and he has done well for me. If they projected 1 more tackle for him he'd shoot up the list to in Top 30 or so.

Starting to sink in now? Ignore the dang ranking number!! Look at the actual projected numbers for crying out loud. This is different then an offensive ranking cheatsheet.

Perhaps what you need to do is copy the entire ranking table into Excel and then resort it by tackles or something.
Wow...You're a pretty angry guy.
:excited: :boxing: Actually just sick of people giving Norton crap when they just aren't understanding the projections. But hey, the same posts will be here again next week so my rant probably won't do any good. :bag:

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous. If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke. Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over.

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup. So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Did you read anything I wrote above?He's projected to have 6 pts (with the scoring system that FBG use).

That puts him in the mid 60s ranking wise.

All of 2 more points at 8 pts is #26!!

A whole 3 points more at 9 is #14!!

You're just not getting it. The ranking number is useless and you need to STOP looking at it. Of course you don't bench Polamalu. And he's only projected 1 tackle lower then a guy at #15!

So what exactly is the problem here? Any guy projected to have 5 tackles is a nearly must start in my league. Is that not the case in yours? Heck, Mike Furrey is down at #88 but also projected at 5 tackles. He'll be in my starting lineup this week as he has the past few and he has done well for me. If they projected 1 more tackle for him he'd shoot up the list to in Top 30 or so.

Starting to sink in now? Ignore the dang ranking number!! Look at the actual projected numbers for crying out loud. This is different then an offensive ranking cheatsheet.

Perhaps what you need to do is copy the entire ranking table into Excel and then resort it by tackles or something.
Wow...You're a pretty angry guy.
:excited: :boxing: Actually just sick of people giving Norton crap when they just aren't understanding the projections. But hey, the same posts will be here again next week so my rant probably won't do any good. :bag:
Well, you made your point, and it was a good one. You convinced me. :thumbup:
 

Otter

Footballguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous.  If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke.  Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over. 

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup.  So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Did you read anything I wrote above?He's projected to have 6 pts (with the scoring system that FBG use).

That puts him in the mid 60s ranking wise.

All of 2 more points at 8 pts is #26!!

A whole 3 points more at 9 is #14!!

You're just not getting it. The ranking number is useless and you need to STOP looking at it. Of course you don't bench Polamalu. And he's only projected 1 tackle lower then a guy at #15!

So what exactly is the problem here? Any guy projected to have 5 tackles is a nearly must start in my league. Is that not the case in yours? Heck, Mike Furrey is down at #88 but also projected at 5 tackles. He'll be in my starting lineup this week as he has the past few and he has done well for me. If they projected 1 more tackle for him he'd shoot up the list to in Top 30 or so.

Starting to sink in now? Ignore the dang ranking number!! Look at the actual projected numbers for crying out loud. This is different then an offensive ranking cheatsheet.

Perhaps what you need to do is copy the entire ranking table into Excel and then resort it by tackles or something.
Don't know what you're belly aching about, but FYI, I don't use his rankings... But A lot of people new to IDP do use them. It is obvious. And no, I really don't read your nonsense. Anyone who starts Mike Furrey and brags about it... I wouldn't want their $.02 anyway. BTW, Norton does not like you any better since you stick up for him.

Now, is THAT sinking in?

:coffee:

 

Otter

Footballguy
Just out of curiousity, what is wrong with starting Mike Furrey?
Nothing, really. He's average at best. Other than Wesley (and maybe B. Sanders), I'm partial to Strong Safeties over Free Safeties. I can think of many, many players that I'd start over Furrey.
 

Bayou Buffalos

Footballguy
Yea, #65 is ridiculous.  If you have been around here this year, you'd already know that the weekly IDP rankings are a joke.  Sorry, Norton, no offense implied, but this has been discussed over and over and over. 

Polamalu is a must-start every week, regardless of the matchup.  So don't let the rankings change your mind.
Did you read anything I wrote above?He's projected to have 6 pts (with the scoring system that FBG use).

That puts him in the mid 60s ranking wise.

All of 2 more points at 8 pts is #26!!

A whole 3 points more at 9 is #14!!

You're just not getting it. The ranking number is useless and you need to STOP looking at it. Of course you don't bench Polamalu. And he's only projected 1 tackle lower then a guy at #15!

