Whose rankings do you like? (1 Viewer)

[TheWinz]

I decided not to make this a poll, as there would be too many choices. I'm going to keep this focused on QB, RB, WR, TE, K, and D. Sorry to all the IDP folks. When you check out FBG's rankings, you are getting an average of 18 different experts. Sure, many of them don't veer too far from the norm, but a few staffers have planted some serious flags. Here are a few examples at each position:
QB
2 - Anthony Richardson
3 Dak Prescott

RB
6 - De'Von Achane
6 - Josh Jacobs

WR
8 - Mike Evans
9 - Ladd McConkey

TE
2 - Kyle Pitts
5 - TJ Hockenson

I would prefer to view the outside the box staffer rankings, but is there any data as to which staffers have better track records? Maybe some are better at predicting QB's over WR's? TE's over RB's? Do you put more weight on any given staffer at any given position?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is a bit of a non-answer, but I prefer an aggregate of rankings from all of the staff, equally weighted. I then select player options based on a series of factors - productive offense, QB-play (for WR), strength of OL (all skill positions), etc,

Rankings are a reference guide for my own gut check, along with ADP and whatever other information is out there.

There used to be a website that had experts accuracy scores, but I forget the name, and whether FBG staff was included.

 

[Scoresman]

I like a consensus, but also like guys who take risks with their rankings, but they need to be successful at it more often than not.

I know it’s not exclusively FBG experts, but I like how fantasypros ranks all industry experts each year.

Someone at fantasypros a couple years ago did an analysis not only looking at who the top experts are but who the top experts are that also went against the grain a little.

Ended up being guys like Chris Raybon, Rob Waziak, Sean Koerner, and a few others. Can’t remember if any FBG were on it. So since fantasypros let’s you choose what experts you like when exporting rankings, what I end up doing is exporting just the consensus of these 6-8 experts and compare to my own rankings for a sanity check.

 

[-jb-]

I like a consensus, but also like guys who take risks with their rankings, but they need to be successful at it more often than not.

I know it’s not exclusively FBG experts, but I like how fantasypros ranks all industry experts each year.

Someone at fantasypros a couple years ago did an analysis not only looking at who the top experts are but who the top experts are that also went against the grain a little.

Ended up being guys like Chris Raybon, Rob Waziak, Sean Koerner, and a few others. Can’t remember if any FBG were on it. So since fantasypros let’s you choose what experts you like when exporting rankings, what I end up doing is exporting just the consensus of these 6-8 experts and compare to my own rankings for a sanity check.

much more valuable, as many analysts (rightfully) complain about, or abstain from, the accuracy thing as there is some inherent gamesmanship to the process which waters down their own rankings.

 

[Deamon]

FBG Rankings are a bit annoying sometimes, as their draft dominator, draft dominator classic, and regular rankings all are often different. I wish they had a SINGLE set of 'overall rankings' that were used across all three of those areas.

 

[Deamon]

I decided not to make this a poll, as there would be too many choices. I'm going to keep this focused on QB, RB, WR, TE, K, and D. Sorry to all the IDP folks. When you check out FBG's rankings, you are getting an average of 18 different experts. Sure, many of them don't veer too far from the norm, but a few staffers have planted some serious flags. Here are a few examples at each position:
QB
2 - Anthony Richardson
3 Dak Prescott

RB
6 - De'Von Achane
6 - Josh Jacobs

WR
8 - Mike Evans
9 - Ladd McConkey

TE
2 - Kyle Pitts
5 - TJ Hockenson

I would prefer to view the outside the box staffer rankings, but is there any data as to which staffers have better track records? Maybe some are better at predicting QB's over WR's? TE's over RB's? Do you put more weight on any given staffer at any given position?

Could you tell me which staffers made the above projections so I can exclude them from my overall rankings?

 

[Soulfly3]

mine. always top notch.

FYI - jacobs, pitts and dak are no problem at all to me in those rankings.
the richardson love is beyond out of control, imo.

 

[Deamon]

the richardson love is beyond out of control, imo.

The sample size is RIDICULOUSLY small that you probably can't get much from it, BUT he was QB5, QB24, and QB3 (QB4 total) over the 3 weeks he actually played last year.

The potential is for sure there, but not sure he can keep that average up across a whole season.

 

[pinkstapler]

AR fantasy points per dropback last year were 29.2, most since Lamar in 2019 and one of the best ever. On pace to rush for 26 TDs lol. Even with regression baked in he's THE highest upside QB you can draft this year. I have him ranked at 2 as well. Doesn't mean I'd pay for him in ADP there, and you don't have to. You can get him around QB6 at the end of the fifth round. I'd gladly grab him a full round earlier and still feel getting a solid value.

It's also just a combination of all other factors coming into play. He's behind a top 5 oline, he's got one of the best offensive skill groups to work with, he's got Shane Steichen as a coach (that guy who popularized the tush push with Hurts). And really, statistically running QBs are just game breaking for fantasy. Now, with years of metrics backing it up, it amazes me they are still mostly undervalued. Among 27 QBs who've had 100+ carries over the past 10 years now, 11 have finished as top 3 QBs in their respective season. More importantly, and much less recognized though, only 3 of those QBs have finished outside the top 12. So it's not just the ceiling we are talking with rushing QBs, it's an incredibly safe floor. Daniel Jones finished as QB9 in 2022 and was one of the worst QBs in real football in the league that year; and there's a chance he winds up as a QB1 again this season yet he's basically going undrafted and is ranked QB28.

