Why is Larry Fitzgerald always ranked in the top 3? (1 Viewer)

[ClubberLang]

In the Footballguys weekly cheatsheets, Larry Fitzgerald has been ranked the following in non-ppr leagues:

Week 1 - Ranked 3rd best WR

Week 2 - Ranked 2nd best WR

Week 3 - Ranked 1st best WR

It's no secret he's hurting and his QB is below average.

This week he goes up against Nnamdi Asomugha and the always tough Raiders pass defense. Why is he always ranked so high?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I was going to come in here and say something along the lines of "Because he's Fitzgerald." but you have a good question.

Banged up, no qb, and a top notch cb covering him?

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Seems based on history and potential. However there are greater forces at work, as mentioned above, that mitigate those two things.

 

[zoonation]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.

most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

 

[ClubberLang]

I just don't get how a guy can be ranked #1 this week when ...

- He has underperformed lately

- Is relatively cold

- Has a bad QB

- Is facing the best shutdown CB on the planet (Yes, Nnamdi is better than Revis)

 

[xenon]

What's the story with his injury? I might try and buy low and gamble. HOMERS?

 

[Clifton]

Sometimes it's hard to let go.

Pretty sure the rankings are strictly stats and a look at the opposition. Not much from the gut. It appears that trends are left out of the equation. He's not even top 8 at this point.

 

[bonesman]

book it.

 

[Otis]

Glitch in the code. Gotta get MF on this stat.

 

[comfortably numb]

He's due

 

[bostonfred]

He's due

I'm not sure if that's how they do the week to week rankings, but I've seen talk about a methodology that includes updating the projections for a player throughout the year (e.g. I might think Fitz is going to get 94/1500/79 by the end of the year) then subtracting out his year to date performance (so he should have about 84/1100/7 left) and dividing that by 14 (which leaves 6/100/.5 per week). Then at the end of the week, they adjust them up or down based on matchups, health, and other circumstances (e.g. I might think Fitz's health is improving and he's finally connecting with Anderson and they're going to move him around to avoid Awesome-wah). If that were the methodology they're using - and I'm not saying it is - then that would almost always leave an underperformer ranked higher than they "should" be, because the underperformer would always be, for lack of a better term, "due".

 

[Alex P Keaton]

He's due

I'm not sure if that's how they do the week to week rankings, but I've seen talk about a methodology that includes updating the projections for a player throughout the year (e.g. I might think Fitz is going to get 94/1500/79 by the end of the year) then subtracting out his year to date performance (so he should have about 84/1100/7 left) and dividing that by 14 (which leaves 6/100/.5 per week). Then at the end of the week, they adjust them up or down based on matchups, health, and other circumstances (e.g. I might think Fitz's health is improving and he's finally connecting with Anderson and they're going to move him around to avoid Awesome-wah). If that were the methodology they're using - and I'm not saying it is - then that would almost always leave an underperformer ranked higher than they "should" be, because the underperformer would always be, for lack of a better term, "due".

BF - would you also revise/refresh your year-end projections periodically throughout the season to adjust for the reality of what is happening? Or would you pick a set of projections at beginning-of-year and then keep static for a full season?Just curious.

 

[bostonfred]

He's due

I'm not sure if that's how they do the week to week rankings, but I've seen talk about a methodology that includes updating the projections for a player throughout the year (e.g. I might think Fitz is going to get 94/1500/79 by the end of the year) then subtracting out his year to date performance (so he should have about 84/1100/7 left) and dividing that by 14 (which leaves 6/100/.5 per week). Then at the end of the week, they adjust them up or down based on matchups, health, and other circumstances (e.g. I might think Fitz's health is improving and he's finally connecting with Anderson and they're going to move him around to avoid Awesome-wah). If that were the methodology they're using - and I'm not saying it is - then that would almost always leave an underperformer ranked higher than they "should" be, because the underperformer would always be, for lack of a better term, "due".

BF - would you also revise/refresh your year-end projections periodically throughout the season to adjust for the reality of what is happening? Or would you pick a set of projections at beginning-of-year and then keep static for a full season?Just curious.

