Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike FF Today

2020 Projections & Rankings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, weepaws said:

He finished 51 in non Ppr , talking about Washington, thank you. Looks like only 50 scored more points, so that would make him, mmmm  51.  Thank you . And Washington would have the 43 in non avg per game , many players tied so if you take the ties and count down, he would be 43. Hey once again Thank You 

I'll repeat myself, since you seem to have missed the point.  Washington actually finished #62 in non-ppr scoring on a points-per-game basis.

2 hours ago, weepaws said:

Hyde is interesting since Penny  might not be back for some time, so the Hyde pick is interesting.

See, I won't have to repeat myself if you just repeat what I said for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Washington finished 51 in points, and was 43 in non ppr avg per game, you forgot to check out the players that tied with the per game avg.  

Thanks for the reply once again, I appreciate you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, weepaws said:

No Washington finished 51 in points, and was 43 in non ppr avg per game, you forgot to check out the players that tied with the per game avg.  

Thanks for the reply once again, I appreciate you.  

I'll repeat myself, since you seem to have missed the point.  Washington actually finished #62 in non-ppr scoring on a points-per-game basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 No, he was 43. 

And he tied his teammate the Juju. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, weepaws said:

 No, he was 43. 

And he tied his teammate the Juju. 

I'll repeat myself, since you seem to have missed the point.  Washington actually finished #62 in non-ppr scoring on a points-per-game basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, weepaws said:

 No, he was 43. 

You're lucky it's the offseason, where I have time to hold your little hand and lift you out of the ignorance and confusion in which you currently find yourself wallowing by listing every one of the 61 players who scored more fantasy points per game in non-PPR scoring than James Washington (instead of treating you like an adult and expecting you to look at the stats yourself instead of just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting that you're right).

You're welcome.

Rank - Player - Team - Total Fantasy Points - Games Played - Fantasy Points per Game

1

Michael Thomas

NO

225.6

16

14.1

2

Chris Godwin

TB

190.1

14

13.6

3

Mike Evans

TB

165.7

13

12.8

4

Antonio Brown

FA

12.1

1

12.1

5

Julio Jones

ATL

175.1

15

11.7

6

Kenny Golladay

DET

183.0

16

11.4

7

Cooper Kupp

LAR

176.5

16

11.0

8

DeAndre Hopkins

ARI

165.5

15

11.0

9

DeVante Parker

MIA

174.2

16

10.9

10

Tyreek Hill

KC

130.3

12

10.9

11

Davante Adams

GB

129.7

12

10.8

12

Amari Cooper

DAL

167.5

16

10.5

13

Michael Gallup

DAL

146.7

14

10.5

14

A.J. Brown

TEN

165.1

16

10.3

15

Calvin Ridley

ATL

134.0

13

10.3

16

D.J. Chark

JAC

152.8

15

10.2

17

Marvin Jones

DET

131.9

13

10.2

18

Stefon Diggs

BUF

149.1

15

9.9

19

John Brown

BUF

147.8

15

9.9

20

Keenan Allen

LAC

157.5

16

9.8

21

Allen Robinson

CHI

156.9

16

9.8

22

Julian Edelman

NE

156.3

16

9.8

23

Jarvis Landry

CLE

154.4

16

9.7

24

Tyler Lockett

SEA

153.2

16

9.6

25

D.J. Moore

CAR

143.5

15

9.6

26

Terry McLaurin

WAS

133.9

14

9.6

27

Robert Woods

LAR

142.9

15

9.5

28

Courtland Sutton

DEN

150.4

16

9.4

29

Golden Tate

NYG

103.2

11

9.4

30

DeSean Jackson

PHI

27.9

3

9.3

31

Deebo Samuel

SF

132.1

15

8.8

32

Darius Slayton

NYG

122.0

14

8.7

33

Sterling Shepard

NYG

84.8

10

8.5

34

Adam Thielen

MIN

84.4

10

8.4

35

John Ross

CIN

67.0

8

8.4

36

Tyler Boyd

CIN

132.9

16

8.3

37

D.K. Metcalf

SEA

129.1

16

8.1

38

Odell Beckham Jr.