Meanwhile, I see red flags everywhere on a lot of the consensus top ranked QBs. Mind blowing to me Josh Allen is going as high as he is in ADP. I can squint and see a reason for his QB1 ranking even though I disagree; but how he's going in the early 3rd round with a WR group where NONE of his WRs are ranked above WR45 and all are going 8th round or later. And if we consider regression, his rushing TDs doubling what he's done the past 3 seasons seems like a prime candidate. Lamar similar flags, it's odd to see the same people projecting Henry with the potential to get 20 rushing TDs still have Lamar ranked so highly too.

Can run right down the list with them. It's not that I think they are all going to be bad; I'm sure most of them will still finish top of the fantasy charts actually. But the cost to acquire vs. taking a high rush count guy later just doesn't math to me. Forget AR even, Murray and J. Daniels have been screaming values. JD rising up a bit with him showing out in preseason, but still a great prospect at QB12 in the 8th round. I think a large majority would project him to have 100 rushes this year, and history says that gives him an 89% chance to finish a QB1 and a 41% chance to finish top 3 at the position. The fact QB values this year feel depressed in general outside the top 6 or so means you can also pair one of these guys with your favorite and/or the cheapest of that flat tier of QBs for next to nothing; Cousins, Stafford, Rodgers all could easily finish as QB1s in their own right and can be had in the 11th round.

All this to say; I'm much more shocked every time I see a QB like AR NOT ranked in the top 3 than I ever will be to see someone put his name up there.

 

[Soulfly3]

All this to say; I'm much more shocked every time I see a QB like AR NOT ranked in the top 3 than I ever will be to see someone put his name up there.

After 4 NFL starts? 160yds passing/game (without including the game he exited)?
4 rushing TDs skewing his projections big time... esp since JT was out for ALL those games. That's his territory.

 

[pinkstapler]

All this to say; I'm much more shocked every time I see a QB like AR NOT ranked in the top 3 than I ever will be to see someone put his name up there.

After 4 NFL starts? 160yds passing/game (without including the game he exited)?
4 rushing TDs skewing his projections big time... esp since JT was out for ALL those games. That's his territory.

We'll see I agree he had a small sample size so with regards to him I'm leaning more on historical data and trends. And I won't try to project his totals based on that small sample size, but I also won't just completely write them off. Hundreds of QBs have gotten a shot at a couple games worth of football in my years of watching, and few if any did what he did. I don't think his playmaking ability showed there was just some fluke that's going to suddenly be non-existent.

Again, just the fact he's extremely likely to put up over 100 rushing attempts puts him in a statistical category where he'd be a major, major outlier to not finish as a QB1. What he showed (in a small sample size) that he can do WITH those 100+ attempts is just sugar on top.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Timely

x.com

x.com

 

[Scoresman]

Timely

x.com

x.com

I wish the guy who did the analysis on which experts from this list find success while going against the grain was still doing it. As someone said, it's apparently easy to game this list by submitting rankings really close to consensus.

This was part of the original analysis/explanation.

Some familiar names on the list from the analysis done previously are Matthew Hill, Dalton Del Don, Sean Koerner, and Mick Cialella.

I'd be interested in knowing if any of the outlier rankings in the OP are from Dave Kluge, because that would add him to the list of experts to use for me.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Whose rankings do you like?

mine

 

[Payne]

FBG Rankings are a bit annoying sometimes, as their draft dominator, draft dominator classic, and regular rankings all are often different. I wish they had a SINGLE set of 'overall rankings' that were used across all three of those areas.

Also include the old school VBD excel spreadsheet which I still find to be the most accurate for my auction leagues no matter how hard the team pushes Draft Dominator.

 

[nittanylion]

Nathan Jahnke's rankings are the standard to which I hold all others.

Here at fbg's in terms of analysis, viewpoint and rankings, over roughly a 20+ year sample size, I find myself aligning with Jason Wood moreso than any other.

 

[Payne]

Nathan Jahnke's rankings are the standard to which I hold all others.

Here at fbg's in terms of analysis, viewpoint and rankings, over roughly a 20+ year sample size, I find myself aligning with Jason Wood moreso than any other.

I agree. I find Jason to be the FBG expert I lean towards as well.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Some familiar names on the list from the analysis done previously are Matthew Hill, Dalton Del Don, Sean Koerner, and Mick Cialella.

#2 on the list was FBG Dave Kluge

 

[TheWinz]

Nathan Jahnke's rankings are the standard to which I hold all others.

Here at fbg's in terms of analysis, viewpoint and rankings, over roughly a 20+ year sample size, I find myself aligning with Jason Wood moreso than any other.

Thank you. Appreciate the back and forth, but I was hunting for this.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Whose rankings do you like?

mine

I hope you're not paying yourself too much for this info.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Whose rankings do you like?

mine

I hope you're not paying yourself too much for this info.

$1 salary and the rest is stock option grants.

 

[kyoun1e]

Easy for me.

FBG: Bloom. He tends to be a bit more aggressive which I like.

Non-FBG: Hayden WInks from Underdog.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don’t use them.

 

[J Giles Band]

FBG Rankings are a bit annoying sometimes, as their draft dominator, draft dominator classic, and regular rankings all are often different. I wish they had a SINGLE set of 'overall rankings' that were used across all three of those areas.