This isn't my methodology, it's just something I remembering hearing in an offseason thread or two at one point. I doubt I'll be able to find the posts, and I can't say what the FBG folks do. But yeah, it makes sense to keep adjusting your projections throughout the year if you're going to do this. You'd certainly adjust Ryan Grant down and Michael Vick up, for example. Smaller adjustments would make sense, too, but you'd want to see some kind of catalyst besides "Jones-Drew is off to a slow start after playing two tough run Ds" or "Hakeem Nicks averages two TDs per week". You might even artificially adjust Hines Ward's numbers up - expecting a big improvement when Roethlisberger comes back - or expect Fitz to continue to improve throughout the season as he gets healthier, the run game gets better, and Anderson gets more comfortable in the offense.

 

[trader jake]

These threads usually result in the player in question having a big week.

 

[Grahamburn]

He's had 15 and 12 targets in the first two games respectively. When a player of Larry's caliber gets that many targets he's bound to produce big numbers at some point. If Derek Anderson throws the ball to him that many times against Oakland he's bound to catch a few whether Nnamdi is on him or not.

When has 7 receptions for 83 yards become a poor performance for a WR anyway?

 

[DoubleG]

He's had 15 and 12 targets in the first two games respectively. When a player of Larry's caliber gets that many targets he's bound to produce big numbers at some point. If Derek Anderson throws the ball to him that many times against Oakland he's bound to catch a few whether Nnamdi is on him or not.

When has 7 receptions for 83 yards become a poor performance for a WR anyway?

It's not. But it's not even what most conisder WR1 numbers, let alone the #1 overall for the week. The fact that he is getting targets is nice, but given the innacuracey of his QB, the fact that he is hurting (i.e. not as quick, not as "jumpy") and the fact that he will be facing a very good CB, mitigate the number of targets he'll see. In fact, the very fact that he has seen so many targets and done so poorly (for a WR1) with them is the very reason for the concern and confusion about the ranking.

 

[QUEZILLA]

- Is facing the best shutdown CB on the planet (Yes, Nnamdi is better than Revis)

Is there a chance he may lineup on the other side of Nnamdi at times? I thought I heard Oak leaves their corners on the same side no matter who they are going up against. Can anyone confirm this? 2 Stl WR's had good numbers against Oak so it's possible to catch balls against them.

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

- Is facing the best shutdown CB on the planet (Yes, Nnamdi is better than Revis)

Is there a chance he may lineup on the other side of Nnamdi at times? I thought I heard Oak leaves their corners on the same side no matter who they are going up against. Can anyone confirm this? 2 Stl WR's had good numbers against Oak so it's possible to catch balls against them.

Haven't watched a Raiders game this year, but wasn't it semi big news in the pre-season when the Raiders made some sort of announcement that they'd be using NA to shadow obvious #1's this year? Have they been following through? Trying to remember who they've played and if there's even any relevant evidence yet...(Edit: Tenn and STL, so no real #1 threats yet. Guess we'll see this week. Sorry that's zero help, but I AM pretty sure they made that announcement, FWIW...)

 

[Grahamburn]

He's had 15 and 12 targets in the first two games respectively. When a player of Larry's caliber gets that many targets he's bound to produce big numbers at some point. If Derek Anderson throws the ball to him that many times against Oakland he's bound to catch a few whether Nnamdi is on him or not.

When has 7 receptions for 83 yards become a poor performance for a WR anyway?

It's not. But it's not even what most conisder WR1 numbers, let alone the #1 overall for the week. The fact that he is getting targets is nice, but given the innacuracey of his QB, the fact that he is hurting (i.e. not as quick, not as "jumpy") and the fact that he will be facing a very good CB, mitigate the number of targets he'll see. In fact, the very fact that he has seen so many targets and done so poorly (for a WR1) with them is the very reason for the concern and confusion about the ranking.

Most WR1s do produce right around 83 yards on average. That prorates out to 1,328 yards. All WR1s have weeks where they sprinkle in a TD grab with low yards, have an average week with 80 yards and no TDs, and then they have monster weeks with 150 and 2 TDs. Larry Fitzgerald isn't any different, and when he's getting 13.5 targets on average the monster week should be expected to come at some point.

I didn't see either game so I can't attest to how Larry has looked as far as the injury goes. My point was just that as long as he's getting a plethora of targets he's going to be at the top of the rankings week in and week out. He's too good not to be.

 

[Resident A]

I think Fitz is still top-10, but a weekly #1 is not likely. He is still the most talented WR in the league & if DA can hit him in stride, he's capable to taking any pass to the house. I'm sure he'll have a few games where he gets 2 long TDs, they just won't be as common this year...

