FFToday Dynasty QB/RB Rankings

[the_risen_demon 0]

I have a concern with the dynasty quarterback and running back rankings put forward by Joe. I'll not nitpick over his projections over any individual player. Rather, I'm puzzled by his projections on top-24 seasons. For each player, Joe has given a projection for how many times the player will produce a top-24 season over the next three years. Some quick math tells us that there should be 72 such seasons over that span. Summing down the column, Joe's top 40 dynasty QB's account for 43 seasons. Put another way, a full 40% (29 of 72) of the top-24 QB performances over the next three years will be from players not on the list, a list that includes luminaries such as Dan Orlovsky, Matt Moore and Kyle Orton. It's difficult to foresee who, if not players on the list, will account for the difference. The running back projections seem to suffer from the opposite problem. Joe has projected a total of 73 top-24 seasons over the next three years, one more than is actually possible.

 

I don't want to sound overly critical. FFToday consistently makes the effort to put statistical backing behind their projections, rather than a vague gut-feeling you get from most professional fantasy football prognosticators. I hope my comments are received as constructive criticism.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

No rankings are perfect, it is nice to see someones honest opinion, rather than throwing out the consensus ranking like every other site. Even if that does open up the author for more critisism, major props to the author , even though i think he made some glaring mistakes although i am sure if i put out my real player rankings they would get ripped on just as hard.

 

If you base all your decisions based on one person's projections you get what you deserve. What you should get from this is see who he has dramatically different than where you have them, and ask yourself what he sees that you dont see.

 

 

I think the biggest mistake was Kellen Clemens that low, the dude has one of the better lines in front of him now, he has a running game, that while not great, is enough to get 8 in the box in obvious running situations(and open up play actions), and he has 2 wr's that could be average #1 WR's on quite a few other teams in the league.

[Kilroy 0]

For the QBs, I actually gave a prediction for the Top 12 over the next 3 seasons. I know it currently says Top 24 for the QBs, but it should be Top 12.

 

As for doing the math with the numbers (Top 12 x 3 seasons = 36, Top 24 x 3 seasons = 72) I simply didn't look into it with that much detail. It is a fair point you make though. Next time around I'll try and pay attention to that.

 

For the most part with them this time around I was giving my assumption, kinda like what you could expect from the guy. I mean, making it exactly come out to those numbers isn't the most important thing when you realize one player might rank 25th-29th 3 straight years, and another guy might rank 18th once, but then ranks 40th-50th the other two years...you'd most likely rather have that guy that consistently ranked 25th-29th eventhough he never cracked the Top 24.

 

But like I said, you make a fair point. It's something I'll pay attention to next time around.

 

For the most part I did the lists in the way I would rank them, if say tomorrow I was taking part in an initial draft for a dynasty league.

 

I wouldn't stick by it 100% because depending on how my team was turning out, I may decide I can take some reliable vets that don't have as many years left, over say a younger player that I'm hoping pans out. They are rankings, but I think of 'em more as a giant cheat sheet, or guideline to go on for my draft. I actually have a new dynasty league I'm joining this year, so these are pretty much what I'll be using for it.

 

Obviously, players will rise and fall throughout the season. I'll try and stay ahead of the curve as far as where I place them.

 

That's part of the reason I may have someone like Maroney higher than others view him. He's only entering his third year, has been fairly productive, yet still hasn't carried most of the load yet. Sooner or later I think he gets the chance, and it seems it will either be this year or next year. He stays healthy and this should be his most productive season yet. Both Faulk and Sammy Morris are over 30 years old. Maroney is the only young back on the roster (he is still just 23). I'd be pretty surprised if the Pats don't test him out with 240-300 carries either this year or next.

[Kilroy 0]

I think the biggest mistake was Kellen Clemens that low, the dude has one of the better lines in front of him now, he has a running game, that while not great, is enough to get 8 in the box in obvious running situations(and open up play actions), and he has 2 wr's that could be average #1 WR's on quite a few other teams in the league.

