When projections don't come close to matching up . . . (1 Viewer)

[Anarchy99]

Do FF websites even bother to look at what their projections are and whether they match up/add up? Do they even care?

For example, I was at the 4 letter network's site looking at their fantasy projections for the upcoming season. They have Tom Brady putting up 393 completions for 4870 yards and 34 passing TDs. Whether they are right or wrong or whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.

HOWEVER, when you add up the projections for all the skill position players, the sum of the parts comes out to 312 receptions for 3,450 yards and 30 receiving TD.

I only bring this up as it pertains to the Patriots projections for this year, as I have seen similar issues from other sites and publications . . . the projections don't balance out and are often WAYYYYY off.

The only conceivable explanation (other than the editors are indifferent and just don't care) is that they expect NE to bring in a free agent or acquire another WR or TE to make up the 81 receptions, 1,420 receiving yards, and 4 receiving TDs. But even that wouldn't make much sense, as I don't know who on earth they could possibly add that would average 17.5 ypr and only get 4 TD.

 

[ghostguy123]

Due to many variables, I dont see any reason why a QBs numbers need to match up to the sum of all the projections for the offensive players at RB/WR/TE.

It's not an exact science, so why bother to waste the time to try and make it one.

Also, just make your own projections anyway. From what I can tell, the slightly above average fantasy player is a lot better at making projections than ESPN anyway

 

[butcher boy]

I think it's Projections 101 to at least get them to be close. The Patriots example in the OP is an example of pretty terrible projecting.

 

[bostonfred]

It's lazy, sure, but it's also conservative. If you project Brady to get 4000+ yards, and your receiving numbers just don't add up to that, is it smarter to project that Amendola will get 2000 yards because you can't figure out who else would get it? Arbitrarily bump up everyone equally? Or lower Brady's numbers because you can'f figure out who will get the numbers?

This is the problem with single number projections. A lot of times, you're guessing. Amendola could get hurt, miss half the season or more, and put up 300 yards and a TD. Or he could put up a monster 1600+ yard season. Either is totally in the realm of possibilities. According to ADP, you're comparing him to, say, Hakeem Nicks (also injury prone), Mike Wallace (total question mark), Wes Welker (can he put up numbers with Thomas and Decker?), and Reggie Wayne (is Indy going to lean on him like they did the first half of last season, or go with the younger guys like they did during the second half?). All of those guys have upside and risk. I happen to think that Amendola and Nicks are the best options in that group, but they're all going around the same area in drafts.

Anyone putting a number on those guys is basically guessing. You can use all the mathematical justification you want, but some of those guys will exceed their draft spot substantially, and some will fail, and you can't tell me seriously that you know which is which. You can project an expected value for them - a 50% chance of X + a 30% chance of Y + 20% chance of Z - but even then converting the projection to a single number won't really help you as much as looking at how the players fit your team. If you plan on rolling with four receivers and taking a bunch of shots on backup RBs, then an injury prone guy isn't a great fit for your team, unless you take something like Nicks and Randle. You're probably smarter to take the guy you think has the least chance of being a total bust - maybe Wayne or Welker - over the guy you think has great upside. On the other hand, if you're planning on going RB heavy early, and you want a bunch of WR prospects who could totally exceed their draft position, then you should take some fliers on guys like Amendola and Nicks, who could each totally be WR1s by the end of the season if they stay healthy. Go big or go home, and grab one or two steady eddies later in the draft.

It's a valuable exercise to look at the gap between the numbers and say, hey, there's a lot of room for someone to produce unexpectedly over here, and also to say, there's a real chance Brady is a total fantasy bust this year, but that doesn't mean your numbers need to magically add up. That's just as likely to produce a wrong outcome as if they don't.

 

[ODannyBoy]

Due to many variables, I dont see any reason why a QBs numbers need to match up to the sum of all the projections for the offensive players at RB/WR/TE.

It's not an exact science, so why bother to waste the time to try and make it one.

Also, just make your own projections anyway. From what I can tell, the slightly above average fantasy player is a lot better at making projections than ESPN anyway

Except that if they don't match up, and in this case are't even close, then it's an obvious admission that one or the other CAN'T possibly be accurate. Why would you post projections that can't possibly be accurate.

When it comes to QB's vs. the team, I expect the QB numbers to be a bit more than the WR's and RB's combined numbers because there are those end of the bench guys that are going to get some catches and yards that will count for Brady. And those end of the bench guys aren't going to be listed in projections.

But that's a huge discrepency the OP cited and it does beg a certain amount of explanation. Saying "other guys on the team" are going to catch 1400 yards is silly. If the same projector thinks Brady will pass for that many yards, he should believe that someone is going to catch them. If he is sold on Brady's numbers, then he should go back to the receiver side of the equation and ask himself where he thinks those yards are going. And if he thinks a certain WR/TE/RB is going to miss time and thus leave those 1400 yards on the table, then maybe he should be putting in a projection for the backups that he thinks will pick up the slack. 1400 yards is a lot of yards to just leave hanging there.

 

[FF Ninja]

Obviously they expect the Pats to re-sign Lloyd and he will put up the missing 81/1420/4. Almost just like last year except double the yards.

 

[Anarchy99]

I don't really care if they align perfectly, but when someplace lists all the players and the totals are way off, I find that to be a problem. For example, if someone only lists the main RBs/WRs/TEs and not every guy on the roster, I am fine that the team total is off some, as random bench players might get 5 or 10 receptions here or there. But when you list out every RB/TE/WR on the roster to include players with 3 receptions, then to be THAT far off is wrong IMO.