So what exactly is the problem here? Any guy projected to have 5 tackles is a nearly must start in my league. Is that not the case in yours? Heck, Mike Furrey is down at #88 but also projected at 5 tackles. He'll be in my starting lineup this week as he has the past few and he has done well for me. If they projected 1 more tackle for him he'd shoot up the list to in Top 30 or so.

Starting to sink in now? Ignore the dang ranking number!! Look at the actual projected numbers for crying out loud. This is different then an offensive ranking cheatsheet.

Perhaps what you need to do is copy the entire ranking table into Excel and then resort it by tackles or something.
Wow...You're a pretty angry guy.
:excited: :boxing: Actually just sick of people giving Norton crap when they just aren't understanding the projections. But hey, the same posts will be here again next week so my rant probably won't do any good. :bag:
Honestly man, its a pretty big leap for you to assume that people questioning the rankings "just aren't understanding" the rankings. No offense, but the answer I was hoping to find in this post has nothing to do with rankings vs. projections. I would venture a guess that most of us here have a pretty clear undertanding of that! The question is why people think Polamalu is ranked/projected so low against the Bengals this week. And yes, I know the definition of "low" is relative. Is it because, as Frodo pointed out, he had only 4-1 in the last matchup? Is it, as Whodat suggests, because he might be forced into pass coverage more often? What do y'all think?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Qtip Callahan

Footballguy
Interestingly enough, my DBs are Wesley, Furrey, B. Sanders and Pacman Jones (we get points for Kickoff and punt returns yards plus bonuses for both).. I just picked up Furrey two weeks ago but am starting him this week over Bob Sanders. Of course, we play in a deep, 14 team league so it's all relative.

 

ConstruxBoy

Kate's Daddy
I understand the projections and the small difference in points, but I want a cheatsheet, not just a regurgitation of the projections. Any idiot can line up all the projections and choose starters that way. I want someone who says:"Polamalu only went 4-1 last time against CIN last week, so we're only projecting 5-1 for him this week. But he's a top 10 fantasy DB, so on the cheatsheet instead of his normal ranking of 8, we're moving him down to 19."Putting him at 66 is idiotic. Apologies to Norton, but that's what the cheetsheet should be.

 

bonscott

Footballguy
FYI if you guys want a *true* cheatsheet then Norton gives one with his Eyes of the Guru report each week. Use that. And you'll find this cheetsheet is much different then the projection ranking which is just simply sorted on projected points which the rankings are which I agree are useless as a ranking.

 

bonscott

Footballguy
Anyone who starts Mike Furrey and brags about it... I wouldn't want their $.02 anyway.
Now I know you don't know anything about IDP's. :eek: Mike Furrey has been the #12 DB the past 6 weeks and that *includes* his BYE week. I start players that get me points, not big names. Furrey has been an awesome #4 DB starter for me, especially someone picked up off the waiver wire. He's been a #1/#2 DB starter the past 6 weeks.
 

bonscott

Footballguy
And unfortunately Norton actualy overprojected as Polamalu only had 3 tackles and 1 passed defensed and that's it (I start him every week as my #1 DB). Uggggg.

 

Otter

Footballguy
Yes, Norton also projected G. Wilson #1 and M. Adams #3. They also had down games (Wilson 3-2); Adams (2-1-1int), etc.Your boy Furrey had what, 4-1? Nothing to write home about, either.Play Polamalu every week. He may have had a subpar game, but he's arguably the best SS (and fantasy SS) in the game.

 

Qtip Callahan

Footballguy
You could make a strong case for him. I think Adrian Wilson has been better this year however. The guy gets sacks, INTs, deflections, tackles everything. I think Polamalu is a better player but the Cardinal defense spends more time on the field..

 

Otter

Footballguy
You could make a strong case for him. I think Adrian Wilson has been better this year however. The guy gets sacks, INTs, deflections, tackles everything. I think Polamalu is a better player but the Cardinal defense spends more time on the field..
I agree with you.
 

Lord of the Rings

Footballguy
Play Polamalu every week.  He may have had a subpar game, but he's arguably the best SS (and fantasy SS) in the game.
There is no question with that.
I wonder what gives when he plays the Bengals. You would think, since Rudi runs and Palmer throws, Polamalu would have an opportunity to be in on every play. Maybe it's just a coindence that he has such a subpar performance against Cincy, but it certainly makes me scratch my head a bit.
 