CLE

127.3

16

8.0

39

T.Y. Hilton

IND

80.1

10

8.0

40

Cole Beasley

BUF

117.8

15

7.9

41

Alshon Jeffery

PHI

79.2

10

7.9

42

Christian Kirk

ARI

100.2

13

7.7

43

Will Fuller

HOU

85.0

11

7.7

44

Jamison Crowder

NYJ

119.7

16

7.5

45

Mike Williams

LAC

112.3

15

7.5

46

Curtis Samuel

CAR

117.7

16

7.4

47

Preston Williams

MIA

58.8

8

7.4

48

Emmanuel Sanders

NO

124.3

17

7.3

49

Breshad Perriman

NYJ

102.1

14

7.3

50

Tyrell Williams

LV

101.1

14

7.2

51

Marquise Brown

BAL

100.4

14

7.2

52

Robby Anderson

CAR

110.3

16

6.9

53

Chris Conley

JAC

109.5

16

6.8

54

Taylor Gabriel

FA

61.3

9

6.8

55

Randall Cobb

HOU

99.9

15

6.7

56

Diontae Johnson

PIT

104.1

16

6.5

57

Hunter Renfrow

LV

84.5

13

6.5

58

Larry Fitzgerald

ARI

102.4

16

6.4

59

Sammy Watkins

KC

86.5

14

6.2

60

Kenny Stills

HOU

80.1

13

6.2

61

Dede Westbrook

JAC

90.7

15

6.1

62

James Washington

PIT

89.5

15

6.0

 

One more time:  James Washington was #62 in fantasy points per game in non-PPR scoring.

Now grow up and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 6:02 PM, AxeElf said:

If 2nd round pick Chase Claypool eats into his production at all, it's not hard to envision Washington falling from #62 (where he finished in 2019) to #92 in 2020; it would only take a loss of 2.4 fantasy points per week.

And to piggyback on this...

Source: The Athletic - Ed Bouchette

Pittsburgh Steelers WR James Washington will likely lose the most snaps if WR Chase Claypool performs well as a rookie, according to Ed Bouchette of The Athletic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, weepaws said:

 No, he was 43. 

And he tied his teammate the Juju. 

Not sure how you do math but while you are correct that JuJu and Washington tied in avg ppg, I have no idea how you got the number 43? On CBS they were both tied at 60. A place here and there depending on what site you use is understandable if not likely, but 15 spots is impossible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wrong , based on that list posted , he had the 40th best avg per game. 

Not 43rd my bad sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 24-26. That’s Lockett, DJ Moore And Mclaurin, they all avg 9.6 points per game, so of those three who avg the most points per game? 

So I take that into account one has to, to get a true ranking of avg points per game. 

So we see ties. 

2 ties at 11

2 tied at 10.9 and so on. 

Now that’s the way I see it, I can’t say Lockett who’s two spots ahead of Mclaurin and higher avg per game if they both avg the same per game. 

Thanks you, always appreciate everyone involvement in these issues.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, weepaws said:

# 24-26. That’s Lockett, DJ Moore And Mclaurin, they all avg 9.6 points per game, so of those three who avg the most points per game? 

So I take that into account one has to, to get a true ranking of avg points per game. 

So we see ties. 

2 ties at 11

2 tied at 10.9 and so on. 

Now that’s the way I see it, I can’t say Lockett who’s two spots ahead of Mclaurin and higher avg per game if they both avg the same per game. 

Thanks you, always appreciate everyone involvement in these issues.  

 

Oh ok now I at least see what u r doing. So if the top 2 guys are tied you would list the next player at #2 instead of #3 like the rest of civilization. Gives new meaning to the cliche ‘ to each their own’...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw that it looks like P Campbell we’ll get work in the slot, now that’s interesting news. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jrokh said:

Oh ok now I at least see what u r doing. So if the top 2 guys are tied you would list the next player at #2 instead of #3 like the rest of civilization. Gives new meant to the cliche ‘ to each their own’...