THIS

I brought this up to FBG's support last year when I noticed the rankings were not the same if you switched from one tool to another (and this is using the same league scoring parameters). Found this to be confusing... would have thought with the back end updates they made last year everything would be integrated. Instead, I found the rankings to vary. And that in addition to losing some features that used to be available.

And for those of us who are creatures of habit, I get it, sometimes new (and better) things don't always seem that way. But this isn't simply a case of that... I think this is a case of updating the tech to be more up-to-date in terms of the website programming, etc. But not always improving what it actually does. Still think many of the classic tools have better features. Thankfully Joe, et al, recognize that many feel that way and have kept some of them.

 

[Deamon]

FBG Rankings are a bit annoying sometimes, as their draft dominator, draft dominator classic, and regular rankings all are often different. I wish they had a SINGLE set of 'overall rankings' that were used across all three of those areas.

FBG Rankings are a bit annoying sometimes, as their draft dominator, draft dominator classic, and regular rankings all are often different. I wish they had a SINGLE set of 'overall rankings' that were used across all three of those areas.

THIS

I brought this up to FBG's support last year when I noticed the rankings were not the same if you switched from one tool to another (and this is using the same league scoring parameters). Found this to be confusing... would have thought with the back end updates they made last year everything would be integrated. Instead, I found the rankings to vary. And that in addition to losing some features that used to be available.

And for those of us who are creatures of habit, I get it, sometimes new (and better) things don't always seem that way. But this isn't simply a case of that... I think this is a case of updating the tech to be more up-to-date in terms of the website programming, etc. But not always improving what it actually does. Still think many of the classic tools have better features. Thankfully Joe, et al, recognize that many feel that way and have kept some of them.

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

 

[dkp993]

I’m a consensus guy. So I take the FBG projection consensus and the Fantasypros consensus and line the 2 up next to each other to help identify outliers. I also use the average of these two formats to then create my own auction values using my league history info.

 

[J Giles Band]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

Joe, I can't speak for this season yet... but last year the general consensus rankings from the rankings page differed from the rankings in the My FBG's rankings. Again, this is using the same scoring parameters.

The other detail that was noticeable, was there were even different numbers of players (by position) listed in each ranking tool. For example, the general consensus ranking might have 60 RB's ranked while the MyFBG's tool only ranked 40 (the same week). This in addition to the rankings not being the same. Getting older here and some of the details are sketchy from last fall, but if I remember correctly, for example, one of the rankings (I think the My FBG's), omitted players on bye weeks from the ROS rankings. FBG's support confirmed that part... and that helped account for the 'missing players' in the rankings. But not sure it did all of them. Understand bye week players omitted if you are looking for rankings for a single week... but NOT ROS rankings. Bye week or not, they should be included. Not to mention, it definitely did not account for the rankings difference from one tool (consensus rankings vs My FBG's) to another.

And there occasionally was a one off player left off (or several)... if I remember correctly that happened much more frequently on the IDP side. Myles Garrett would be missing from the weekly ranking, for example, etc.

Please excuse if I am not referring to the different rankings tools correctly... doing this off memory of what seemed not quite right last season. But the biggest takeaways were:

1) the rankings differed (there was not one consensus that every tool shared) - assuming this is because they were drawing from different data sources
2) there were players missing in one of the tools (I think it was the My FBG's)

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I prefer those that most closely match my own personal rankings. Otherwise they probably suck.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

Joe, I can't speak for this season yet... but last year the general consensus rankings from the rankings page differed from the rankings in the My FBG's rankings. Again, this is using the same scoring parameters.

The other detail that was noticeable, was there were even different numbers of players (by position) listed in each ranking tool. For example, the general consensus ranking might have 60 RB's ranked while the MyFBG's tool only ranked 40 (the same week). This in addition to the rankings not being the same. Getting older here and some of the details are sketchy from last fall, but if I remember correctly, for example, one of the rankings (I think the My FBG's), omitted players on bye weeks from the ROS rankings. FBG's support confirmed that part... and that helped account for the 'missing players' in the rankings. But not sure it did all of them. Understand bye week players omitted if you are looking for rankings for a single week... but NOT ROS rankings. Bye week or not, they should be included. Not to mention, it definitely did not account for the rankings difference from one tool (consensus rankings vs My FBG's) to another.

And there occasionally was a one off player left off (or several)... if I remember correctly that happened much more frequently on the IDP side. Myles Garrett would be missing from the weekly ranking, for example, etc.

Please excuse if I am not referring to the different rankings tools correctly... doing this off memory of what seemed not quite right last season. But the biggest takeaways were:

1) the rankings differed (there was not one consensus that every tool shared) - assuming this is because they were drawing from different data sources
2) there were players missing in one of the tools (I think it was the My FBG's)

Thanks @J Giles Band. Yes, sometimes there will be differences among the different tools. I know it can be a lot and much of this is self inflicted. Some of our different tools use slightly different algorithms. For instance, the Draft Dominator Classic uses an older algorithm. Most companies would kill the old tool and push everyone to the new Draft Dominator so they don't have differences like this. I choose to spend the money to keep both as I know lots of people love it. And the downside of some differences is something we deal with.

But for a bottom line answer, we use our consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Thanks.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I prefer those that most closely match my own personal rankings. Otherwise they probably suck.

Best answer.

 

[J Giles Band]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

Joe, I can't speak for this season yet... but last year the general consensus rankings from the rankings page differed from the rankings in the My FBG's rankings. Again, this is using the same scoring parameters.