 

Fair points, but I'll admit it. I'm just not as behind the Jets as you sound. Not that you're wrong, but I'm just not buying into them quite as much yet. That OL will needs to show up. Clemens is a young QB that still needs to prove he is a starter in this league, and Thomas Jones' best days are likely behind him, even if that OL is better. Not saying he can't reach 1200 yards and 7 TDs this year, but going forward how long is he really part of their plans?

 

It just seems like a situation where everything will need to break just as they envision it for Clemens to lock down his position as the Jets starter for another 3 seasons. I just don't have much faith in it working out for him at the moment, but I we'll have to see how it goes.

[the_risen_demon 0]

For the QBs, I actually gave a prediction for the Top 12 over the next 3 seasons. I know it currently says Top 24 for the QBs, but it should be Top 12.

 

As for doing the math with the numbers (Top 12 x 3 seasons = 36, Top 24 x 3 seasons = 72) I simply didn't look into it with that much detail. It is a fair point you make though. Next time around I'll try and pay attention to that.

 

For the most part with them this time around I was giving my assumption, kinda like what you could expect from the guy. I mean, making it exactly come out to those numbers isn't the most important thing when you realize one player might rank 25th-29th 3 straight years, and another guy might rank 18th once, but then ranks 40th-50th the other two years...you'd most likely rather have that guy that consistently ranked 25th-29th eventhough he never cracked the Top 24.

 

But like I said, you make a fair point. It's something I'll pay attention to next time around.

 

For the most part I did the lists in the way I would rank them, if say tomorrow I was taking part in an initial draft for a dynasty league.

 

I wouldn't stick by it 100% because depending on how my team was turning out, I may decide I can take some reliable vets that don't have as many years left, over say a younger player that I'm hoping pans out. They are rankings, but I think of 'em more as a giant cheat sheet, or guideline to go on for my draft. I actually have a new dynasty league I'm joining this year, so these are pretty much what I'll be using for it.

 

Obviously, players will rise and fall throughout the season. I'll try and stay ahead of the curve as far as where I place them.

 

That's part of the reason I may have someone like Maroney higher than others view him. He's only entering his third year, has been fairly productive, yet still hasn't carried most of the load yet. Sooner or later I think he gets the chance, and it seems it will either be this year or next year. He stays healthy and this should be his most productive season yet. Both Faulk and Sammy Morris are over 30 years old. Maroney is the only young back on the roster (he is still just 23). I'd be pretty surprised if the Pats don't test him out with 240-300 carries either this year or next.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not deriding your decision to put any one player ahead of another in the rankings. To be honest, I hadn't even spent too much time going over your actually rankings. Rather, I'm more interested in the methodolgy that goes into making projections. I'm guessing your WR rankings will use top-36 seasons over the next three years, correct? If so, of the 108 such seasons that will occur, what do you think might be a reasonable estimate to attribute to "the field" (i.e. players not in your rankings)? Ten percent? Maybe fifteen? If so, that would give you about 11-16 seasons unaccounted for in your rankings. Your actual estimate would certainly depend on the size of your list -- the more WR's listed, the fewer seasons left unaccounted for. Anyway, it's something to go on.

[Kilroy 0]

Joe's top 40 dynasty QB's account for 43 seasons.

 

Joe has projected a total of 73 top-24 seasons over the next three years, one more than is actually possible.

 

I don't want to sound overly critical. FFToday consistently makes the effort to put statistical backing behind their projections, rather than a vague gut-feeling you get from most professional fantasy football prognosticators. I hope my comments are received as constructive criticism.

 

I just noticed the numbers you gave. Considering I wasn't even thinking about the math behind it, the fact I came just 1 over on the RBs is pretty damn good.

 

And since the QBs should actually be listed as "Top 12 over the next 3 years)", I was off by a +7 with them.

 

Again though, you made a good point that I hadn't thought about, but will pay attention to in the future. Thanks!

 

Now I already sent the WRs piece in, so don't jump on me for whatever number of seasons they come out to. It should come out to 72 like the RBs, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm way one way or the other with them.

 

Next time around I'll keep your point in mind with all the rankins though for each position. I should have thought about it like that beforehand.