Looking at Brady as an example, they have him ranked 3rd based on his individual projected totals. But if you rank him based on the team receiving totals, he would fall into the QB20s. That tells me that either Brady's projection is way off or the individual receiving projections are way off. So either Brady is way overrated or the receiving corps is way underrated in their rankings.

What I think is funny is that this is the opposite situation for Brady than last year. last pre-season, the sum of the parts (Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, Lloyd, et al) was way higher than the individual projection for Brady. Those 4 players alone, when added together, were around 5,000/40 just on their own. Clearly Brady was not going to pass for 6,000/55, so there needed to be a reality check last year too . . . just in the other direction.

 

[spodog]

For example, I was at the 4 letter network's site looking at their fantasy projections

Why?

 

[Anarchy99]

For example, I was at the 4 letter network's site looking at their fantasy projections

Why?

Because I like to poke around at just about every site to see if there are players / situations / projections that are outliers and to figure out what others see that I may be missing.In this particular case, I was combing the web to see two things: 1) some folks are predicting a major drop off for Brady for a lack of established receivers to throw to and 2) some people are not projecting Brady to drop off much at all. Thus why I was looking at the projections for individual players to see if either one of those arguments are reflected in each site's projections.

 

[Riffraff]

It's also fun to watch pre-season projections compared to weekly projections on a lot of sites.

Pre-season may say a random average WR1 for their NFL team will get 1000 yards and 8 TDs.

Then most weeks it's projected to be 100 yards and 1 TD.

So, is it 1000/8 or closer to 1600/16 ?

Rarely see sites say a guy has a completely bad day unless a defender like Revis is involved.

 

[cstu]

It's lazy, sure, but it's also conservative. If you project Brady to get 4000+ yards, and your receiving numbers just don't add up to that, is it smarter to project that Amendola will get 2000 yards because you can't figure out who else would get it? Arbitrarily bump up everyone equally? Or lower Brady's numbers because you can'f figure out who will get the numbers?

Yes, if you can't justify the numbers then you have to.

 

[bostonfred]

It's lazy, sure, but it's also conservative. If you project Brady to get 4000+ yards, and your receiving numbers just don't add up to that, is it smarter to project that Amendola will get 2000 yards because you can't figure out who else would get it? Arbitrarily bump up everyone equally? Or lower Brady's numbers because you can'f figure out who will get the numbers?

Yes, if you can't justify the numbers then you have to.

That's absurd.

As an example, if I project Flacco to put up 4000 yards this season, and I expect 1200 to come from Smith, 800 from Pitta, 600 from Rice, and 800 from their WR2, whoever that ends up being, do I have to put a name to it? Or am I allowed to say that WR2 will probably put up 800 yards? If I put Deonte Thompson down for 800 yards, I'll overdraft him by a mile if Doss is the starter instead. I feel confident in my Flacco projection, and I feel confident that one of the WR2 candidates will emerge, but I'm not sure which one. That's a totally reasonable stance that would only be harmed by arbitrarily bumping stats for one player or another.

A pretty common answer is to assign 200 yards to Doss, and 200 yards to Thompson, and so on, splitting the numbers out evenly. But that would cause me to underdraft a guy who could get 800 yards, in favor of a scrub wr5 who will likely get 250 yards.

The same thing goes with Brady. If Gronk and Amendola get/stay healthy, I think Brady will put up better numbers than if they don't, but I still put Brady over 4000 yards for the season regardless, and I feel extremely confident that a healthy Brady won't go below 3500 yards no matter who is hurt or healthy.

I don't have any reason to believe that Boyce will outscore Dobson or Thompkins, or that it won't be Lloyd or Laurent Robinson or some other vet who gets the bulk of Brady's attention. If your methodology says that you absolutely have to bump up some no name wr just to satisfy your sense of propriety, then it's a bad methodology. Arbitrarily assigning Lloyd yards that he's "going to" catch from Brady when he's not even on the team is a ridiculous answer.

 

[cstu]

It's lazy, sure, but it's also conservative. If you project Brady to get 4000+ yards, and your receiving numbers just don't add up to that, is it smarter to project that Amendola will get 2000 yards because you can't figure out who else would get it? Arbitrarily bump up everyone equally? Or lower Brady's numbers because you can'f figure out who will get the numbers?

Yes, if you can't justify the numbers then you have to.

That's absurd. As an example, if I project Flacco to put up 4000 yards this season, and I expect 1200 to come from Smith, 800 from Pitta, 600 from Rice, and 800 from their WR2, whoever that ends up being, do I have to put a name to it? Or am I allowed to say that WR2 will probably put up 800 yards? If I put Deonte Thompson down for 800 yards, I'll overdraft him by a mile if Doss is the starter instead. I feel confident in my Flacco projection, and I feel confident that one of the WR2 candidates will emerge, but I'm not sure which one. That's a totally reasonable stance that would only be harmed by arbitrarily bumping stats for one player or another.

A pretty common answer is to assign 200 yards to Doss, and 200 yards to Thompson, and so on, splitting the numbers out evenly. But that would cause me to underdraft a guy who could get 800 yards, in favor of a scrub wr5 who will likely get 250 yards.

The same thing goes with Brady. If Gronk and Amendola get/stay healthy, I think Brady will put up better numbers than if they don't, but I still put Brady over 4000 yards for the season regardless, and I feel extremely confident that a healthy Brady won't go below 3500 yards no matter who is hurt or healthy.