ConstruxBoy

Kate's Daddy
Play Polamalu every week. He may have had a subpar game, but he's arguably the best SS (and fantasy SS) in the game.
There is no question with that.
True and I was complaining more to try to figure out what the cheatsheet really is. I thought it was a ranking of the best players to play in a given week based upon their projections for that week, as well as their past performance. To me the weekly cheatsheets should almost be the Top 200 Forward list, with some adjustments made for matchups. Just because LT2 has a difficult matchup, doesn't mean he should be ranked any lower than 10-12. You should be starting him every week. Make sense?
 

bonscott

Footballguy
Play Polamalu every week. He may have had a subpar game, but he's arguably the best SS (and fantasy SS) in the game.
There is no question with that.
True and I was complaining more to try to figure out what the cheatsheet really is. I thought it was a ranking of the best players to play in a given week based upon their projections for that week, as well as their past performance. To me the weekly cheatsheets should almost be the Top 200 Forward list, with some adjustments made for matchups. Just because LT2 has a difficult matchup, doesn't mean he should be ranked any lower than 10-12. You should be starting him every week. Make sense?
You got it. Always start your studs. These projections are not meant to be a cheatsheet as it's just the projections added up to points and sorted by points. Using your LT2 example he might be projected to get only 80 yards and a TD. Maybe that ranks him #15 or something with RB's. Obviously he'd never be benched over someone else. Use the projections as nothing more then another tool in your toolbox.Like Polamalu. He's certainly a Top 5 DB in anyone's book. You'd never bench him, even with bad matchup just like you'd never bench LT2. I personally use the projections only to help me decide perhaps between a couple marginal players like the above mentioned Furrey. He's been pretty good the last 5-6 weeks but starting to drop off now. So going into next week I'll probably be looking at starting someone else as my 4th DB over Furrey. So one of the things I'll do is look at the matchup and projections. The projections might give me insight into something I may overlook. Such as perhaps projecting an INT. Why is that? Oh, the QB sucks. Well then, perhaps I'll take a chance on that guy vs. the 4 tackle guy. Things like that.

But definately the projections are *not* rankings and should never be used as such. And like I mentioned, Norton includes a true ranking/cheatsheet with his Eye's of the Guru article so be on the look out for that (assuming you subscribe that is).

 

ConstruxBoy

Kate's Daddy
Play Polamalu every week. He may have had a subpar game, but he's arguably the best SS (and fantasy SS) in the game.
There is no question with that.
True and I was complaining more to try to figure out what the cheatsheet really is. I thought it was a ranking of the best players to play in a given week based upon their projections for that week, as well as their past performance. To me the weekly cheatsheets should almost be the Top 200 Forward list, with some adjustments made for matchups. Just because LT2 has a difficult matchup, doesn't mean he should be ranked any lower than 10-12. You should be starting him every week. Make sense?
You got it. Always start your studs. These projections are not meant to be a cheatsheet as it's just the projections added up to points and sorted by points. Using your LT2 example he might be projected to get only 80 yards and a TD. Maybe that ranks him #15 or something with RB's. Obviously he'd never be benched over someone else. Use the projections as nothing more then another tool in your toolbox.Like Polamalu. He's certainly a Top 5 DB in anyone's book. You'd never bench him, even with bad matchup just like you'd never bench LT2. I personally use the projections only to help me decide perhaps between a couple marginal players like the above mentioned Furrey. He's been pretty good the last 5-6 weeks but starting to drop off now. So going into next week I'll probably be looking at starting someone else as my 4th DB over Furrey. So one of the things I'll do is look at the matchup and projections. The projections might give me insight into something I may overlook. Such as perhaps projecting an INT. Why is that? Oh, the QB sucks. Well then, perhaps I'll take a chance on that guy vs. the 4 tackle guy. Things like that.

But definately the projections are *not* rankings and should never be used as such. And like I mentioned, Norton includes a true ranking/cheatsheet with his Eye's of the Guru article so be on the look out for that (assuming you subscribe that is).
Thanks and I agree. I do use the EOTG rankings though. Those are very good.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top