[Kilroy 0]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not deriding your decision to put any one player ahead of another in the rankings. To be honest, I hadn't even spent too much time going over your actually rankings. Rather, I'm more interested in the methodolgy that goes into making projections. I'm guessing your WR rankings will use top-36 seasons over the next three years, correct? If so, of the 108 such seasons that will occur, what do you think might be a reasonable estimate to attribute to "the field" (i.e. players not in your rankings)? Ten percent? Maybe fifteen? If so, that would give you about 11-16 seasons unaccounted for in your rankings. Your actual estimate would certainly depend on the size of your list -- the more WR's listed, the fewer seasons left unaccounted for. Anyway, it's something to go on.

 

I hear you. Like I said, you made a very good point how the "Projected Top x seasons over a 3 year period" should come out to a certain number. I should have thought of that beforehand, but I just wasn't thinking enough about it at the time.

 

The WR list has 80 players, but the projection given is still only Top 24, as with the RBs. Next time around though, I'll see if I can bump that up to Top 36 rankings projected over the next 3 years. We'll see how it goes.

 

But I already handed the WR piece in, so just remember it was done before you brought this point up, so I could be off again with what the number adds up to vs. what it should be. I have a feeling it will probably be off by more than the RBs and/or QBs was. With the next update though I'll keep what you've mentioned in mind. It's actually appreciated that you mentioned it to me.

[the_risen_demon 0]

I hear you. Like I said, you made a very good point how the "Projected Top x seasons over a 3 year period" should come out to a certain number. I should have thought of that beforehand, but I just wasn't thinking enough about it at the time.

 

The WR list has 80 players, but the projection given is still only Top 24, as with the RBs. Next time around though, I'll see if I can bump that up to Top 36 rankings projected over the next 3 years. We'll see how it goes.

 

But I already handed the WR piece in, so just remember it was done before you brought this point up, so I could be off again with what the number adds up to vs. what it should be. I have a feeling it will probably be off by more than the RBs and/or QBs was. With the next update though I'll keep what you've mentioned in mind. It's actually appreciated that you mentioned it to me.

 

Thanks for your contributions, Kilroy. We appreciate the time and effort that goes into them. Hey, at least you know we're paying attention to them!

[Kilroy 0]

Thanks for your contributions, Kilroy. We appreciate the time and effort that goes into them. Hey, at least you know we're paying attention to them!

 

Absolutely, I'd much rather see them being discussed then wondering whether or not they're being looked at. It's much appreciated.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

Whoops. I'd better go change that heading on the QB article to Top 12 instead of 24.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

It would be pretty tough arguing against PManning, Brady and Romo from having top 12 seasons each of the next 3 years, but I could knock a bunch of others off this pretty easily I think. I might put Derek Anderson at 0, or just 1 if I give him the benefit of the doubt. Cutler - 1, EManning - 1 or 2, Hasselbeck - 1, McNabb - 1, Garrard - 0, Schaub - 1, Leinart - 1, Kitna - 0, Trent Edwards - 0. One would hope Matt Ryan, Flacco, Russell, maybe Quinn, a SF QB if Martz sticks with someone for 16 games will get into the top 12 at least once in the next 3 seasons, but at the same time it would be hard to put those projections down with much confidence at this point in time.

[Kilroy 0]

Yea, I guess I could rework those numbers. Has a bit more meaning behind them when I think of them with the thought they should add up to 36 seasons when all is said and done. The thought just really didn't go through my mind when I was filling that part out.

 

I'll give more attention to that column next time around.

 

I also know I have Anderson up pretty high, but I've gotta give him credit, and with the Browns signing him to a multi-year deal in the offseason, it looks like it's his job to lose. He seems like he knows what he's doing with Edwards and Winslow surrounding him. Stallworth is a nice addition too.

 

I'm not exactly sold on Quinn being anything special either, so at the moment it seems like a good idea to stand behind Anderson. Having him 6 could come back to haunt me though..

