Start/Bench List

[Savage Beatings]

S1 and S2 designations are back... thanks WW!

 

[Big Country]

I drunk talked him into doing it in Vegas.

[LooGie]

AWESOME! Good looking out DMD!

 

Also, I have a very small recommendation re: the Start/Bench list. would it be possible to get a ranking system sorted by position, and not just games?

 

Right now, Bledsoe and McNair are listed as S2, but if you had both on your roster, which would you recommend over each other. You know, just a simple "sort by position" link or something like that, that lists the top 20 or 25 players at their position, in order?

 

just a thought. I find myself wondering all the time, "who has the better potential" and I did the same thing all last year.

 

Thanks again for the hard work.

[Sugar Magnolia]

AWESOME! Good looking out DMD!

 

Also, I have a very small recommendation re: the Start/Bench list. would it be possible to get a ranking system sorted by position, and not just games?

 

Right now, Bledsoe and McNair are listed as S2, but if you had both on your roster, which would you recommend over each other. You know, just a simple "sort by position" link or something like that, that lists the top 20 or 25 players at their position, in order?

 

just a thought. I find myself wondering all the time, "who has the better potential" and I did the same thing all last year.

 

Thanks again for the hard work.

 

 

A competitor's site to Huddler-not sure it is PC to mention the name-has weekly projection rankings based on match-ups, and changes every week. It does really help me, and one of the reason I joined the site.

[twiley]

I drunk talked him into doing it in Vegas.

 

[LooGie]

A competitor's site to Huddler-not sure it is PC to mention the name-has weekly projection rankings based on match-ups, and changes every week. It does really help me, and one of the reason I joined the site.

 

I know of a few sites, but the fact is..the sites actually suck. That function is basically the best part of those sites. They're not even worth mentioning. Other than to fuel DMD with the motivation to add that function

 

However, the function is basically useless if the projections are moranic. The Huddle has the best projections bar none.

[cre8tiff]

I know of a few sites, but the fact is..the sites actually suck. That function is basically the best part of those sites. They're not even worth mentioning. Other than to fuel DMD with the motivation to add that function

 

However, the function is basically useless if the projections are moranic. The Huddle has the best projections bar none.

 

 

Listen, bub, if they start doing what you are suggesting, then there will be no more need for the moranic WDIS start threads. So shut yer cake hole and sit back and enjoy the show.

[LooGie]

Listen, bub, if they start doing what you are suggesting, then there will be no more need for the moranic WDIS start threads. So shut yer cake hole and sit back and enjoy the show.

 

 

um..correct..but if DMD answered WDIS threads, I wouldn't even think twice about asking in there. No offense to anyone here, but I pay for DMD's suggestions; I tolerate everyone elses

[Balzac]

If you see 2 guys with the same rank in the start/bench, just go check the projected stats article for your answer re: DMD's take. After all, he doesn't even write the start/bench stuff . . .

[Hat Trick]

um..correct..but if DMD answered WDIS threads, I wouldn't even think twice about asking in there. No offense to anyone here, but I pay for DMD's suggestions; I tolerate everyone elses

 

 

A guy with the screen name Loogie latching onto DMD's sack, whoda thunk it

[mroban]

I know of a few sites, but the fact is..the sites actually suck. That function is basically the best part of those sites. They're not even worth mentioning. Other than to fuel DMD with the motivation to add that function

 

However, the function is basically useless if the projections are moranic. The Huddle has the best projections bar none.

 

 

 

For me, ranking them in some kind of order causes more problems than its solves. Its like FF Crack -- you cant wait to see the rankings so you can make decisions. Usually, I will have made a decision based on information and intuition BUT WAIT -- here it shows that the other guy is ranked 5 places higher for the week. Uh oh, dilemma...you get the idea.

 

I actually prefer them ranked in tiers the way that DMD does it and then use the information and your intuition to make the best choice.

 

I stopped subscribing to the other site (I used to use both) and just use Huddle now.

[Sugar Magnolia]

I know of a few sites, but the fact is..the sites actually suck. That function is basically the best part of those sites. They're not even worth mentioning. Other than to fuel DMD with the motivation to add that function

 

However, the function is basically useless if the projections are moranic. The Huddle has the best projections bar none.