The other detail that was noticeable, was there were even different numbers of players (by position) listed in each ranking tool. For example, the general consensus ranking might have 60 RB's ranked while the MyFBG's tool only ranked 40 (the same week). This in addition to the rankings not being the same. Getting older here and some of the details are sketchy from last fall, but if I remember correctly, for example, one of the rankings (I think the My FBG's), omitted players on bye weeks from the ROS rankings. FBG's support confirmed that part... and that helped account for the 'missing players' in the rankings. But not sure it did all of them. Understand bye week players omitted if you are looking for rankings for a single week... but NOT ROS rankings. Bye week or not, they should be included. Not to mention, it definitely did not account for the rankings difference from one tool (consensus rankings vs My FBG's) to another.

And there occasionally was a one off player left off (or several)... if I remember correctly that happened much more frequently on the IDP side. Myles Garrett would be missing from the weekly ranking, for example, etc.

Please excuse if I am not referring to the different rankings tools correctly... doing this off memory of what seemed not quite right last season. But the biggest takeaways were:

1) the rankings differed (there was not one consensus that every tool shared) - assuming this is because they were drawing from different data sources
2) there were players missing in one of the tools (I think it was the My FBG's)

Thanks @J Giles Band. Yes, sometimes there will be differences among the different tools. I know it can be a lot and much of this is self inflicted. Some of our different tools use slightly different algorithms. For instance, the Draft Dominator Classic uses an older algorithm. Most companies would kill the old tool and push everyone to the new Draft Dominator so they don't have differences like this. I choose to spend the money to keep both as I know lots of people love it. And the downside of some differences is something we deal with.

But for a bottom line answer, we use our consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Thanks.

Thanks Joe!

Let me assure you, the old heads appreciate your willingness to keep the old tools available. Some still feel superior to the new ones.

If some differences are the tradeoff, I'm all for keeping the old tools around.

 

[Payne]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

Joe, I can't speak for this season yet... but last year the general consensus rankings from the rankings page differed from the rankings in the My FBG's rankings. Again, this is using the same scoring parameters.

The other detail that was noticeable, was there were even different numbers of players (by position) listed in each ranking tool. For example, the general consensus ranking might have 60 RB's ranked while the MyFBG's tool only ranked 40 (the same week). This in addition to the rankings not being the same. Getting older here and some of the details are sketchy from last fall, but if I remember correctly, for example, one of the rankings (I think the My FBG's), omitted players on bye weeks from the ROS rankings. FBG's support confirmed that part... and that helped account for the 'missing players' in the rankings. But not sure it did all of them. Understand bye week players omitted if you are looking for rankings for a single week... but NOT ROS rankings. Bye week or not, they should be included. Not to mention, it definitely did not account for the rankings difference from one tool (consensus rankings vs My FBG's) to another.

And there occasionally was a one off player left off (or several)... if I remember correctly that happened much more frequently on the IDP side. Myles Garrett would be missing from the weekly ranking, for example, etc.

Please excuse if I am not referring to the different rankings tools correctly... doing this off memory of what seemed not quite right last season. But the biggest takeaways were:

1) the rankings differed (there was not one consensus that every tool shared) - assuming this is because they were drawing from different data sources
2) there were players missing in one of the tools (I think it was the My FBG's)

Thanks @J Giles Band. Yes, sometimes there will be differences among the different tools. I know it can be a lot and much of this is self inflicted. Some of our different tools use slightly different algorithms. For instance, the Draft Dominator Classic uses an older algorithm. Most companies would kill the old tool and push everyone to the new Draft Dominator so they don't have differences like this. I choose to spend the money to keep both as I know lots of people love it. And the downside of some differences is something we deal with.

But for a bottom line answer, we use our consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Thanks.

Thanks Joe!

Let me assure you, the old heads appreciate your willingness to keep the old tools available. Some still feel superior to the new ones.

If some differences are the tradeoff, I'm all for keeping the old tools around.

I don't think there is any doubt the old tools are superior.

I still think the VBD excel spreadsheet is the most valuable tool on this website. The auction values are far more accurate than the DD.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

Joe, I can't speak for this season yet... but last year the general consensus rankings from the rankings page differed from the rankings in the My FBG's rankings. Again, this is using the same scoring parameters.

The other detail that was noticeable, was there were even different numbers of players (by position) listed in each ranking tool. For example, the general consensus ranking might have 60 RB's ranked while the MyFBG's tool only ranked 40 (the same week). This in addition to the rankings not being the same. Getting older here and some of the details are sketchy from last fall, but if I remember correctly, for example, one of the rankings (I think the My FBG's), omitted players on bye weeks from the ROS rankings. FBG's support confirmed that part... and that helped account for the 'missing players' in the rankings. But not sure it did all of them. Understand bye week players omitted if you are looking for rankings for a single week... but NOT ROS rankings. Bye week or not, they should be included. Not to mention, it definitely did not account for the rankings difference from one tool (consensus rankings vs My FBG's) to another.

And there occasionally was a one off player left off (or several)... if I remember correctly that happened much more frequently on the IDP side. Myles Garrett would be missing from the weekly ranking, for example, etc.

