Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 139
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    Again I agree with everything Patsfan said....
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

  2. #17
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    Apprecaite the feedback PatsFan and GiveUp. I dont want to give the impression that there will be a ton of names you havent heard of, because I dont think that will be the case. Sure, there will be some. And some positions will have more than others. O Linemen will have a bunch. Quarterbacks might not have any. And I doubt there will be very many names that you are not aware of rating high. The bottom tier guys may be unknown, but there shouldnt be many raised eyebrows from the top 10 at any position. But in any case, I hear you. If that's what the group wants, thats what we will do. Let me post the ratings based on all-time and then we will take a vote to see if we want to make it Super Bowl Era only, is that cool?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    Posts
    39,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Goose31 View Post
    Apprecaite the feedback PatsFan and GiveUp. I dont want to give the impression that there will be a ton of names you havent heard of, because I dont think that will be the case. Sure, there will be some. And some positions will have more than others. O Linemen will have a bunch. Quarterbacks might not have any. And I doubt there will be very many names that you are not aware of rating high. The bottom tier guys may be unknown, but there shouldnt be many raised eyebrows from the top 10 at any position. But in any case, I hear you. If that's what the group wants, thats what we will do. Let me post the ratings based on all-time and then we will take a vote to see if we want to make it Super Bowl Era only, is that cool?
    Absolutely. It probably won't be as bad as I project but I do think associating a name with some numbas is part of the fun here.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,789
    I see both sides of the coin. I do think people will inherently pick players that are recognizable over someone who may actually be "graded" higher simply due to perception.

    I also agree with GiveUp about strategy. Smaller pool = tougher choices.

    I think allowing say the "10 best" pre SB players in would be a good compromise. Or we could do 1 from each position?
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

    Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

    Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    -George Orwell

  5. #20
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    I'm having a challenging time with ratings and wanted some feedback. This relates to what GiveUp just said about making a smaller player pool.

    First off, this is about ranking/rating players. When I use the term 'ranking' I'm referring to the order I am putting them in based on my opinion of the best players. When I use the word 'rating' its the numerical value I'm assigning them. Player ratings are based on their rankings. Some players are built from their stats, others (such as offensive linemen) are only built by assigning them a numerical rating. So, my dilemma is this: how do I assign the player ratings? Keep in mind, this issue wont affect those positons which are solely based on stats.

    I just finished ranking and rating the Offensive Tackles. I have 100 Tackles rated. The ratings go from 10.0 down to 3.0 in 0.5 intervals. Therefore there are 15 different ratings. I did them as follows:

    Rating - # Players
    10.0 - 1
    9.5 - 4
    9.0 - 4
    8.5 - 5
    8.0 - 7
    7.5 - 6
    7.0 - 6
    6.5 - 6
    6.0 - 6
    5.5 - 6
    5.0 - 6
    4.5 - 7
    4.0 - 7
    3.5 - 9
    3.0 - 20

    I tried to make it bottom-heavy and even out the ratings in the middle. However, since there will be approximately 50 of these guys drafted, the lowest rated player (assuming everyone sticks to the highest rated player) would be a 5.5. That's pretty good for the worst OT in the sim league and doesnt provide much separation between the top and bottom guys. Do you like that, or would you guys prefer something more along these lines:

    Rating - # Players
    10.0 - 1
    9.5 - 2
    9.0 - 3
    8.5 - 4
    8.0 - 4
    7.5 - 4
    7.0 - 4
    6.5 - 4
    6.0 - 4
    5.5 - 4
    5.0 - 5
    4.5 - 5
    4.0 - 7
    3.5 - 9
    3.0 - 40

    This way, the 50th player drafted at this position (assuming people follow the ratings) will be a 4.0. And if it goes to 52 they will be drafting a 3.5 player. That will provide more seperation.
    Last edited by Goose31; 09-27-2011 at 07:57 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,789
    I like option 2
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

    Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

    Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    -George Orwell

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    3,242
    I have no preference in terms of the ratings. As long as it's consistent, that's what matters from my perspective.

    I did have a suggestion as to a method for limiting pre-Super Bowl players, if we want to go that route. Rather than trying to decide on a "top 10," is it possible to set some criteria as to who gets on the list and who doesn't? Something like: a) any HoF members or finalists, or b) any player who made multiple NFL or AFL All-Star Games or Pro Bowls? (I'm presuming this information is available somewhere.) That way there's no question as to the player's notability or qualification for consideration.

  8. #23
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
    I have no preference in terms of the ratings. As long as it's consistent, that's what matters from my perspective.

    I did have a suggestion as to a method for limiting pre-Super Bowl players, if we want to go that route. Rather than trying to decide on a "top 10," is it possible to set some criteria as to who gets on the list and who doesn't? Something like: a) any HoF members or finalists, or b) any player who made multiple NFL or AFL All-Star Games or Pro Bowls? (I'm presuming this information is available somewhere.) That way there's no question as to the player's notability or qualification for consideration.
    I like the recommendation, but that's pretty much already built in there. The only players who are in the draft pool from way, way back in NFL history (like 1920s - 1940s) are the Hall of Famers. Matter of fact, I would guess there are probably about 5 players from the player pool who ever played in the 1920s. And those who are in the player pool from that era are somewhat famous ... Jim Thorpe, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, etc. Same goes for the 1930s - maybe a few more from the 1930s, but its Sammy Baugh, Cal Hubbard, Don Hutson.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    Posts
    39,852
    I think being in the HOF isn't that restrictive.

    BTW: Do people really know how good Don Hutson was?? Either he was a super Jerry Rice and the best that ever was or just the first great wide receiver when it was a new position. (honestly? I have no idea)

    I think picking 1 or 2 from each position might be a good way to get some favorites in without diluting the pool.

  10. #25
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    Can I get a little help from someone? I'm working on shoring up the rankings and it would be great if someone could help me post them into a thread. As I finish them, I could email the Excel file to someone who could save it as a picture through imageshack or some other website and then post them. Seems like a trivial thing, but its time consuming. I might ask this person to help throughout the season as well in posting box scores.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Great White North eh!!!
    Posts
    21,358
    guys I will have to drop out of this due to work.....got one schitttload of work coming up for the next lil while.....



    very very sorry and I really hope its of no inconvienience to you.



    Good luck to everyone.
    The Leafies are Scumbags.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    I could help you out Goose but I'd have to get some instructions on what is needed to be done exactly.

    I've also posted in the Gen forum that we need one more person since Canada got scared and dropped out ;)
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Annapolis, Md
    Posts
    11,446
    So we were full and now we need 1? I'll do some recruiting...
    As cliche as it may sound, I'd like to raise another round, and if your bottle's empty help yourself to mine, thank you for your time and here's to life.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    Yea...we were full and now we need one....damn Canada
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Annapolis, Md
    Posts
    11,446
    Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

    They're not even a real country anyway.
    As cliche as it may sound, I'd like to raise another round, and if your bottle's empty help yourself to mine, thank you for your time and here's to life.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.