 

 

Just to defend myself, this site's rankings and opinions are very close to Huddler's, but the site does have more features. Another suggestion to Huddler is a weekly report as a seperate page that shows the touches each WR and RB are getting each week. This gives me a lot of info. on what upside players are getting involved in the offense-like Troy Williamson and Matt Jones last week. Also besides weekly rankings based on match-ups, the season rankings are kept on the front page, and change weekly as players get hurt or performance goes up or down. Just another suggestion for Huddler. I would love to only use just this site. The message boards here are the best-bar none!

[gilthorp]

Just to defend myself, this site's rankings and opinions are very close to Huddler's, but the site does have more features. Another suggestion to Huddler is a weekly report as a seperate page that shows the touches each WR and RB are getting each week. This gives me a lot of info. on what upside players are getting involved in the offense-like Troy Williamson and Matt Jones last week. Also besides weekly rankings based on match-ups, the season rankings are kept on the front page, and change weekly as players get hurt or performance goes up or down. Just another suggestion for Huddler. I would love to only use just this site. The message boards here are the best-bar none!

 

 

There already is a target report...and a total play report. So I don't know what you're saying.

[DemonKnight]

Another suggestion to Huddler is a weekly report as a seperate page that shows the touches each WR and RB are getting each week.

 

The Huddle actually has that. Its on Tuesdays front page (cant remember what its called though).

[Sugar Magnolia]

The Huddle actually has that. Its on Tuesdays front page (cant remember what its called though).

 

 

Sorry, Huddler does. This other site writes it out for us analytically-challenged types. For example, this week the written word for Michael Jenkins was.... 6 targets, 2 in the red zone, and two passes caught for 30 yards.

 

I'm not knocking Huddler, just providing suggestions that other sites are doing that I find useful, and others may as well.

[cre8tiff]

Sorry, Huddler does. This other site writes it out for us analytically-challenged types. For example, this week the written word for Michael Jenkins was.... 6 targets, 2 in the red zone, and two passes caught for 30 yards.

 

I'm not knocking Huddler, just providing suggestions that other sites are doing that I find useful, and others may as well.

 

 

 

TheHuddle has all that information. Tons of sortable stats. I think that is what they are trying to point out above.

 

Link for members--->

 

word for Michael Jenkins was.... 6 targets, 2 in the red zone, and two passes caught for 30 yards.

 

 

But he was targeted -0- times inside the ten. Courtesy of The Huddle stats.

Edited September 14, 2006 by cre8tiff

[twiley]

So...how do you get rid of crabs?

 

 

Ooops...wrong forum.

[Yukon Cornelius]

So...how do you get rid of crabs?

Ooops...wrong forum.

 

gas works well

[LooGie]

For me, ranking them in some kind of order causes more problems than its solves. Its like FF Crack -- you cant wait to see the rankings so you can make decisions. Usually, I will have made a decision based on information and intuition BUT WAIT -- here it shows that the other guy is ranked 5 places higher for the week. Uh oh, dilemma...you get the idea.

 

I actually prefer them ranked in tiers the way that DMD does it and then use the information and your intuition to make the best choice.

 

I stopped subscribing to the other site (I used to use both) and just use Huddle now.

 

yah, i totally get it. I just would like to have the option to sort based on projections. that's all.

[Big Score 1]

The next step in the evolution of targets, is to not only show how many times a WR was targeted & where, but also how many of those targets presented legitimate opportunies for a reception.

 

For example;

 

Greg Jennings of Green Bay had 6 targets but only 1 reception, for a catch percentage of 16.7%

 

For people who did not see the game they might come away with the impression that Jennings was pretty unreliable.

 

The reality is, that of the 6 time Jennings was targeted, only 4 of those 6 passes were actually catchable passes, bringing Jennings catch percentage to a much more respectable 25%

 

The targets will become a much more useful tool when that is done.

[LooGie]

The next step in the evolution of targets, is to not only show how many times a WR was targeted & where, but also how many of those targets presented legitimate opportunies for a reception.