 

[texasheat]

Mike Williams at #8

 

[joffer]

These threads usually result in the player in question having a big week.

:(

 

[Da Guru]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

I am always amazed at the outrage over the rankings. If you have Fitz you drafted him pretty high and are going to play him if he is #1 ranked or #22 ranked.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

The preseason projections are great, but on a weekly basis I prefer other staff contributions, like Matt's "Gut Check" article and Sean's "Exploit/Avoid" thread.

 

[Pots]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

I am always amazed at the outrage over the rankings. If you have Fitz you drafted him pretty high and are going to play him if he is #1 ranked or #22 ranked.

If the rankings don't make sence, then what's the point? Did people suscribe just for the e-mail notices on player news? Now if there's some calculated reason players are ranked the way they are that we're missing, it would be nice to know what that is. If there isn't, that makes people question the quality of in-season content. That said, they've already discussed how accuracy of rankings diminish due to the fact that there is a great demand for rankings earlier in the week (Wed). However, I don't see how Fitz, against the top CB, with a bum leg, a bad QB, and two lackluster weeks indicates WR #1 whether you put this list out Wed or Sat. (This isn't the only ranking I feel about this either).

 

[joffer]

he's also #2 in targets.

 

[shnikies]

I only use Bloom's rankings and only if I am really stuck between two players. Bloom had Fitz 11 last week. He doesn't mindlessly do the rankings like whoever does the default ones. So, my suggestion is to wait for Bloom's 2nd opinion projections.

 

[Da Guru]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

I am always amazed at the outrage over the rankings. If you have Fitz you drafted him pretty high and are going to play him if he is #1 ranked or #22 ranked.

If the rankings don't make sence, then what's the point? Did people suscribe just for the e-mail notices on player news? Now if there's some calculated reason players are ranked the way they are that we're missing, it would be nice to know what that is. If there isn't, that makes people question the quality of in-season content. That said, they've already discussed how accuracy of tankings diminish due to the fact that there is a great demand for rankings earlier in the week (Wed). However, I don't see how Fitz, against the top CB, with a bum leg, a bad QB, and two lackluster weeks indicates WR #1 whether you put this list out Wed or Sat. (This isn't the only ranking I feel about this either).

There is so much great info on this site to use, but the week to week rankings is not very high on my list.

 

[Kuz]

I only use Bloom's rankings and only if I am really stuck between two players. Bloom had Fitz 11 last week. He doesn't mindlessly do the rankings like whoever does the default ones. So, my suggestion is to wait for Bloom's 2nd opinion projections.

I also like to follow Bloom's projections..

 

[Liquid Tension]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

This is true because it is impossible to be very good at predictions. That being said, it is something everyone looks at. I try to make my own decision and then if I have a coin flip I look at the rankings. I have to admit, the rankings do not have a good track record though and perhaps more focus on the trends would make them better. In fact, while I am sure there are statistical formulations to come up with the predictions, a manual review of what has actually happened coupled with who they played and what happened would give a better ranking system. This would take an awful amount of time, but isn't this about as important as anything else right now?

 

[Pots]

here is a tip. the weekly rankings are basically useless, they don't get vetted week in and week out for good reason. it would be a blood bath. there is simply no to tell how a particular player will "rank" week in and week out.most useless feature on the entire site, and the irony is, it is the one people most look forward to.

I am always amazed at the outrage over the rankings. If you have Fitz you drafted him pretty high and are going to play him if he is #1 ranked or #22 ranked.

If the rankings don't make sence, then what's the point? Did people suscribe just for the e-mail notices on player news? Now if there's some calculated reason players are ranked the way they are that we're missing, it would be nice to know what that is. If there isn't, that makes people question the quality of in-season content. That said, they've already discussed how accuracy of tankings diminish due to the fact that there is a great demand for rankings earlier in the week (Wed). However, I don't see how Fitz, against the top CB, with a bum leg, a bad QB, and two lackluster weeks indicates WR #1 whether you put this list out Wed or Sat. (This isn't the only ranking I feel about this either).

There is so much great info on this site to use, but the week to week rankings is not very high on my list.

I'm not saying there isn't good info here, just that player rankings are pretty important to be good for a fantasy football site, and if they're bad, it makes one question the quality of overall content at a glance.Personally I feel that the forums have better info than the subscribed in-season content.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Good discussion so far. Would be interesting to get some of the methodology from Dodds behind how FBG's approach weekly rankings -- or at least, the philosophy in the approach if not actual methodology (can understand why FBG would want to keep the sauce of the way they rank players secret one).

