Word of Caution for those who use SOS (1 Viewer)

[kris]

I, like many of you, am looking at all criteria when deciding what running backs to pick. Yesterday, I was using the SOS for running backs and felt like the numbers were a little funny so I decided to do a little research myself.

The regular season projected numbers are for how many fantasy points a team will allow against a position (ie running back) and not rushing yardage as a whole.

Using ESPN statistics and the standard fantasy scoring of 10 yds = 1 point, 1 td = 6 points, here is a data sampling.

2005 Projected 2006 Difference

Arizona 18.45 14.2 4.25

Buffalo 22.03 19.9 2.07

Carolina 12.5 19.0 6.5

Chicago 12.8 17.7 4.9

Detroit 18.4 21.1 2.7

Pittsburgh 12.3 18.5 6.2

Seattle 11.3 13.9 2.6

Washington 16.1 14.1 2.0

The aspect that I used combined rushing data (ie from quarterbacks and running backs) could be used to better explain drops from 2005 to the projected 2006, but what about Chicago, Seattle, and Pittsburgh - some of the best run defenses there are. Their fantasy points against the run actually jump up. In essence, taking away qb running yardage, running backs are still projected to do much better against their run defense than last year.

 

[JohnDoe]

Quick question: are you just using stats from last year and comparing 2005 schedule vs 2006 schedule? If you are doing this and not factoring in adjustments for personnel changes (which I believe FBG does) then your numbers will be different.

 

[doughboydeluxe]

I, like many of you, am looking at all criteria when deciding what running backs to pick. Yesterday, I was using the SOS for running backs and felt like the numbers were a little funny so I decided to do a little research myself.

The regular season projected numbers are for how many fantasy points a team will allow against a position (ie running back) and not rushing yardage as a whole.

Using ESPN statistics and the standard fantasy scoring of 10 yds = 1 point, 1 td = 6 points, here is a data sampling.

2005 Projected 2006 Difference

Arizona 18.45 14.2 4.25

Buffalo 22.03 19.9 2.07

Carolina 12.5 19.0 6.5

Chicago 12.8 17.7 4.9

Detroit 18.4 21.1 2.7

Pittsburgh 12.3 18.5 6.2

Seattle 11.3 13.9 2.6

Washington 16.1 14.1 2.0

The aspect that I used combined rushing data (ie from quarterbacks and running backs) could be used to better explain drops from 2005 to the projected 2006, but what about Chicago, Seattle, and Pittsburgh - some of the best run defenses there are. Their fantasy points against the run actually jump up. In essence, taking away qb running yardage, running backs are still projected to do much better against their run defense than last year.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[kris]

Quick question: are you just using stats from last year and comparing 2005 schedule vs 2006 schedule? If you are doing this and not factoring in adjustments for personnel changes (which I believe FBG does) then your numbers will be different.

I am solely using combined rusing stats from last year and I am not factoring in personnel changes. However, even if you take into account personnel changes some of the deviance from last year's numbers is hard to explain.For example, San Diego was the number 1 rushing defense last year. They gave up 13.7 points total rushing. FBG's Clayton Gray projects they will give up 16.9 points this season. Keep in mind the difference is more inflated than it appears because that 16.9 is for running backs only while 13.7 is all positions combined.

Ignoring that caveat, a projected increase of 3.2 points is a 23.4% increase in fantasy points per game which is relatively huge.

I'm only pointing out what I noticed. I'm not trying to knock FBG's, but I figured some people would like to know.