Please excuse if I am not referring to the different rankings tools correctly... doing this off memory of what seemed not quite right last season. But the biggest takeaways were:

1) the rankings differed (there was not one consensus that every tool shared) - assuming this is because they were drawing from different data sources
2) there were players missing in one of the tools (I think it was the My FBG's)

Thanks @J Giles Band. Yes, sometimes there will be differences among the different tools. I know it can be a lot and much of this is self inflicted. Some of our different tools use slightly different algorithms. For instance, the Draft Dominator Classic uses an older algorithm. Most companies would kill the old tool and push everyone to the new Draft Dominator so they don't have differences like this. I choose to spend the money to keep both as I know lots of people love it. And the downside of some differences is something we deal with.

But for a bottom line answer, we use our consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Thanks.

Thanks Joe!

Let me assure you, the old heads appreciate your willingness to keep the old tools available. Some still feel superior to the new ones.

If some differences are the tradeoff, I'm all for keeping the old tools around.

Thanks. It's that plus about $40,000 a year to keep them going. It probably doesn't make financial sense but it feels right for us.

 

[BassNBrew]

Henry projections end of story.

I don't trust rankings not built on laying out the numbers for the entire offense. If you feel Jameson is WR10, then you better back that up by adjusting the other surrounding pieces up and down. I also assume some of the guys are part timers and some full ff analysts.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Henry projections end of story.

I don't trust rankings not built on laying out the numbers for the entire offense. If you feel Jameson is WR10, then you better back that up by adjusting the other surrounding pieces up and down. I also assume some of the guys are part timers and some full ff analysts.

Just one guy, and his rankings aren’t published.

I was surprised to discover that a lot of people in TSP who do their own projections do a bottom up approach. Build the players, then total them up.

It’s not 6 of one or half dozen of the other.

Starting with team projections FIRST provides the framework. You can’t build the house exterior and then add the foundation, studs and support beams afterwards.

 

[gbill2004]

I prefer those that most closely match my own personal rankings. Otherwise they probably suck.

Best answer.

I actually prefer rankings that are the furthest away form mine, because it gives me an alternative perspective. 99% of rankings are basically the same so I really like that 1% that don't mind going off against the grain.

 

[Deamon]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

@Joe Bryant , is it a different ranker doing the REST OF SEASON RANKINGS vs the WAIVER WIRE PICKUPS on the LEAGUE DOMINATOR?

The reason I ask (and it kind of goes back to my previous post about apps showing different rankings), is it is tough to know what "football guys is recommending".

For example:

This week, it is suggesting on League Dominator, to spend 10-20% of your FAAB on Alec Pierce. He is actually listed as the top add in my league:

WR
Alec Pierce
IND
bid: 10-20%
outlook up reasonably
What is Anthony Richardson's favorite deep target worth? The good news about Pierce is that he had a big game even though it was there for Adonai Mitchell to have multiple long scores, and Ashton Dulin had one of his own. Richardson should only improve, and Pierce will be a boom/bust WR3/Flex option along the way.

However, when I click on REST OF SEASON RANKINGS, they have him buried WAYYYYYYYY down the list, below about 70 other free agents ahead of him (24 other free agent WR's are ranked above him for rest of the year).

I do appreciate it could be different staffers with the rankings, but this seems so considerably off. If I usually trust FBG rankings quite a bit, do I pick up Pierce like the WW adds/Stock up-down report shows that I very much should place priority on, or do I trust the Rest Of Season rankings that show him as completely un-rosterable and not even worth a look?

Would love it if these two were even a BIT close/consistent.

Thank you!

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

@Joe Bryant , is it a different ranker doing the REST OF SEASON RANKINGS vs the WAIVER WIRE PICKUPS on the LEAGUE DOMINATOR?

The reason I ask (and it kind of goes back to my previous post about apps showing different rankings), is it is tough to know what "football guys is recommending".

For example:

This week, it is suggesting on League Dominator, to spend 10-20% of your FAAB on Alec Pierce. He is actually listed as the top add in my league:

WR
Alec Pierce
IND
bid: 10-20%
outlook up reasonably
What is Anthony Richardson's favorite deep target worth? The good news about Pierce is that he had a big game even though it was there for Adonai Mitchell to have multiple long scores, and Ashton Dulin had one of his own. Richardson should only improve, and Pierce will be a boom/bust WR3/Flex option along the way.

However, when I click on REST OF SEASON RANKINGS, they have him buried WAYYYYYYYY down the list, below about 70 other free agents ahead of him (24 other free agent WR's are ranked above him for rest of the year).

I do appreciate it could be different staffers with the rankings, but this seems so considerably off. If I usually trust FBG rankings quite a bit, do I pick up Pierce like the WW adds/Stock up-down report shows that I very much should place priority on, or do I trust the Rest Of Season rankings that show him as completely un-rosterable and not even worth a look?

Would love it if these two were even a BIT close/consistent.

Thank you!

Yes. The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

 

[Deamon]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

@Joe Bryant , is it a different ranker doing the REST OF SEASON RANKINGS vs the WAIVER WIRE PICKUPS on the LEAGUE DOMINATOR?

The reason I ask (and it kind of goes back to my previous post about apps showing different rankings), is it is tough to know what "football guys is recommending".

For example:

This week, it is suggesting on League Dominator, to spend 10-20% of your FAAB on Alec Pierce. He is actually listed as the top add in my league:

WR
Alec Pierce
IND
bid: 10-20%
outlook up reasonably
What is Anthony Richardson's favorite deep target worth? The good news about Pierce is that he had a big game even though it was there for Adonai Mitchell to have multiple long scores, and Ashton Dulin had one of his own. Richardson should only improve, and Pierce will be a boom/bust WR3/Flex option along the way.