So once again, how would rank those three players, if those three players all avg the same amount of points per game? 

Doesn’t make since if you say one avg more then the other two when they all avg the same, so how would you rank who avg more? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weepaws said:

So once again, how would rank those three players, if those three players all avg the same amount of points per game? 

Doesn’t make since if you say one avg more then the other two when they all avg the same, so how would you rank who avg more? 

That’s not what I said. In my example the top 2 who tied would both be #1 and the next player after them and any who were tied would be #3. In your example, a 3 way tie for first all 3 would be #1 and the next player would be #4. No one would be listed at#’s 2 or 3 since that was implied in the 3-way tie. Comprende?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you said, but I’m asking you how would you rank them? 

Let’s use those three WRs , Lockett and Mclaurin and Moore, if all three avg the same per game, how would you rank how they finished last season based on they each finished the same avg per game, so I’m just wondering how others rank that, so I was you to see how you would rank a three way tie? 

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weepaws said:

# 24-26. That’s Lockett, DJ Moore And Mclaurin, they all avg 9.6 points per game, so of those three who avg the most points per game? 

So I take that into account one has to, to get a true ranking of avg points per game. 

So we see ties. 

2 ties at 11

2 tied at 10.9 and so on. 

Now that’s the way I see it, I can’t say Lockett who’s two spots ahead of Mclaurin and higher avg per game if they both avg the same per game. 

Thanks you, always appreciate everyone involvement in these issues.  

 

I was kind of afraid that was what you were doing, though my rational mind wanted to give another sentient creature more credit than that.

So if all the other 61 players ahead of Washington scored the same number of fantasy points per game, YOU (and no one else on Earth) would say that Washington is the #2 ranked WR.

That would lead to seriously erroneous drafting, when you select a player you think is #2 overall, and it turns out that there are 61 players better than him.  If you want to avoid making yourself look like any more of a fool, maybe you should ask yourself not where Washington ranked, but how many players are ranked ahead of Washington.  (HINT:  It's 61.)

Hopefully that will sink in (but it's weepaws; let's not hold our breaths).

52 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Let’s use those three WRs , Lockett and Mclaurin and Moore, if all three avg the same per game, how would you rank how they finished last season based on they each finished the same avg per game, so I’m just wondering how others rank that, so I was you to see how you would rank a three way tie?

That's not the issue here, so don't try to move the goalposts.  The question isn't how do you rank players who are tied, it's how do you rank players who score LESS than those who are tied.  3 players score 9.6 points per game; 1 player scores 9.5 points per game.  Is that player the second-best player?  Nope, he's the fourth-best player.

That's where your confusion lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your own list that you thankfully provided, Washington is  40th. 

Thanks everyone, appreciate you all.  

What I can see, there wasn’t 61 players that avg the same amount of ff points. 

Thanks. 

There is no confusion, if three players avg the same about of points per game, that’s simply the way it finished , that’s the way they should be ranked based on last season. 

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weepaws said:

Based on your own list that you thankfully provided, Washington is  40th.

How did you survive this long without understanding numerals or gaining the ability to count?

I suggest that you find a hobby that isn't so dependent upon understanding numbers for success.  Otherwise you'll end up drafting the #62 WR under the misapperception that he's #40, as witnessed in this thread.

Now quit giving us even more reasons to ignore you and let the grownups talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I say I was going draft him as the number 40 wr? 

Was just wondering why he received such a low ranking. 

His per game avgg of  6.1  ranked him 40th was last season, not this season, sorry that confused you. 

Please don’t hesitate ignore me. 

I should be deleted. 

Thanks everyone , appreciate you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, weepaws said:

I should be deleted.

No kidding.  I've seen some pretty ridiculous things argued on message boards, but I've never had a person just stand in my face and insist that 5 was 8 before--that pretty much takes the cake.  It basically disqualifies you from any reasonable discourse in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AxeElf said:

No kidding.  I've seen some pretty ridiculous things argued on message boards, but I've never had a person just stand in my face and insist that 5 was 8 before--that pretty much takes the cake.  It basically disqualifies you from any reasonable discourse in the future.