[Wildman 0]

I liked the two articles, the extremely constructive criticism, and the way this was all discussed. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm in the right forum--not that I'm complaining

 

To play devil's advocate on the projected seasons at a starter ranking, I think going over a clean/logical amount isn't a bad call because you can't really project injuries and this column of information in my mind also reveals a confidence level in the player's talent if he gets an opportunity. So it may not be a "clean" number, but still has some interesting value.

 

Good job Joe...

[jdon 28]

I'm joining a little late, and I don't want to stir things up too much, however I must say that if one of my students (I am a teacher) turned in that type of analysis, with those glaring mathmatical inconsistencies, they would not pass and I would be sending them back to the computer to clean up the mess...

just my two cents

 

 

 

Trent Edwards - 0.

 

Better change that to at least - 2...

 

my other two cents...

[The Big Deal 0]

I'm joining a little late, and I don't want to stir things up too much, however I must say that if one of my students (I am a teacher) turned in that type of analysis, with those glaring mathmatical inconsistencies, they would not pass and I would be sending them back to the computer to clean up the mess...

just my two cents

Better change that to at least - 2...

 

my other two cents...

 

I for one, could care less about the mathematical inconsistencies. We all get the point on your view of the players. We're not building a rocket hear folks. Just read the article and move on with your lives.

[Wildman 0]

I'm joining a little late, and I don't want to stir things up too much, however I must say that if one of my students (I am a teacher) turned in that type of analysis, with those glaring mathmatical inconsistencies, they would not pass and I would be sending them back to the computer to clean up the mess...

just my two cents

Better change that to at least - 2...

 

my other two cents...

 

I think it's supposed to be more of a qualitative analysis than a quantitative one, but point taken.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I for one, could care less about the mathematical inconsistencies. We all get the point on your view of the players. We're not building a rocket hear folks. Just read the article and move on with your lives.

 

No, there is something to be said for accuracy. I spent some time last year on a whim adding up projections for some various site on what QB's would throw for and comparing them to what those sites the RB's, WR's and TE's would get and combining them. In some cases you had QB's throwing for a 1000 more yards than their weapons would get, which can sometimes be explained by "other" players not listed stepping up. I kind of refer to this as the Mike Furrey corollary, an unknown target steps and goes nuts. The hard ones to explain is when a QB is projected to throw for 1000 yrds less than his weapons are expected to receive for. There are WAY too many variables in football and it's all educated guessing to begin with, but starting with solid facts and principles makes the guessing more legitimate in the long run.

 

However, statistical oversights aside, still nice work Joe.

[pauld1977 0]

Yeah great work on the rankings. Always going to have differing opinions on where guys should go, but that's FF.

 

I can see where it gets confusing with the mathimatical side, but I took it more as a guide than a rule, having said that, squaring away those numbers in the future would make it that much better

[Kilroy 0]

No problem guys.

 

Honestly, the "Projected" column was the last column I did with all of these. As a result, I didn't think it through as well as I should have. I more or less looked at the player, gave a quick thought to it, and then gave a number.

 

Good news is that it wouldn't have affected the rankings one way or the other. Now that I know it's a column people are paying close attention to, I will make sure I give it more thought in the future.

 

If I have the time, I may even go back and redo that part on them and see if I can get them edited in the articles that are up. I have some other things I need to take care of though before I can get to fixing those numbers.

 

Anyways, it's appreciated that it was mentioned. Now I know to keep an eye on it in the future. I'm usually pretty good at making sure things like that add up, but I had some other things going on around me that distracted me a bit when it came time to wrap that part up.

[Mike MacGregor 20]

The Editor should be dragged outside and have the crap kicked out of him. That's where the real blame lies.

 

Now, the Assistant to the Assistant Editor on the other hand... he should be praised for having to deal with the Editor and Assistant Editor

 

QUOTE(jdon)

QUOTE(Mike MacGregor @ May 29 2008, 10:37 PM)

Trent Edwards - 0.

 

 

Better change that to at least - 2...

 

Trent Edwards in the top 12 in 2 of the next 3 seasons? Seriously? I hope you're right jdon, but that is one balls out prediction.