However, when I click on REST OF SEASON RANKINGS, they have him buried WAYYYYYYYY down the list, below about 70 other free agents ahead of him (24 other free agent WR's are ranked above him for rest of the year).

I do appreciate it could be different staffers with the rankings, but this seems so considerably off. If I usually trust FBG rankings quite a bit, do I pick up Pierce like the WW adds/Stock up-down report shows that I very much should place priority on, or do I trust the Rest Of Season rankings that show him as completely un-rosterable and not even worth a look?

Would love it if these two were even a BIT close/consistent.

Thank you!

Yes. The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

Thanks for the reply. I definitely think those 3 guys do great work for sure.

I guess it's just sometimes tough because I use the waiver wire adds page quite a bit when seeing who I should pick up in my leagues and when comparing it to the weekly or rest of season rankings, it differs so much. For example, Bloom mentions spending 10-20% of your budget on Pierce, and that he will be a WR3/Flex play moving forward, but Bob/Justin's weekly rankings and rest of season rankings basically show him as a Wr6 at best... both this week and moving forward... and that he's not even remotely worth a pick up.

Tough to balance those and wonder which rankings to trust best. Anyways, just some feedback, they all do great work and I'll just have to kind of compare the two when trying to figure out what to bid on someone. Thanks!

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I decided not to make this a poll, as there would be too many choices. I'm going to keep this focused on QB, RB, WR, TE, K, and D. Sorry to all the IDP folks. When you check out FBG's rankings, you are getting an average of 18 different experts. Sure, many of them don't veer too far from the norm, but a few staffers have planted some serious flags. Here are a few examples at each position:
QB
2 - Anthony Richardson
3 Dak Prescott

RB
6 - De'Von Achane
6 - Josh Jacobs

WR
8 - Mike Evans
9 - Ladd McConkey

TE
2 - Kyle Pitts
5 - TJ Hockenson

I would prefer to view the outside the box staffer rankings, but is there any data as to which staffers have better track records? Maybe some are better at predicting QB's over WR's? TE's over RB's? Do you put more weight on any given staffer at any given position?

QB
2 - Anthony Richardson
3 Dak Prescott

Both of these are entirely reasonable. The FBGs consensus on Richardson was insanely low.
RB
6 - De'Von Achane
6 - Josh Jacobs

I can see both of these. Jacobs has been RB 1 recently and is in a good situation. Achane will be huge when on teh field.

WR
8 - Mike Evans
9 - Ladd McConkey

These both seem way too high. Evans is a low risk play in WR 12-15, but I don't see teh upside to put him that high.
LAC won't throw enough for anybody to possibly be WR 9

TE
2 - Kyle Pitts
5 - TJ Hockenson

I can see Pitts even as TE1. Nobody coming off an ACL should be top 5.

 

[J Giles Band]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

@Joe Bryant , is it a different ranker doing the REST OF SEASON RANKINGS vs the WAIVER WIRE PICKUPS on the LEAGUE DOMINATOR?

The reason I ask (and it kind of goes back to my previous post about apps showing different rankings), is it is tough to know what "football guys is recommending".

For example:

This week, it is suggesting on League Dominator, to spend 10-20% of your FAAB on Alec Pierce. He is actually listed as the top add in my league:

WR
Alec Pierce
IND
bid: 10-20%
outlook up reasonably
What is Anthony Richardson's favorite deep target worth? The good news about Pierce is that he had a big game even though it was there for Adonai Mitchell to have multiple long scores, and Ashton Dulin had one of his own. Richardson should only improve, and Pierce will be a boom/bust WR3/Flex option along the way.

However, when I click on REST OF SEASON RANKINGS, they have him buried WAYYYYYYYY down the list, below about 70 other free agents ahead of him (24 other free agent WR's are ranked above him for rest of the year).

I do appreciate it could be different staffers with the rankings, but this seems so considerably off. If I usually trust FBG rankings quite a bit, do I pick up Pierce like the WW adds/Stock up-down report shows that I very much should place priority on, or do I trust the Rest Of Season rankings that show him as completely un-rosterable and not even worth a look?

Would love it if these two were even a BIT close/consistent.

Thank you!

Yes. The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

Thanks for the reply. I definitely think those 3 guys do great work for sure.

I guess it's just sometimes tough because I use the waiver wire adds page quite a bit when seeing who I should pick up in my leagues and when comparing it to the weekly or rest of season rankings, it differs so much. For example, Bloom mentions spending 10-20% of your budget on Pierce, and that he will be a WR3/Flex play moving forward, but Bob/Justin's weekly rankings and rest of season rankings basically show him as a Wr6 at best... both this week and moving forward... and that he's not even remotely worth a pick up.

Tough to balance those and wonder which rankings to trust best. Anyways, just some feedback, they all do great work and I'll just have to kind of compare the two when trying to figure out what to bid on someone. Thanks!

Glad you brought this up again.

I understand more now based on Joe's reply. But it is clear that depending on where you look, you will get different perspectives on the ROS rankings. As I had mentioned in an earlier post, that caused some confusion for me last season when I'd look at the rankings and they differed from the projections. And Bloom's FA recommendations were their on thing.

It takes some time to figure out the best way to navigate the site for everyone. For me, the ROS rankings used to be a staple for determining whether to pick up a FA or hold guys I have already. Now I find myself relying on Bloom's recommendations more and the ROS rankings less as they don't seem to have the same consistency and accuracy as before.