To my recollection of discussions, a lot of the weekly rankings has to do with the Game Predictor (which I assume takes into account a weekly adjusted SOS and other real time tweaks like injuries, new QBs under center, etc.).

I also assume it's an enormous undertaking to get these out on Tuesdays when it matters for waivers. Don't forget it's a first stab, and gets updated through the week as well.

That said, a little more visibility into the approach would be a good thing -- gives paying subscribers more insight into the excellent value they are receiving for the money, may entice non-subscribers to give it a whirl, etc.

Some more constructive criticism: Would also love to see more attention paid to the Top 200 forward -- like the initial projections, I use these as a gauge for waiver claims I'm thinking about. When I see guy like Faulk -- now out for the season -- listed as the RB58 going forward while his player page has news of his seson-ending injury, makes me think that a little more upkeep can be done on the fly, if only for these known situations.

And if a lot of people seem to like the alternate choices available for weekly rankings (Bloom et all), why not provide alternate Top 200 Forward rankings as well.

And for those who use the line: "If you don't agree, use your own rankings" -- it's true that this is just another tool to use for making your weekly lineup decisions. But it's OK to question authority -- these kinds of discussions are valid. There are some very real reasons to question Fitz's ranking this week (injury, coverage, etc.), and the converstion is often productive.

Keep up the phenomenal work, Joe & co -- this kind of discussion (productively held) can only help you make an incredible site that much more inicredible.

 

[davearm]

I'm not saying there isn't good info here, just that player rankings are pretty important to be good for a fantasy football site, and if they're bad, it makes one question the quality of overall content at a glance.

FYI the FBG weekly player projections -- both Dodds' and Bloom's -- are more accurate than those found on other sites (ESPN, FFToday, FantasySharks, CBS, etc).

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I'm not saying there isn't good info here, just that player rankings are pretty important to be good for a fantasy football site, and if they're bad, it makes one question the quality of overall content at a glance.

FYI the FBG weekly player projections -- both Dodds' and Bloom's -- are more accurate than those found on other sites (ESPN, FFToday, FantasySharks, CBS, etc).

It's easier to be accurate when you forecast fractional TDs. You put a bunch of guys at 0.4 to 0.6 and you're right in the middle for everyone that gets 0 or 1 touchdowns that week. Just saying.

 

[DoubleG]

He's had 15 and 12 targets in the first two games respectively. When a player of Larry's caliber gets that many targets he's bound to produce big numbers at some point. If Derek Anderson throws the ball to him that many times against Oakland he's bound to catch a few whether Nnamdi is on him or not.

When has 7 receptions for 83 yards become a poor performance for a WR anyway?

It's not. But it's not even what most conisder WR1 numbers, let alone the #1 overall for the week. The fact that he is getting targets is nice, but given the innacuracey of his QB, the fact that he is hurting (i.e. not as quick, not as "jumpy") and the fact that he will be facing a very good CB, mitigate the number of targets he'll see. In fact, the very fact that he has seen so many targets and done so poorly (for a WR1) with them is the very reason for the concern and confusion about the ranking.

Most WR1s do produce right around 83 yards on average. That prorates out to 1,328 yards. All WR1s have weeks where they sprinkle in a TD grab with low yards, have an average week with 80 yards and no TDs, and then they have monster weeks with 150 and 2 TDs. Larry Fitzgerald isn't any different, and when he's getting 13.5 targets on average the monster week should be expected to come at some point.

I didn't see either game so I can't attest to how Larry has looked as far as the injury goes. My point was just that as long as he's getting a plethora of targets he's going to be at the top of the rankings week in and week out. He's too good not to be.

First off, 83 yards is not his average. His average is 63. 83 was his high water mark so far for the season.Secondly, while I agree with the bolded part (when he is healthy) - the fact is Derick Anderson is not that good - ot least he hasn't been to this point. Keep in mind, a target means that the QB threw to him - it doesn't mean the throw was accurate or even catchable, just in WR's general vicinity. I can't speak to the target stats above, but some sources even include when a QB throws the ball away if he happened to be the closest WR.