I don't have any reason to believe that Boyce will outscore Dobson or Thompkins, or that it won't be Lloyd or Laurent Robinson or some other vet who gets the bulk of Brady's attention. If your methodology says that you absolutely have to bump up some no name wr just to satisfy your sense of propriety, then it's a bad methodology. Arbitrarily assigning Lloyd yards that he's "going to" catch from Brady when he's not even on the team is a ridiculous answer.

I'm not saying you need to put a name on it, but you have to at least say where it's going to come from (even if at this point it's like you said 'WR2'). I understand the methodology but I think it leads to exaggerated numbers because you feel a player just 'has to' reach certain numbers.

 

[bostonfred]

But in the case of Brady, I do feel that he "has to" reach certain numbers. It's entirely possible to believe that Brady will put up, say, 4000 yards and 28 TDs regardless of who he plays with. If you'd like, I can say that 1200 of that will be Gronk, but if Gronk misses 6 games, then I'd like to say that only 800 of it will be from him. So I guess I think Amendola will put up at least 1200, too, unless he gets hurt or something, and then I think that will be less. I think their WR2 will put up solid numbers, too, but I have no idea who that will be. If both Gronk and Amendola miss time, I think the WR3 will get a lot better numbers than if they don't. If Lloyd signs with New England, I think he will get better numbers than if he is out of football or signs with another team. If Laurent Robinson signs with the team after week 1, then I can see him having a resurgent season like he did in Dallas, or I can see him barely playing because of the concussions. If Dobson emerges as a starting WR I think he will do better individually than if he doesn't, and I feel the same about Boyce and Thompkins. And then there's Edelman.

Give me an idea of how I "have to" project those guys. It's an absurd task. So much so that it got Yudkin to ask Hector and Victor FFS. Think about that one for a minute.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obviously they figure four tricky plays at the goal-line to a non-receiver declaring eligible, like Vrabel.

 

[Sarnoff]

WR or TE to make up the 81 receptions, 1,420 receiving yards, and 4 receiving TDs. But even that wouldn't make much sense, as I don't know who on earth they could possibly add that would average 17.5 ypr and only get 4 TD.

Tebow, duh

 

[ghostguy123]

The pats specifically have a ton of question marks as to who is going to get how many touches. We know Brady will be a stud, but looks like he was just real conservative with the rest.

 

[ghostguy123]

The pats specifically have a ton of question marks as to who is going to get how many touches. We know Brady will be a stud, but looks like he was just real conservative with the rest.

 

[Anarchy99]

But in the case of Brady, I do feel that he "has to" reach certain numbers. It's entirely possible to believe that Brady will put up, say, 4000 yards and 28 TDs regardless of who he plays with. If you'd like, I can say that 1200 of that will be Gronk, but if Gronk misses 6 games, then I'd like to say that only 800 of it will be from him. So I guess I think Amendola will put up at least 1200, too, unless he gets hurt or something, and then I think that will be less. I think their WR2 will put up solid numbers, too, but I have no idea who that will be. If both Gronk and Amendola miss time, I think the WR3 will get a lot better numbers than if they don't. If Lloyd signs with New England, I think he will get better numbers than if he is out of football or signs with another team. If Laurent Robinson signs with the team after week 1, then I can see him having a resurgent season like he did in Dallas, or I can see him barely playing because of the concussions. If Dobson emerges as a starting WR I think he will do better individually than if he doesn't, and I feel the same about Boyce and Thompkins. And then there's Edelman.

Give me an idea of how I "have to" project those guys. It's an absurd task. So much so that it got Yudkin to ask Hector and Victor FFS. Think about that one for a minute.

In your example, if the players are already on the team, then enter the your projections and show what you think will happen for the upcoming season. If you (as a fantasy web site) think Gronk will miss 6 games, then give the production to someone else. If you think Edelman will miss 8 games, give the production to someone else. If you think Amendola will play 11 games, give the production to somewhere else. The point being, if total Brady's production is on the current roster, then give your best guess as to where it will go. The projections I saw had totals for the season for all Pats players, no matter how big or how small.

I agree that the Pats situation is pretty fluid. They have injury, player replacement, and court case issues that could make for a broad range of outcomes, which is fine. But pick one and go with it, even if it turns out to be way wrong and off base.

If the projected production is going to go to players not on the roster, obviously it would be hard to allocate totals for guys that are not yet Patriots. In ESPN's case, the only free agent receiver they have with any projected totals is Brandon Lloyd, who they slot for 56-752-6. No other free agent WR has anything but zeroes for a season total.

Situations like this are why I often feel FBG's Player Spotlight series could be enhanced or improved by just starting 32 threads on TEAM X'S OUTLOOK & PROJECTIONS FOR THE UPCOMING SEASON. A team's offense is it's only little universe. Last year, for example, in player spotlights for NE players, many people were suggesting Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, and Ridley would all put up in the neighborhood of 1,200 to 1,500 yards of offense and people made the case that they would each approach double digit TDs. It's pretty obvious that 5 guys are not going to put up 7,500 yards of offense and 50-60 TDs.

That's where I think it would be more beneficial for people to have post partial of full player projections so real world numbers could be used instead of video game totals that will never happen. People could post their projections for the main players and lump the rest into a grouping, like REMAINING WR & TE: 60-750-6. I'd take that even from fantasy site projections, as at least it better pinpoint what they thought would happen.