 

[Deamon]

@Joe Bryant Is there any way to look into this? I know often different staffers run different apps/tools/etc, but would LOVE a cross-platform unified official "footballguys consensus" ranking that was kind of your guys' official rankings.

Absolutley. We have lots of different voices that rank player and do detailed stat projections.

Our one bottom line on every player are our consensus rankings here https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

Lots of our customers have their favorite rankers at FBG and want to lean more on them so we do all we can to allow flexibility so customers can determine who is in the consensus.

But if you want a bottom line from FBG, it's the consensus rankings here: https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason

And of course those will all very dramatically based on scoring system and league size and starting lineup requirements. That's we allow for customizing all those things.

@Joe Bryant , is it a different ranker doing the REST OF SEASON RANKINGS vs the WAIVER WIRE PICKUPS on the LEAGUE DOMINATOR?

The reason I ask (and it kind of goes back to my previous post about apps showing different rankings), is it is tough to know what "football guys is recommending".

For example:

This week, it is suggesting on League Dominator, to spend 10-20% of your FAAB on Alec Pierce. He is actually listed as the top add in my league:

WR
Alec Pierce
IND
bid: 10-20%
outlook up reasonably
What is Anthony Richardson's favorite deep target worth? The good news about Pierce is that he had a big game even though it was there for Adonai Mitchell to have multiple long scores, and Ashton Dulin had one of his own. Richardson should only improve, and Pierce will be a boom/bust WR3/Flex option along the way.

However, when I click on REST OF SEASON RANKINGS, they have him buried WAYYYYYYYY down the list, below about 70 other free agents ahead of him (24 other free agent WR's are ranked above him for rest of the year).

I do appreciate it could be different staffers with the rankings, but this seems so considerably off. If I usually trust FBG rankings quite a bit, do I pick up Pierce like the WW adds/Stock up-down report shows that I very much should place priority on, or do I trust the Rest Of Season rankings that show him as completely un-rosterable and not even worth a look?

Would love it if these two were even a BIT close/consistent.

Thank you!

Yes. The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

Thanks for the reply. I definitely think those 3 guys do great work for sure.

I guess it's just sometimes tough because I use the waiver wire adds page quite a bit when seeing who I should pick up in my leagues and when comparing it to the weekly or rest of season rankings, it differs so much. For example, Bloom mentions spending 10-20% of your budget on Pierce, and that he will be a WR3/Flex play moving forward, but Bob/Justin's weekly rankings and rest of season rankings basically show him as a Wr6 at best... both this week and moving forward... and that he's not even remotely worth a pick up.

Tough to balance those and wonder which rankings to trust best. Anyways, just some feedback, they all do great work and I'll just have to kind of compare the two when trying to figure out what to bid on someone. Thanks!

Glad you brought this up again.

I understand more now based on Joe's reply. But it is clear that depending on where you look, you will get different perspectives on the ROS rankings. As I had mentioned in an earlier post, that caused some confusion for me last season when I'd look at the rankings and they differed from the projections. And Bloom's FA recommendations were their on thing.

It takes some time to figure out the best way to navigate the site for everyone. For me, the ROS rankings used to be a staple for determining whether to pick up a FA or hold guys I have already. Now I find myself relying on Bloom's recommendations more and the ROS rankings less as they don't seem to have the same consistency and accuracy as before.

Yes, but Joe seems to be hinting that the ROS rankings are far more in depth, and a far more accurate representation of "FBG Rankings".

I will stand by my point that I wish they were more consistent. If Bloom is saying to spend 10-20% of your budget on Alec Pierce, because he is a hot pick up this week, then FBG rest of season rankings should not have him buried so far down where they are basically saying 'do not pick this guy up'

 

[Navin Johnson]

FBG's: Bloom
Others: Evan Silva

 

[Deamon]

Here's a bit of what I mean (and I'm not trying to be critical, I really respect the opinion of the FBG rankers).

Waiver Report
QB Derek Carr NO
bid: 20-40%
Carr's emergence in Klint Kubiak's offense is one of the biggest stories of the first two weeks of the season. We don't know his true fantasy ceiling because both games have basically been over at halftime. The Week 2 performance is even more telling because unlike Carolina, the Cowboys defense wasn't demoralized. Carr is a high floor QB1 heading into a matchup with the Eagles.

FBG WEEKLY RANKING:
QB22

FBG REST OF SEASON RANKING:
QB18

@Joe Bryant , sorry to bring it up again... it's just trying to figure out who to trust as those are extremely different takes. It's my only issue with the site or rankings.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here's a bit of what I mean (and I'm not trying to be critical, I really respect the opinion of the FBG rankers).

Waiver Report
QB Derek Carr NO
bid: 20-40%
Carr's emergence in Klint Kubiak's offense is one of the biggest stories of the first two weeks of the season. We don't know his true fantasy ceiling because both games have basically been over at halftime. The Week 2 performance is even more telling because unlike Carolina, the Cowboys defense wasn't demoralized. Carr is a high floor QB1 heading into a matchup with the Eagles.

FBG WEEKLY RANKING:
QB22

FBG REST OF SEASON RANKING:
QB18

@Joe Bryant , sorry to bring it up again... it's just trying to figure out who to trust as those are extremely different takes. It's my only issue with the site or rankings.

No need to be sorry, but it's the same answer as earlier.