 

[3nOut]

Good discussion so far. Would be interesting to get some of the methodology from Dodds behind how FBG's approach weekly rankings -- or at least, the philosophy in the approach if not actual methodology (can understand why FBG would want to keep the sauce of the way they rank players secret one).To my recollection of discussions, a lot of the weekly rankings has to do with the Game Predictor (which I assume takes into account a weekly adjusted SOS and other real time tweaks like injuries, new QBs under center, etc.). ...Some more constructive criticism: Would also love to see more attention paid to the Top 200 forward -- like the initial projections, I use these as a gauge for waiver claims I'm thinking about. When I see guy like Faulk -- now out for the season -- listed as the RB58 going forward while his player page has news of his seson-ending injury, makes me think that a little more upkeep can be done on the fly, if only for these known situations. And if a lot of people seem to like the alternate choices available for weekly rankings (Bloom et all), why not provide alternate Top 200 Forward rankings as well.

As much as I like this site, this has been one of my pet peeves about FBGs for years. They seem to rely so much on number crunching but don't put any gut feeling into any of their predictions. I believe Dodds uses a computer program that simulates games and comes out with an average. And it does seem that the same goes for the 200 going forward. Holmes is ranked VERY low strictly based on projected numbers. I understand that he still has a few more games before he can play, but I think his value is greater than many of the WRs above him.I'd prefer to see weekly rankings in the form of the draft rankings where everyone ranking players by number not by projection.

 

[shnikies]

Bloom has Fitzgerald at 28 this week if that makes you happier. Yes, Berrian is ranked ahead of him.

 

[Grahamburn]

He's had 15 and 12 targets in the first two games respectively. When a player of Larry's caliber gets that many targets he's bound to produce big numbers at some point. If Derek Anderson throws the ball to him that many times against Oakland he's bound to catch a few whether Nnamdi is on him or not.

When has 7 receptions for 83 yards become a poor performance for a WR anyway?

It's not. But it's not even what most conisder WR1 numbers, let alone the #1 overall for the week. The fact that he is getting targets is nice, but given the innacuracey of his QB, the fact that he is hurting (i.e. not as quick, not as "jumpy") and the fact that he will be facing a very good CB, mitigate the number of targets he'll see. In fact, the very fact that he has seen so many targets and done so poorly (for a WR1) with them is the very reason for the concern and confusion about the ranking.

Most WR1s do produce right around 83 yards on average. That prorates out to 1,328 yards. All WR1s have weeks where they sprinkle in a TD grab with low yards, have an average week with 80 yards and no TDs, and then they have monster weeks with 150 and 2 TDs. Larry Fitzgerald isn't any different, and when he's getting 13.5 targets on average the monster week should be expected to come at some point.

I didn't see either game so I can't attest to how Larry has looked as far as the injury goes. My point was just that as long as he's getting a plethora of targets he's going to be at the top of the rankings week in and week out. He's too good not to be.

First off, 83 yards is not his average. His average is 63. 83 was his high water mark so far for the season.Secondly, while I agree with the bolded part (when he is healthy) - the fact is Derick Anderson is not that good - ot least he hasn't been to this point. Keep in mind, a target means that the QB threw to him - it doesn't mean the throw was accurate or even catchable, just in WR's general vicinity. I can't speak to the target stats above, but some sources even include when a QB throws the ball away if he happened to be the closest WR.

I never said 83 yards was his average. It's obviously not. I said that's about what a WR1 is going to average over the course of a season. I was confused as to why that wasn't considered a WR1 performance. If you're expecting 100 yards and a touchdown from your WR1 every week you're going to be disappointed. WR scoring is variable by nature. The point I was making is that if Larry Fitzgerald is getting 13.5 targets a game, even with all of the factors going against him, he is going to be a productive WR and should be at or near the top of the rankings.

 

[plyka]

In the Footballguys weekly cheatsheets, Larry Fitzgerald has been ranked the following in non-ppr leagues:Week 1 - Ranked 3rd best WRWeek 2 - Ranked 2nd best WRWeek 3 - Ranked 1st best WRIt's no secret he's hurting and his QB is below average.This week he goes up against Nnamdi Asomugha and the always tough Raiders pass defense. Why is he always ranked so high?

Physically and talent wise i believe Fitz is the best WR in the league. Yes, in a neutral environment, i would take Fitz over Johnson (both of them), Moss, etc. He is that good. A talent like that is hard to cover. Great CBs, bad QBs, etc on go so far. You still have to play a talent like that over 98% of the WRs out there. Of course nagging injuries is one thing that even a talent like that can't overcome. Of course from what i've heard, he is back close to full health.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not saying there isn't good info here, just that player rankings are pretty important to be good for a fantasy football site, and if they're bad, it makes one question the quality of overall content at a glance.