 

[cstu]

But in the case of Brady, I do feel that he "has to" reach certain numbers. It's entirely possible to believe that Brady will put up, say, 4000 yards and 28 TDs regardless of who he plays with. If you'd like, I can say that 1200 of that will be Gronk, but if Gronk misses 6 games, then I'd like to say that only 800 of it will be from him. So I guess I think Amendola will put up at least 1200, too, unless he gets hurt or something, and then I think that will be less. I think their WR2 will put up solid numbers, too, but I have no idea who that will be. If both Gronk and Amendola miss time, I think the WR3 will get a lot better numbers than if they don't. If Lloyd signs with New England, I think he will get better numbers than if he is out of football or signs with another team. If Laurent Robinson signs with the team after week 1, then I can see him having a resurgent season like he did in Dallas, or I can see him barely playing because of the concussions. If Dobson emerges as a starting WR I think he will do better individually than if he doesn't, and I feel the same about Boyce and Thompkins. And then there's Edelman.

Give me an idea of how I "have to" project those guys. It's an absurd task. So much so that it got Yudkin to ask Hector and Victor FFS. Think about that one for a minute.

I never said it was easy...

And at the bolded.

 

[cdubz]

It's lazy, sure, but it's also conservative. If you project Brady to get 4000+ yards, and your receiving numbers just don't add up to that, is it smarter to project that Amendola will get 2000 yards because you can't figure out who else would get it? Arbitrarily bump up everyone equally? Or lower Brady's numbers because you can'f figure out who will get the numbers?

This is the problem with single number projections. A lot of times, you're guessing. Amendola could get hurt, miss half the season or more, and put up 300 yards and a TD. Or he could put up a monster 1600+ yard season. Either is totally in the realm of possibilities. According to ADP, you're comparing him to, say, Hakeem Nicks (also injury prone), Mike Wallace (total question mark), Wes Welker (can he put up numbers with Thomas and Decker?), and Reggie Wayne (is Indy going to lean on him like they did the first half of last season, or go with the younger guys like they did during the second half?). All of those guys have upside and risk. I happen to think that Amendola and Nicks are the best options in that group, but they're all going around the same area in drafts.

Anyone putting a number on those guys is basically guessing. You can use all the mathematical justification you want, but some of those guys will exceed their draft spot substantially, and some will fail, and you can't tell me seriously that you know which is which. You can project an expected value for them - a 50% chance of X + a 30% chance of Y + 20% chance of Z - but even then converting the projection to a single number won't really help you as much as looking at how the players fit your team. If you plan on rolling with four receivers and taking a bunch of shots on backup RBs, then an injury prone guy isn't a great fit for your team, unless you take something like Nicks and Randle. You're probably smarter to take the guy you think has the least chance of being a total bust - maybe Wayne or Welker - over the guy you think has great upside. On the other hand, if you're planning on going RB heavy early, and you want a bunch of WR prospects who could totally exceed their draft position, then you should take some fliers on guys like Amendola and Nicks, who could each totally be WR1s by the end of the season if they stay healthy. Go big or go home, and grab one or two steady eddies later in the draft.

It's a valuable exercise to look at the gap between the numbers and say, hey, there's a lot of room for someone to produce unexpectedly over here, and also to say, there's a real chance Brady is a total fantasy bust this year, but that doesn't mean your numbers need to magically add up. That's just as likely to produce a wrong outcome as if they don't.

This. If you think of projections as a median of possible outcomes rather than an average of possible outcomes, there is no reason why they need to add up.

 

[Anarchy99]

Am I the only one that finds some of this stuff to be . . . curious? For example, Dave Richard of CBS does not have a Pats WR ranked in the Top 30. He has Amendola at 32 and Dobson at 75. He does have Gronk at TE2. But he projects Brady at 4,336/33.

I'm no math guru, but I don't see any possible way that Brady could but up those numbers with his receiving corps performing at those rankings.

 

[butcher boy]

Am I the only one that finds some of this stuff to be . . . curious? For example, Dave Richard of CBS does not have a Pats WR ranked in the Top 30. He has Amendola at 32 and Dobson at 75. He does have Gronk at TE2. But he projects Brady at 4,336/33.

I'm no math guru, but I don't see any possible way that Brady could but up those numbers with his receiving corps performing at those rankings.

Honestly, with these big name sites I think it's just a matter of Tom Brady being a "big name" so they project a ton of yards for him but they don't go back and do the research for his WRs who aren't big names anymore.

They want all the big name guys at the top so people click on their names more and they get more hits. Sort of like how a no-name power hitter on a small market baseball team might hit 100 homers breaking the record, but the top story on Sportscenter that day will be Tom Brady at training camp working on shovel passes. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this were the case.

 

[We Tigers]

Am I the only one that finds some of this stuff to be . . . curious? For example, Dave Richard of CBS does not have a Pats WR ranked in the Top 30. He has Amendola at 32 and Dobson at 75. He does have Gronk at TE2. But he projects Brady at 4,336/33.

I'm no math guru, but I don't see any possible way that Brady could but up those numbers with his receiving corps performing at those rankings.

Those TDs do seem quite high, at least. Doug Orth at FFToday has put out his detailed 15-game projections (he only posts through week 16) and has similar rankings, though. He has Amendola at 87/945/4, which, if you bump out to a full season, would put him around WR25 or so in non-PPR. That's with Brady getting 4070 in 15 games, so right around Dave Richard's yardage when prorated, but only 23 TDs.Amendola is Orth's highest, but he had 5 guys--Gronk, Edelman, Vereen, Dobson, and the now-released Donald Jones--between 410 and 690, with scraps for Boyce, Ridley, Bolden, and Sudfield. Sub Boyce in for Jones and everything still looks pretty reasonable.