The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

The waiver report is Sigmund's take. He's higher on Carr than the rest of the Staff.

Having different voices is one of the best parts of Footballguys. I think it's our strength. But it also can be confusing with different opinions.

I suppose it would help if I forced Sigmund to be 100% in lockstep with the rest of the staff. But that's not how I've ever run the site.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes, but Joe seems to be hinting that the ROS rankings are far more in depth,

Not hinting. They are detailed stat projections from Bob Henry and Justin Freeman.

Sigmund would be the first to tell you they are more detailed and in depth than his commentary he writes in the Waiver Report.

 

[mphtrilogy]

Here's a bit of what I mean (and I'm not trying to be critical, I really respect the opinion of the FBG rankers).

Waiver Report
QB Derek Carr NO
bid: 20-40%
Carr's emergence in Klint Kubiak's offense is one of the biggest stories of the first two weeks of the season. We don't know his true fantasy ceiling because both games have basically been over at halftime. The Week 2 performance is even more telling because unlike Carolina, the Cowboys defense wasn't demoralized. Carr is a high floor QB1 heading into a matchup with the Eagles.

FBG WEEKLY RANKING:
QB22

FBG REST OF SEASON RANKING:
QB18

@Joe Bryant , sorry to bring it up again... it's just trying to figure out who to trust as those are extremely different takes. It's my only issue with the site or rankings.

No need to be sorry, but it's the same answer as earlier.

The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

The waiver report is Sigmund's take. He's higher on Carr than the rest of the Staff.

Having different voices is one of the best parts of Footballguys. I think it's our strength. But it also can be confusing with different opinions.

I suppose it would help if I forced Sigmund to be 100% in lockstep with the rest of the staff. But that's not how I've ever run the site.

Sigmund is the guy I look for with exact statements like this on Carr, now is the time to act to get him or you have lost your window, I am going in strong in my 2QB short bench league, he is still out there, this could be a season changing move for me and I love it when he takes a stand on a player that statement on Carr is exactly why I am going hard after Carr now. No risk it no biscuit and I look for Sigmunds gut takes (which to be honest I look for his gut takes to line up with my gut as well and then I strike).

 

[BassNBrew]

Here's a bit of what I mean (and I'm not trying to be critical, I really respect the opinion of the FBG rankers).

Waiver Report
QB Derek Carr NO
bid: 20-40%
Carr's emergence in Klint Kubiak's offense is one of the biggest stories of the first two weeks of the season. We don't know his true fantasy ceiling because both games have basically been over at halftime. The Week 2 performance is even more telling because unlike Carolina, the Cowboys defense wasn't demoralized. Carr is a high floor QB1 heading into a matchup with the Eagles.

FBG WEEKLY RANKING:
QB22

FBG REST OF SEASON RANKING:
QB18

@Joe Bryant , sorry to bring it up again... it's just trying to figure out who to trust as those are extremely different takes. It's my only issue with the site or rankings.

No need to be sorry, but it's the same answer as earlier.

The Rest of Season Rankings are detailed statistical projection from now until the end of the year. They're like our Preseason Projections where projectors project every relevant stat down to the last yard. It's a huge endeavor each week and they're our most detailed work for the value from today through the end of the year. Way more difficult to do all the stat projections than just rankings. But by doing the stat projections, it gives us a huge advantage over the competition as it allows our customer to run the projections through their specific scoring system. Vs the generic rankings that are more common. Bob Henry and Justin Freeman do those for offense.

Sometimes they're similar situations, but the Waiver Wire Report is by our Sigmund Bloom who does not do detailed stat projections but will offer the players he's seeing moving both up and down with a brief explanation of why.

I don't know of any three people I put more faith in than Bob, Justin and Sigmund. But they're doing different tasks here.

I usually use the features in tandem seeing who caught Sigmund's eye from this week and then weigh against the Rest of Season projections. If it's a one week decision, I'll use our projections for this week only. If it's a longer range window, I'll use the Rest Of Season projections.

The waiver report is Sigmund's take. He's higher on Carr than the rest of the Staff.

Having different voices is one of the best parts of Footballguys. I think it's our strength. But it also can be confusing with different opinions.

I suppose it would help if I forced Sigmund to be 100% in lockstep with the rest of the staff. But that's not how I've ever run the site.

Sigmund is the guy I look for with exact statements like this on Carr, now is the time to act to get him or you have lost your window, I am going in strong in my 2QB short bench league, he is still out there, this could be a season changing move for me and I love it when he takes a stand on a player that statement on Carr is exactly why I am going hard after Carr now. No risk it no biscuit and I look for Sigmunds gut takes (which to be honest I look for his gut takes to line up with my gut as well and then I strike).

I wish Bloom would do ROS projections. He tends to be more reactive in his weekly article. Last week he downgraded Hurts and Cousins, this week they were upgrades.

Here's another example:

Week 2
TE Isaiah Likely BAL
outlook up massively, bid: 50-100%

Week 3 Downgrade

 

[TheWinz]

Also, when you are looking at FBG's different rankings, you need to be aware of what you are really looking at. For example, yesterday I was looking at ROS rankings, when I realized it was only Justin Freeman's I was seeing, because no other staffer had yet posted theirs. Today, it looks like Bob Henry and Matt Montgomery have posted theirs, until you realize Matt does IDP only, so now you are only looking at offensive rankings for 2 staffers. And if you are looking at week 3 rankings, you are already seeing offensive rankings for 6 different staffers.