 

For example;

 

Greg Jennings of Green Bay had 6 targets but only 1 reception, for a catch percentage of 16.7%

 

For people who did not see the game they might come away with the impression that Jennings was pretty unreliable.

 

The reality is, that of the 6 time Jennings was targeted, only 4 of those 6 passes were actually catchable passes, bringing Jennings catch percentage to a much more respectable 25%

 

The targets will become a much more useful tool when that is done.

 

 

very interesting. but who's to say what's catchable?

 

edit: not to mention I don't really care how good his hands are. If he's a starter on an NFL team, I'll trust the coaching staff to decide that. I just want to know how many times the QB tried to get him the ball.

Edited September 14, 2006 by LooGie

[Big Score 1]

very interesting. but who's to say what's catchable?

 

edit: not to mention I don't really care how good his hands are. If he's a starter on an NFL team, I'll trust the coaching staff to decide that. I just want to know how many times the QB tried to get him the ball.

 

Always show all targets. Only the obviously uncatchable passes should be noted as such. Anytime you have to stop and think if the pass was catchable or not, it should remain as a legitimate catchable pass.

 

Examples of obviously uncatchable passes:

 

10' away from the WR.

QB throwing the ball in the vicinity of a WR to avoid the sack.

QB throwing the ball out of bounds in the vicinity of a WR.

QB skipping the ball off the turf.

 

I understand what you're saying about liking any WR with a high number of targets Loogie, but look at this hypothetical situation.

 

WR A is an undisputed starter for his team. WR A had 15 targets of which 10 were catchable passes. WR A caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

WR B is an undisputed starter for his team. WR B had 15 targest of which 15 were catchable passes. WR B caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

Both WR's had 15 targets. Both WR's caught 8 passes for 100 yards.

 

You've got your choice of the WR's. Which WR would you rather have, A or B?

 

Now do you understand the value of looking deeper at the WR targets, than just how many looks a WR got?

[Baltimucho]

One question (actually, three) about Start/Bench that I could never figure out for sure -- what does it mean when two guys are in the same line? For example, Mike Bell and Tatum Bell are each in the same line and collectively labeled "S2." Does that WW thinks both Bells are S2s, or is that only supposed to convey that one of the two is an S2 but there's no telling which it will be thanks to the RBBC? If it means both are S2s, why not give both a separate line and separate ranking?

[Avernus]

One question (actually, three) about Start/Bench that I could never figure out for sure -- what does it mean when two guys are in the same line? For example, Mike Bell and Tatum Bell are each in the same line and collectively labeled "S2." Does that WW thinks both Bells are S2s, or is that only supposed to convey that one of the two is an S2 but there's no telling which it will be thanks to the RBBC? If it means both are S2s, why not give both a separate line and separate ranking?

 

 

both Bell's are S2's...

[Turf Smurf]

Always show all targets. Only the obviously uncatchable passes should be noted as such. Anytime you have to stop and think if the pass was catchable or not, it should remain as a legitimate catchable pass.

 

Examples of obviously uncatchable passes:

 

10' away from the WR.

QB throwing the ball in the vicinity of a WR to avoid the sack.

QB throwing the ball out of bounds in the vicinity of a WR.

QB skipping the ball off the turf.

 

I understand what you're saying about liking any WR with a high number of targets Loogie, but look at this hypothetical situation.

 

WR A is an undisputed starter for his team. WR A had 15 targets of which 10 were catchable passes. WR A caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

WR B is an undisputed starter for his team. WR B had 15 targest of which 15 were catchable passes. WR B caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

Both WR's had 15 targets. Both WR's caught 8 passes for 100 yards.

 

You've got your choice of the WR's. Which WR would you rather have, A or B?

 

Now do you understand the value of looking deeper at the WR targets, than just how many looks a WR got?

 

I agree with your analysis. However the site obviously has limited resources.

 

Should they just man your teams for you?

 

To me, this level of deep dive you are talking about, is the difference between the winners and the losers. From my perspective you already get 2 or 3 times the information or more for the measly site fee. Part of the fun of FF is digging out the information each week that makes the difference.