I generally agree with your broad point, though.

 

[bostonfred]

I agree that the Pats situation is pretty fluid. They have injury, player replacement, and court case issues that could make for a broad range of outcomes, which is fine. But pick one and go with it, even if it turns out to be way wrong and off base.

Why? This approach matches my personal view of the situation worse than any other option. I don't understand why you want me to take an arbitrary stand on a receiver I don't feel strongly about, when I am perfectly content to draft brady based on what I think he will do, and maybe take a very late flier on some pats receiver based on what I think they can do. Almost none of the upside I've assigned to patriots receivers this year is based on the names on their jerseys. It has everything to do with brady making the people around him better.

 

[Anarchy99]

I agree that the Pats situation is pretty fluid. They have injury, player replacement, and court case issues that could make for a broad range of outcomes, which is fine. But pick one and go with it, even if it turns out to be way wrong and off base.

Why? This approach matches my personal view of the situation worse than any other option. I don't understand why you want me to take an arbitrary stand on a receiver I don't feel strongly about, when I am perfectly content to draft brady based on what I think he will do, and maybe take a very late flier on some pats receiver based on what I think they can do. Almost none of the upside I've assigned to patriots receivers this year is based on the names on their jerseys. It has everything to do with brady making the people around him better.

While I agree with your global view on the Pats situation, the value add comes from actually spelling out what you think will happen. Just projecting Brady for 4500/30 and not breaking it down, IMO, is relatively useless and makes me not want to review what you (not you literally) have to say about fantasy football and, to me, makes me not want to bother to review your projections.

I want to know what others may think will happen in terms of the production in the Pats passing game and where it will come from. THAT'S THE POINT OF MAKING PROJECTIONS! I agree that right now that the Pats receiving situation is as clear as mud, but when 95% of places plug and play Brady's total numbers just like other years and 95% of places get lazy and don't break it down any, I don't find that useful at all.

Your counter argument would likely be that no one has any real insight on what will happen at this point and you would rather not see anything than see something that turns out to be way wrong. Maybe that's the element that I am missing. That guys don't want to put down projections for fear of being totally off base.

 

[bostonfred]

My counter argument is simpler than that. Projections are a tool. Vbd is a tool. Dvbd, the draft dominator, all those things are just tools. We use those tools to decide the order in which (or price at which) we will select players. The goal is not to make the best projections, but to select a winning team. If forcing yourself to make projections does not lead to better player selection, then you shouldn't do it. This is one of those cases.

 

[Anarchy99]

My counter argument is simpler than that. Projections are a tool. Vbd is a tool. Dvbd, the draft dominator, all those things are just tools. We use those tools to decide the order in which (or price at which) we will select players. The goal is not to make the best projections, but to select a winning team. If forcing yourself to make projections does not lead to better player selection, then you shouldn't do it. This is one of those cases.

And if I wanted to consider Pats players not named Gronk or Brady to select a winning team . . . then what?

 

[Biabreakable]

It's lazy, sure, but it's also conservative. If you project Brady to get 4000+ yards, and your receiving numbers just don't add up to that, is it smarter to project that Amendola will get 2000 yards because you can't figure out who else would get it? Arbitrarily bump up everyone equally? Or lower Brady's numbers because you can'f figure out who will get the numbers?

This is the problem with single number projections. A lot of times, you're guessing. Amendola could get hurt, miss half the season or more, and put up 300 yards and a TD. Or he could put up a monster 1600+ yard season. Either is totally in the realm of possibilities. According to ADP, you're comparing him to, say, Hakeem Nicks (also injury prone), Mike Wallace (total question mark), Wes Welker (can he put up numbers with Thomas and Decker?), and Reggie Wayne (is Indy going to lean on him like they did the first half of last season, or go with the younger guys like they did during the second half?). All of those guys have upside and risk. I happen to think that Amendola and Nicks are the best options in that group, but they're all going around the same area in drafts.

Anyone putting a number on those guys is basically guessing. You can use all the mathematical justification you want, but some of those guys will exceed their draft spot substantially, and some will fail, and you can't tell me seriously that you know which is which. You can project an expected value for them - a 50% chance of X + a 30% chance of Y + 20% chance of Z - but even then converting the projection to a single number won't really help you as much as looking at how the players fit your team. If you plan on rolling with four receivers and taking a bunch of shots on backup RBs, then an injury prone guy isn't a great fit for your team, unless you take something like Nicks and Randle. You're probably smarter to take the guy you think has the least chance of being a total bust - maybe Wayne or Welker - over the guy you think has great upside. On the other hand, if you're planning on going RB heavy early, and you want a bunch of WR prospects who could totally exceed their draft position, then you should take some fliers on guys like Amendola and Nicks, who could each totally be WR1s by the end of the season if they stay healthy. Go big or go home, and grab one or two steady eddies later in the draft.

It's a valuable exercise to look at the gap between the numbers and say, hey, there's a lot of room for someone to produce unexpectedly over here, and also to say, there's a real chance Brady is a total fantasy bust this year, but that doesn't mean your numbers need to magically add up. That's just as likely to produce a wrong outcome as if they don't.

This. If you think of projections as a median of possible outcomes rather than an average of possible outcomes, there is no reason why they need to add up.