Sounds good. 

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the table listed there are 62 players. 62nd in ppg is Washington. I don't see where the 40th comes from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

In the table listed there are 62 players. 62nd in ppg is Washington. I don't see where the 40th comes from. 

He's counting tied players as 1 rank, not multiple ranks.  So if 3 players are tied for 4th, he's counting the next player as 5th instead of 7th.  If he wants to look at it that way, then that's fine, it's his rankings.  Though, he's only doing himself a disservice because he's not getting the full picture of how many players scored more points than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I see how many points each player scored, I also see how many points per game they had, I’m just looking at in this case Washington avg was the 40th best , not that he scored the 40 most points, but his scoring avg of 6.1 was the 40th best,  and again all that I asked was , why his ranking on the list was I think it’s 90 , why it was so low, and my question had nothing to do with his points or his avg per game total, just simply that at 90 he’s not even worthy of a draft pick in a non ppr 14 team league, and I was wondering why he was listed so low, I see him as a wr5 and maybe even a low wr4.  So I see him inside my top 70  

If you look at my post that’s all I said.  

Simple.  

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weepaws said:

No I see how many points each player scored, I also see how many points per game they had, I’m just looking at in this case Washington avg was the 40th best , not that he scored the 40 most points, but his scoring avg of 6.1 was the 40th best,  and again all that I asked was , why his ranking on the list was I think it’s 90 , why it was so low, and my question had nothing to do with his points or his avg per game total, just simply that at 90 he’s not even worthy of a draft pick in a non ppr 14 team league, and I was wondering why he was listed so low, I see him as a wr5 and maybe even a low wr4.  So I see him inside my top 70  

If you look at my post that’s all I said.  

Simple.  

Thanks. 

If you STILL don't understand it, then at least just give up, and quit trotting out a new patch of nonsense to cover the old ones.  You see, even this interpretation doesn't rescue you; it just explains your error in greater detail.

Washington's average STILL wasn't the 40th best, because there was not ONE average of 9.6, but THREE averages of 9.6 (and so on for all the other duplicate scores; the scores may be the same, but they represent MULTIPLE averages of that score).

Your math would tell us that there are less than 200 cases of COVID-19 in the world, because they all come from the same 195 countries.  If all averages of the same magnitude must be a single average, then all COVID-19 cases from the same country must be a single case.

Was there really this big of a gap in your education all this time, and it's only just now surfacing?  That seems impossible, and yet...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops...

Turns out that when you correct for the duplicate Browns (Antonio, A.J., John, Marquise), Joneses (Julio, Marvin), Samuels (Deebo, Curtis), and Williamses (Mike, Preston, Tyrell), James Washington isn't #62 after all; he's only #55.

My bad.  I should have realized that all the players with the same name only count as 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

If you STILL don't understand it, then at least just give up, and quit trotting out a new patch of nonsense to cover the old ones.  You see, even this interpretation doesn't rescue you; it just explains your error in greater detail.

Washington's average STILL wasn't the 40th best, because there was not ONE average of 9.6, but THREE averages of 9.6 (and so on for all the other duplicate scores; the scores may be the same, but they represent MULTIPLE averages of that score).

Your math would tell us that there are less than 200 cases of COVID-19 in the world, because they all come from the same 195 countries.  If all averages of the same magnitude must be a single average, then all COVID-19 cases from the same country must be a single case.

Was there really this big of a gap in your education all this time, and it's only just now surfacing?  That seems impossible, and yet...?

Shame on you, what does this very serious issue of the covid have to do with ff?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

Oops...

Turns out that when you correct for the duplicate Browns (Antonio, A.J., John, Marquise), Joneses (Julio, Marvin), Samuels (Deebo, Curtis), and Williamses (Mike, Preston, Tyrell), James Washington isn't #62 after all; he's only #55.