FYI the FBG weekly player projections -- both Dodds' and Bloom's -- are more accurate than those found on other sites (ESPN, FFToday, FantasySharks, CBS, etc).

It's easier to be accurate when you forecast fractional TDs.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing projections in a way that makes them more likely to be accurate. The Cardinals should pass the ball a lot this week (as they always do) in a reasonably close game. If they run 61 offensive plays (not including sacks), the run-pass ratio might be around 23-38. (That would mean that they'd pass the ball about 62% of the time, which is in line with their recent past when they are four-point favorites.)So far this season, 76% of the Cardinals' pass attempts have gone to the WRs. I'd expect about 72% of their pass attempts to go to the WRs this week, and about half of those to go to Fitzgerald. (He indeed has exactly half of the Cardinals' WR targets so far this year.) That should result in about 13–14 targets for Fitzgerald.Fitzgerald historically has a 63% catch rate, but he was playing with Warner for much of his career. With Anderson at QB, we can bump that down a bit, and with Asomugha covering him, we can bump it down a bit more. I'd expect about a 58% catch rate this week, resulting in about 8 receptions.If you buy into Fitzgerald getting about 8 receptions on 13–14 targets, he should be more likely than not to go over 100 yards, and more likely than not to score a touchdown. His fantasy performance so far this year has been abnormally low given all the targets he's been getting, but that won't last forever.A lot of stuff is taken into account as the week goes along that isn't reflected in Tuesday's projections, so Fitzgerald's ranking may change between now and Friday. But as an initial projection, I think 8 catches for around 100 yards and 0.7 TDs is in the right ballpark.I hope that sheds some light on our thinking.

 

[Touchdown There]

If you buy into Fitzgerald getting about 8 receptions on 13–14 targets, he should be more likely than not to go over 100 yards, and more likely than not to score a touchdown. His fantasy performance so far this year has been abnormally low given all the targets he's been getting, but that won't last forever.

No comments on poor quarterback accuracy or his bum knee that could last all season? Wouldn't it just be easier to knock him down the rankings until he has that speed back on tape?

 

[zoonation]

I'm not saying there isn't good info here, just that player rankings are pretty important to be good for a fantasy football site, and if they're bad, it makes one question the quality of overall content at a glance.

FYI the FBG weekly player projections -- both Dodds' and Bloom's -- are more accurate than those found on other sites (ESPN, FFToday, FantasySharks, CBS, etc).

It's easier to be accurate when you forecast fractional TDs.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing projections in a way that makes them more likely to be accurate. The Cardinals should pass the ball a lot this week (as they always do) in a reasonably close game. If they run 61 offensive plays (not including sacks), the run-pass ratio might be around 23-38. (That would mean that they'd pass the ball about 62% of the time, which is in line with their recent past when they are four-point favorites.)So far this season, 76% of the Cardinals' pass attempts have gone to the WRs. I'd expect about 72% of their pass attempts to go to the WRs this week, and about half of those to go to Fitzgerald. (He indeed has exactly half of the Cardinals' WR targets so far this year.) That should result in about 13–14 targets for Fitzgerald.Fitzgerald historically has a 63% catch rate, but he was playing with Warner for much of his career. With Anderson at QB, we can bump that down a bit, and with Asomugha covering him, we can bump it down a bit more. I'd expect about a 58% catch rate this week, resulting in about 8 receptions.If you buy into Fitzgerald getting about 8 receptions on 13–14 targets, he should be more likely than not to go over 100 yards, and more likely than not to score a touchdown. His fantasy performance so far this year has been abnormally low given all the targets he's been getting, but that won't last forever.A lot of stuff is taken into account as the week goes along that isn't reflected in Tuesday's projections, so Fitzgerald's ranking may change between now and Friday. But as an initial projection, I think 8 catches for around 100 yards and 0.7 TDs is in the right ballpark.I hope that sheds some light on our thinking.