While I agree with looking at projections as a median of possible outcomes, I disagree that the numbers do not need to add up. I project in ranges and I think it is pretty important for those ranges to all add up at some point. I may have multiple players who all have highs that if I added up all the highs would be more than I am projecting in total for the team, but I also have lows and those highs and lows do add up to the team projection. If not I make changes so they do. Ultimately I will pair it down so that my highs combined do not overshoot the team projection.

I do not find it very useful to project for players that have highs of say 20 touches or less though, beyond accounting for some guys will get those touches before I project the main players. If there is a big chunk missing I do think that is ok to say WR2 + WR3 = X if you are not sure how that will pan out, But I would still prefer to complete the picture and assign those numbers in order to figure out if there is another player I should be considering worth drafting or not.

 

[bostonfred]

Then you pick them, and you don't do it because you think they are going to score more points. You do it because of the upside.

I project ben tate to get 750 yards and 4 tds. I also project danny woodhead to get 750/4. But with tate, I believe there is more upside if foster gets hurt. Should I fudge my tate projections so I pick him earlier in the mid rounds? Won't that throw my overall projections for houston out of whack? What if I fudge foster down? But that can't be right either, I like foster. If I try to fit my opinions into projections, and force my projections to add up to overall numbers that I like, then I m not staying true to my draft board.

Projections are great for starter caliber guys and sure things, and they force you to sanity check yourself, but when you're talking about one of severaal upside guys on the same team who all have an opportunity to pick up wr2 numbers or rb1 numbers, but only one of them can... then projections suck. Because they make you question something you alreaady believe. That bradys going to put up decent numbers, and amendola/gronk are going to get more of them than others, but that there's room for someone to shine, and you might want to take a flier on one of them, but you're totally ambivalent which one.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well in the example you give Fred, upside for Tate, it kind of depends on if you project injuries or not. I generally don't however I am going to value guys who would be in line for more action if the starter were hurt. I just do not project for the injury. So yes that kind of value is not something I project. I certainly am aware of it though and those back ups do have more value than a similarly projected player because of the upside.

 

[butcher boy]

I think what's getting lost in this debate is that if you proclaim to offer a service that includes individual player projections like, those projections should have some sort of logic behind them, and there is no logic at all in projecting a QB to have 1,000+ more passing yards than his receivers have receiving yards. It doesn't all have to add up perfectly, but that right there is a HUGE disconnect.

 

[Biabreakable]

One example of projecting injuries I do have for this year is Johnathan Stewart. I do not think he will play much if at all and I have projected Williams do get most of what people are expecting Stewart to get. Stewart is ranked higher by ADP and most rankings than Williams is.

July 25th (tomorrow) they will do an extensive physical on Stewart I guess, so we should have some new information about that soon.

BTW Fred Mike Williams of Tampa Bay signed a new contract, 40 million for a 5 year extension. With that I think Mike is more solidly a core player with that question resolved. They still may replace Freeman at some point but they look committed to Mike Williams as their WR2 for awhile now. There is still uncertainty in regards to that and a QB change can sometimes change who the favorite target are. But Williams is in a more stable situation than he was before the contract imo.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

For these discrepancies I start by tweaking target rates which then impacts reception totals. If I think the target rates revision cannot be justified (based on the player's statistical history and trends), then I introduce another player into the equation. In the case of the Patriots I have a Player named Patriot Bench WR and apply the reception discrepancy to that player. Then I go through the same process with yards and TDs. Ultimately I get an pretty close to balancing the numbers.

Now the Pats are a unique case because so much is unknown. Gronk's status, WR rotation. So I am currently assuming Gronk on the field for week 1 and Amendola taking Welker's spot. I can make some reasonable projections on their target rate, but that leaves a lot left over. I have the Pats Bench WR at 89-1240-6TDs. Now I am extremely doubtful any one player is going to produce those numbers but it queues me into the fact that there are a lot of targets to be accounted for so the situation requires close monitoring. Once the situation is clarified I can go back and fill in the blanks.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think what's getting lost in this debate is that if you proclaim to offer a service that includes individual player projections like, those projections should have some sort of logic behind them, and there is no logic at all in projecting a QB to have 1,000+ more passing yards than his receivers have receiving yards. It doesn't all have to add up perfectly, but that right there is a HUGE disconnect.

Locig tells me to not look at them then.

 

[Sarnoff]

My counter argument is simpler than that. Projections are a tool. Vbd is a tool. Dvbd, the draft dominator, all those things are just tools. We use those tools to decide the order in which (or price at which) we will select players. The goal is not to make the best projections, but to select a winning team. If forcing yourself to make projections does not lead to better player selection, then you shouldn't do it. This is one of those cases.

And if I wanted to consider Pats players not named Gronk or Brady to select a winning team . . . then what?

Spoiler

Tebow.

You're welcome.

 

[bostonfred]

Well in the example you give Fred, upside for Tate, it kind of depends on if you project injuries or not. I generally don't however I am going to value guys who would be in line for more action if the starter were hurt. I just do not project for the injury. So yes that kind of value is not something I project. I certainly am aware of it though and those back ups do have more value than a similarly projected player because of the upside.

What's the point of doing projections, making sure the numbers all add up, using rules like not projecting for injury, then manually moving guys up and down based on your gut? If you're going to use your projected numbers to make close decisions, then you use the numbers. If you're going to use your gut to make close decisions between players who are projected similarly, then you're not really using projections. And that's fine - that's something I've been saying here for years. Single number projections are too blunt an instrument to do what most of us actually want to do in the draft.