My bad.  I should have realized that all the players with the same name only count as 1.

I have no problem with the way you list your own players, I’ll stick to mind, who just can’t seem to get over yourself.  

Washington avg based on what you post was the 40th best, right now I have him in the 50es a late wr 4 or early wr 5 non ppr 14 teamer. 

Once things get rolling in the Right direction based on the game actually being played , then I’ll have a better ideal of hows he’s being used this next nfl season. 

As for your rankings of the Browns and what not, I have no problem with the way rank your own. 

Thanks once again, but Please relax man, stop being a narcissist

Stay healthy , you entertain me so I would like for you to stick around longer.  

Start reading the Bible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Start reading the Bible. 

Good idea.  Maybe you'll listen to Him.

"The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly."  --Proverbs 15:2 (ESV)

So which are you doing; commending my knowledge, or pouring out folly?  Oh wait, forgot about that pesky ol' Dunning-Kruger...  Shall we take a poll?

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."  --Proverbs 1:7 (NIV)

So are you ready for your wisdom and instruction?  James Washington was #62 among WRs in non-ppr fantasy points scored per game in 2019.

Now let's see who reads their Bible, and who is a fool...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Washington’s 6.1 points per game was the 40th highest in non ppr. 

Was 6.1 the 40th highest per game avg? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

Good idea.  Maybe you'll listen to Him.

"The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly."  --Proverbs 15:2 (ESV)

So which are you doing; commending my knowledge, or pouring out folly?  Oh wait, forgot about that pesky ol' Dunning-Kruger...  Shall we take a poll?

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."  --Proverbs 1:7 (NIV)

So are you ready for your wisdom and instruction?  James Washington was #62 among WRs in non-ppr fantasy points scored per game in 2019.

Now let's see who reads their Bible, and who is a fool...

 

 

I can’t comment on this, I was asked not to sometime ago. If you would like have a bible study to continue me teaching you about the word, I would gladly do so, just can’t do it on this ff site. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, weepaws said:

I can’t comment on this, I was asked not to sometime ago. If you would like have a bible study to continue me teaching you about the word, I would gladly do so, just can’t do it on this ff site. 

News flash:  You have disqualified yourself from ever educating anyone on anything--just in this thread alone.

But at least now we know who despises wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Thank You. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M Sanders at number 15, I think he could be a top 12 and even a top 10 rb this season , non ppr. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, weepaws said:

No I see how many points each player scored, I also see how many points per game they had, I’m just looking at in this case Washington avg was the 40th best , not that he scored the 40 most points, but his scoring avg of 6.1 was the 40th best,  and again all that I asked was , why his ranking on the list was I think it’s 90 , why it was so low, and my question had nothing to do with his points or his avg per game total, just simply that at 90 he’s not even worthy of a draft pick in a non ppr 14 team league, and I was wondering why he was listed so low, I see him as a wr5 and maybe even a low wr4.  So I see him inside my top 70  

He’s probably 90 because there are going to be less ties this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nobody said:

He’s probably 90 because there are going to be less ties this season.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nobody said:

He’s probably 90 because there are going to be less ties this season.

Lol that might be the case. 

Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Good idea.  Maybe you'll listen to Him.

"The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly."  --Proverbs 15:2 (ESV)

So which are you doing; commending my knowledge, or pouring out folly?  Oh wait, forgot about that pesky ol' Dunning-Kruger...  Shall we take a poll?

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."  --Proverbs 1:7 (NIV)

So are you ready for your wisdom and instruction?  James Washington was #62 among WRs in non-ppr fantasy points scored per game in 2019.

Now let's see who reads their Bible, and who is a fool...

 

 

More Bible scriptures please. 

Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weepaws said:

More Bible scriptures please. 

Thank you. 

Why?  You haven't grasped the first two yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DJ Chark at 24? He had a good season last year. A 2nd year udfa who was 20th in ppg average. He had a 6th round rookie throwing to him. The offense has to take a step forward right? I think he has a bright future ahead and now is the time to buy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×