The reasoning for Fitzgerald having a decent game is sound enough.However, the predictive power of where he may or may not "rank" compared to other players is not very good. The reality is that the delta between the arguments or probabilities for why a player should be ranked where they are, and where that player actually ends up ranking for the week is likely huge. Even if the prediction is relatively close (say within 5-10 spots of where they actually finish) it is wrong, or not useful if another player ranked lower finishes higher.And therein lies the rub, and the utter lack of usefulness of the rankings. They would have to be vetted not based on how close to the predicted rank the player finishes, but rather how they finish relative to the other players, because that is what the end user ultimately wants and uses the rankings for when they are deciding between two players. If it is wrong, it is wrong; no matter how close it might be.

 

[joffer]

If you buy into Fitzgerald getting about 8 receptions on 13–14 targets, he should be more likely than not to go over 100 yards, and more likely than not to score a touchdown. His fantasy performance so far this year has been abnormally low given all the targets he's been getting, but that won't last forever.

No comments on poor quarterback accuracy or his bum knee that could last all season? Wouldn't it just be easier to knock him down the rankings until he has that speed back on tape?

Fitzgerald historically has a 63% catch rate, but he was playing with Warner for much of his career. With Anderson at QB, we can bump that down a bit, and with Asomugha covering him, we can bump it down a bit more. I'd expect about a 58% catch rate this week, resulting in about 8 receptions.

 

[Touchdown There]

Cecil on the Lexycast said Fitz is a "low WR2 at best". Seems like he has his finger on the pulse.

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

I'm firmly in the camp that says all the stats showing what Fitz has done historically are fascinating, well-thought out, and irrelevant.

Here's a guy who...

...has a well publicized bum wheel.

...has a terrible QB.

...hasn't produced a game anywhere near his career levels yet this season.

...and now faces easily his toughest man to man matchup of the year.

I'm having trouble rationalizing recommending him as a starter this week. Calling him the likely number one for the week is burying your head in the sand of the historical numbers, and refusing to look at what's going on between the lines.

 

[ClubberLang]

from a Raider board, after the game:

Here's some Nnamdi Asomugha stats ...

vs Steve Breaston

7 Plays(O Pass, 7 Runs)

(All 7 Plays Fitzgerald was not on the field)

vs Larry Fitzgerald

44 Plays(22 Passes, 16 Runs, 4 Penalties, 2 Sacks)

6 Targets, 1 Catch

1 Penalty

vs No One

5 Plays(3 Pass, 2 Runs)

(2 Plays Fitzgerald was not on the field)

Asomugha vs Fitzgerald were on the field together a total of 47 times. 44 of those times Asomugha was covering him.

Covered Fitzgerald 94% of the time.

I'd say it's a safe bet that Nnamdi sticks with the #1 WR most of the game from here on out.

 

[aimlessgun]

from a Raider board, after the game:Here's some Nnamdi Asomugha stats ...

Thanks As for Fitz, he's still salvaging value week in and out, barely. Obviously 8-10 pts a week is not up to his draft position but heck Andre Johnson's #'s vs ADP aren't any better. Plus I expect Fitz's production to get better rather than worse.

 

[Inspiration]

Just out of curiosity, is your username an homage to Derek Anderson?

 

[Zow]

- Is facing the best shutdown CB on the planet (Yes, Nnamdi is better than Revis)

Is there a chance he may lineup on the other side of Nnamdi at times? I thought I heard Oak leaves their corners on the same side no matter who they are going up against. Can anyone confirm this? 2 Stl WR's had good numbers against Oak so it's possible to catch balls against them.

I was at the game and watched for this. They did NOT do what they did last year. The stuck 21 on Fitz all game - amazing battle to watch actually. Nnamdi is sickly coordinated.

 

[Rovers]

To be honest, I look at weekly cheat sheets/projections at this site this year and am usually left shaking my head.

I don't think much, if any thought is put into them anymore. When a TE like Keller is going to face a cover 2 D like Miami... he's still ranked where he was the previous week, give or take a spot. I still look at them, but end up shaking my head and walking away. Same for the IDP weekly rankings.

I think the site is just using some crappy algorythm for projections... at least that is my impression. I know for a fact that some sites use this method.

If you want good info here, you have to spend a boatload of time scouring the articles for valuable tidbits. Those tid bits are never reflected into the rankings as far as I can tell. Weekly rankings... reminds me of the old Dunkin Doughnuts commercial... time to make the doughnuts! Just a tedious annoyance... got to post the dopey rankings.

It didn't used to be like that. I used to place a fair amount of confidence in the weekly projections. No more. Cookie cutter stuff now.

Maybe I'm wrong.... but it's my impression.