 

[bostonfred]

I think what's getting lost in this debate is that if you proclaim to offer a service that includes individual player projections like, those projections should have some sort of logic behind them, and there is no logic at all in projecting a QB to have 1,000+ more passing yards than his receivers have receiving yards. It doesn't all have to add up perfectly, but that right there is a HUGE disconnect.

Maybe. But I'd rather have a site that gave me an accurate projection for Brady, Amendola and Gronk, and didn't explain where the rest of Brady's numbers came from, than one that put arbitrary numbers on guys like Boyce or Dobson or Lloyd. FWIW, while some people really put work into their projections, most people just put numbers down which fit their idea of where a guy should be drafted, which is totally opposite the principle of projection usage where you start with a rough idea of the numbers, then figure out where they should be drafted based on that projection.

 

[bostonfred]

One example of projecting injuries I do have for this year is Johnathan Stewart. I do not think he will play much if at all and I have projected Williams do get most of what people are expecting Stewart to get. Stewart is ranked higher by ADP and most rankings than Williams is.

July 25th (tomorrow) they will do an extensive physical on Stewart I guess, so we should have some new information about that soon.

BTW Fred Mike Williams of Tampa Bay signed a new contract, 40 million for a 5 year extension. With that I think Mike is more solidly a core player with that question resolved. They still may replace Freeman at some point but they look committed to Mike Williams as their WR2 for awhile now. There is still uncertainty in regards to that and a QB change can sometimes change who the favorite target are. But Williams is in a more stable situation than he was before the contract imo.

I acquired both DeAngelo and Mike Williams cheaply this offseason because I felt like their situations could improve substantially. Very happy with the direction both have taken so far.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well in the example you give Fred, upside for Tate, it kind of depends on if you project injuries or not. I generally don't however I am going to value guys who would be in line for more action if the starter were hurt. I just do not project for the injury. So yes that kind of value is not something I project. I certainly am aware of it though and those back ups do have more value than a similarly projected player because of the upside.

What's the point of doing projections, making sure the numbers all add up, using rules like not projecting for injury, then manually moving guys up and down based on your gut? If you're going to use your projected numbers to make close decisions, then you use the numbers. If you're going to use your gut to make close decisions between players who are projected similarly, then you're not really using projections. And that's fine - that's something I've been saying here for years. Single number projections are too blunt an instrument to do what most of us actually want to do in the draft.

You are correct I do not necessarily draft based on projections. I use projections to try to make a more informed decision but ultimately there are many different things that go into making a choice about who to draft.

Actually thinking about this issue I kind of did what David is talking about in the Giants RB thread because I am not sure if Ryan Torrain or perhaps someone else will be a 3rd wheel or not. So I presented a few possible scenarios but I was not willing to commit to any of them until I have more information. One of those scenarios was Torrain or another RB splitting time with Wilson/Brown. Another RB would be if they did add someone relevant in free agency, for example McGahee. Seems strange they would let Bradshaw go only to bring in a FA is somewhat what I am thinking now. I also am remembering that the Giants have reduced their rushing attempts by about 100 over the last 2 seasons. So that role I am wondering about may not exist anymore. I did learn that the Giants may use their FB on 3rd downs, mainly what I am wondering is who replaces Bradshaw on passing downs. Their FB is injured but I think may be back early enough to not sign anyone else. In the mean time they have Bear Pascoe who can handle that role. So these may be the 2 guys playing more than Torrain. I am also skeptical of Brown staying healthy all season and want to consider what happens if he goes down.

So that is kind of the same thing I guess, or similar. I am waiting for more information from TC before updating Giant RB projections.

 

[Biabreakable]

In regards to the web sites having incomplete Patriot receiving projections.

I have not heard either of you guys definitively state what the passing distribution for them will be. I would be interested to hear that.

The way I have been looking at it is the Patriots brought in Dobson for a reason. I have him filling about 60-80% of Lloyds role last season with the other 20-40% of those targets going to Jenkins. So 84-112 targets for Dobson, 28-56 targets to Jenkins. This could be reversed if Jenkins wins the job.

Similarly I have Amendola getting 60-80% of Welkers targets, with Boyce/Thompkins/ getting the rest of those. 249 targets went to Welker, Edelman, Branch last season. So 149-199 targets to Amendola. 25-50 targets for Boyce and Thompkins.

The Hernandez targets I do the same thing and give 60-80% to Ballard, so 55-73 targets, with the rest 18-36 targets being evenly distributed to Dobson, Boyce, Jenkins, Thompson 5 each. There were 19 targets to Fells and other TE that I left alone, figuring those still go to 3rd TE players.

Anyhow I can see waiting until how things shake out in TC before committing to numbers like this.

 

[Anarchy99]

In regards to the web sites having incomplete Patriot receiving projections.

I have not heard either of you guys definitively state what the passing distribution for them will be. I would be interested to hear that.

The way I have been looking at it is the Patriots brought in Dobson for a reason. I have him filling about 60-80% of Lloyds role last season with the other 20-40% of those targets going to Jenkins. So 84-112 targets for Dobson, 28-56 targets to Jenkins. This could be reversed if Jenkins wins the job.

Similarly I have Amendola getting 60-80% of Welkers targets, with Boyce/Thompkins/ getting the rest of those. 249 targets went to Welker, Edelman, Branch last season. So 149-199 targets to Amendola. 25-50 targets for Boyce and Thompkins.