[the_risen_demon 0]

Trent Edwards in the top 12 in 2 of the next 3 seasons? Seriously? I hope you're right jdon, but that is one balls out prediction.

 

I think he may have written that still thinking it was "top-24" seasons for the QB's. That, or he's invited to play in my league anytime he wants! Oh wait, he is in my league. Punk's won three years straight. I gotta do something about that this year.

[Wildman 0]

The Editor should be dragged outside and have the crap kicked out of him. That's where the real blame lies.

 

Now, the Assistant to the Assistant Editor on the other hand... he should be praised for having to deal with the Editor and Assistant Editor

Better change that to at least - 2...

 

Trent Edwards in the top 12 in 2 of the next 3 seasons? Seriously? I hope you're right jdon, but that is one balls out prediction.

 

This sounds eerily similar to your stance as owner in HAFAX-II to my GM, except now in reverse...

[jdon 28]

I like what is going on in buffalo: I like lynch, I like evans, I like the line... 2 out of 3 top 12 really isn't that much of a stretch I think, especially when I see Edwards as a top 8-15 kinda guy (they are all interchangeable at that point anyway, basically the best of the rest)...

[JWD 0]

OK now that the WR position is complete I only see one big mistake made.......there is no Tory Holt on the entire list. This has to be a mistake...right?

[Kilroy 0]

OK now that the WR position is complete I only see one big mistake made.......there is no Tory Holt on the entire list. This has to be a mistake...right?

 

There is a thread a few posts down that brought this up. It was simply on oversight on my part. I ended up crossing Holt off the list I was going by for myself thinking I ranked him before I actually did.

 

It will be fixed once Mike has the chance.

 

Holt should be 12th on the list, just ahead of Chad Johnson. Johnson would be bumped a few spots higher, but with the uncertainy regarding his playing status with Cincinatti at the moment, I'd rather take the player I know will be out on the field. That's why I would have to add Holt in just above CJ.

[ratbastard1 0]

I think if you actually take into account "margin of error", which is very high in these of course, then it's actually OK or even expected to have some mathematical inequalities.

 

This is why I like tiers. Do I really believe I can tell the difference between RB 21 and RB 22? Or even 10 and 11?

 

I enjoy your rankings this early. The early ones can mean so much when separating strong owners. Your radar picks will make me research them more.

[the_risen_demon 0]

I think if you actually take into account "margin of error", which is very high in these of course, then it's actually OK or even expected to have some mathematical inequalities.

 

This is why I like tiers. Do I really believe I can tell the difference between RB 21 and RB 22? Or even 10 and 11?

 

I enjoy your rankings this early. The early ones can mean so much when separating strong owners. Your radar picks will make me research them more.

 

One could reasonably expect the list to include fewer than the total possible "top-whatever" season. In fact, I advocated about 10-15% being left open for future rookies and the inevitable no-name who goes off. But a list shouldn't include more than the total seasons possible. Anyway, Joe said he'd consider that next time, so that's that.

[Kilroy 0]

I think if you actually take into account "margin of error", which is very high in these of course, then it's actually OK or even expected to have some mathematical inequalities.

 

This is why I like tiers. Do I really believe I can tell the difference between RB 21 and RB 22? Or even 10 and 11?

 

I enjoy your rankings this early. The early ones can mean so much when separating strong owners. Your radar picks will make me research them more.

 

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

I also agree with you in regards to the "margin of error" comment. That said, I think it was a good point that was brought up about Top 12 over 3 years = 36, and Top 24 over 3 years = 72, and so on.

 

I'm not going to be so picky about it to the point I think it must match exactly, but I will pay attention to it more the next time around with these.

 

For the most part, I'll try to make it work mathematically from now on, but I may give some younger guys a 1 or 2 in the projection column, which could put me over that 36/72 mark, if I feel it is a player that has the upside to rank that high early in their career.

 

Basically, if it's a rookie (or someone in their first year or two) that I feel could be Top 24 by their third season in the league, eventhough I may have them ranked in the bottom 40 at the moment, I will add that 1 for them in the prjection column just to show they are someone you may want to keep a closer eye on over other players currently ranked around them.