The Hernandez targets I do the same thing and give 60-80% to Ballard, so 55-73 targets, with the rest 18-36 targets being evenly distributed to Dobson, Boyce, Jenkins, Thompson 5 each. There were 19 targets to Fells and other TE that I left alone, figuring those still go to 3rd TE players.

Anyhow I can see waiting until how things shake out in TC before committing to numbers like this.

I am personally waiting to see how things shape up a little bit more in camp before I take a swing at this.

 

[Biabreakable]

I likely have some of that wrong also.

I was looking at Kenbrell Thompkins some more and perhaps he is competing for the same Lloyd role in the offense with Jenkins and Dobson? I thought he might be competing more for the slot/Welker looks. But based on rotoworld they seem to think he is competing for that role in the offense.

ESPN Boston considers UDFA Kenbrell Thompkins "in the midst of a competition" for playing time as a Patriots perimeter receiver.

The Pats are flush with inside-the-numbers pass catchers (Danny Amendola, Rob Gronkowski, Shane Vereen, Julian Edelman), but are in search of an "X" receiver to fill the 74-catch void left by Brandon Lloyd. Impressive undrafted rookie Thompkins stood out at OTAs, and will continue pushing Michael Jenkins and second-rounder Aaron Dobson for reps in training camp. He's a deep sleeper.


Source: ESPN Insider
Jul 3 - 1:04 PM

Undrafted rookie WR Kenbrell Thompkins has received first-team reps at OTAs.

Michael Jenkins, special teamer Kamar Aiken, and UDFA Thompkins have reportedly been the "primary outside receivers," working ahead of Aaron Dobson, Josh Boyce, and Donald Jones. Thompkins went undrafted due to production and character concerns, although he's turned his life around and is a prospect to monitor. This isn't the first time we've heard he's looked good in practice.


Source: ESPN Boston
Jun 14 - 2:52 PM

I also could see 20 of those TE2 targets slotted to Ballard being shifted to Shane Vereen. Vereen and Woodhead combined for 74 out of 92 targets to the RB. I could see that increasing to 110 as part of replacing Hernandez if they do not want to target Ballard very much. Part of why I gave the Hernandez targets to the WR is because he often lined up as a WR in the offense, but then they have also mentioned playing Vereen outside as a WR more this season, so that might be it instead of the WR.

If Thompkins beats out Dobson then he could be seeing those targets instead.

 

[Anarchy99]

I think the bigger factor in projecting the Pats last year vs. this is that I am not so sure they will use the hurry up offense anywhere as much, especially early on. Nothing worse then only burning 45 seconds off the clock for a 3 and out and sending their defense back out on the field.

So trying to match up total rushes, passes, targets, etc. based on last season may be a waste of time. And I still am inclined to think that they may still add an offensive puzzle piece to the mix, whether that be at WR, TE, or RB. And no, I do not have anyone specific in mind.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well I have heard some suggest that the Pats run the ball more but hard for me to see them running more than the 500 some times last season.

If they slow down the tempo that could be something like a 1.5 games worth of stats. Given that they ran a record number of plays I would expect that to fall back to earth at least somewhat.

 

[Anarchy99]

Well I have heard some suggest that the Pats run the ball more but hard for me to see them running more than the 500 some times last season.

If they slow down the tempo that could be something like a 1.5 games worth of stats. Given that they ran a record number of plays I would expect that to fall back to earth at least somewhat.

I would suggest slotting them for a more usual number of plays compared to the past, figure out their typical run/pass percentage, give them maybe 2% more running plays, and apply that ratio to the number of plays. Because they ran so many plays last year, they ended up ranked 2nd in rushing attempts. I think when you reduce their total number of plays, even bumping up the percentage of running plays, they will have fewer rushing attempts this year.

 

[Biabreakable]

Pretty much what I did. I have the Pats down for 440-480 rushing attempts. Passing attempts I have 560-640. So 1000-1120 total plays. The Patriots have run hurry up before last season. While I can see them milking the clock perhaps more I still expect them to at minimum have 1k offensive plays.

I was more looking at the past targets to try to figure out/describe how those targets might be distributed. The final numbers would fit within that total play framework.

 

[swirvenirvin]

Due to many variables, I dont see any reason why a QBs numbers need to match up to the sum of all the projections for the offensive players at RB/WR/TE.

It's not an exact science, so why bother to waste the time to try and make it one.

Also, just make your own projections anyway. From what I can tell, the slightly above average fantasy player is a lot better at making projections than ESPN anyway

As someone who does who own projections it is that big of a deal. When you do your QB stats, and then your WR RB and TE stats and you are 25 completions/receptions off that means you need to adjust. Now I will add that the 5th string WR, or 3rd string TE usually get higher stats than they are really projected for as they as part of the "garbage" that is the random guy getting 4 or 5 catches a season

 

[moleculo]

years ago I used to do my own projections. I put a lot of time and Excel horsepower into a system where each projection was automatically balanced - team passing yards = team receiving yards, etc. This type of thing really bothered me, because as an engineer I like nice, closed formed solutions to things.

I stopped worrying about this though, because I found it a waste of time thinking about reception distributions of WR'4, WR5, WR6, RB2, TE2, TE3, FB, etc. These aren't guys anyone will draft, so who really cares?

 

[cvnpoka]

the scrubs end up with more catches and yards at the end of the yr due to injuries. those are hard to predict. i project for a single game, then multiply by 16. those scrubs dont accumulate stats when everyone is healthy. now, after that, you gotta handicap the chance of injury, which is obv very hard.