fantasy football bold predictions sleepers breakouts fantasy football rankings cheat sheets 2016 fantasy football mock drafts 2016 fantasy football odell beckham sketch fantasy football bold predictions sleepers breakouts

IDPSleepers.com coming in May..

2»

Comments

  • ffballgenius30 Posts: 1,554
    @wooters great info by you though thanks!

    10 TEAM: $100 salary cap dynasty league. non PPR, non fraction scoring, All TDs 5 pnts. QB/RB/RBWR/WR/TE/w/r/t/K/DL/DB/LB/LB(22 man roster, 2 practice squad spots, rookies from rookie draft don't count towards 22 man roster)

    qb: $3.50 WILSON, $2 KIZER, $1.25 TRUBISKY, $1 KELLY

    rbs: $2.50 ELLIOT, $1.75 JOHNSON, $2 CARSON, $10 BUCK ALLEN, $2 MIXON (R), $1 MCNICHOLS (R)

    wrs: $2.50 COREY COLEMAN, $5 WATKINS, $3.25 AMARI COOPER, $2.50 DOCTSON, $1.75 DIGGS, $1.50 GOLLADAY

    te: $3.25 EIFERT, $1 HOWARD (R)

    K: $1.50 BRYANT

    LB: $1.50 MYLES JACK, $1.50 REUBEN FOSTER, $4 OGLETREE, $1.50 JATAVIS BROWN

    DL: $1.75 MACK, $2.50 HUNTER

    DB: $1.25 NEAL, $1.25 JAMAL ADAMS


  • boobam13boobam13 Posts: 1,616
    Love the differences of opinions on guys - doesn't help if we all drink the same Kool-Aide
  • Whos_Ur_DoggieWhos_Ur_Doggie Posts: 2,962
    Wooters said:

    cohendpt said:

    @wooters great info by you though thanks!

    Thanks!  Maybe, I should take over the IDP portion of the league...
    Then we'd be reading your opinion on IDP rankings and you just might not like what we think, right?   :-@
    SleeperU Forum Moderator
  • boobam13boobam13 Posts: 1,616
    I'm glad we don't drink the same Kool Aide Wooters - need variety and different insight 
  • rabidbucfanrabidbucfan Posts: 2,194
    @Wooters thanks for the input.

    All rankings are subjective. I may or may not agree with the rankings of some players on ranking sheet "A" but that's not a problem since I make my own list based on my own criteria.
     If you compare the Sleeper U IDP rankings with most any other you will see some similarities and some disparities within those lists. One thing I would note is that none of the contributors are "just lazy" as you put it. 

    Sleeper U  DynastyTradeCalculator FantasyPros
    Burfict 14 20 14
    Bowman 3 7 17
    Jack 27 14 28
    David 6 4 12
    Barron 28 28 16
    J.Brown 29 70 25
    McKinney 17 45 10
    P. Brown 16 23 38
    Bradham 56       40       46
    J. Jenkins 43        46      60

    That's most of the list - not saying any of these are right or wrong just that they are ranked this way.
    "The only place success comes before work is the dictionary" ~Vince Lombardi
    Mod - Sleeper U
  • IcemanIceman Posts: 2,637
    Well said RBF, IMO most rankings need to have a certain amount of "Gut" to them. There is no formula that can be written that takes into account how you may feel about a players intangibles, situational anomalies or just that you think a guy will finally "get it" or "lose it". That comes from research and experience and is an important part of how we can pick/predict performance changes. Truly to me that is what separates the Wheat from the Chaff in FF and why some owners consistently do better than others.   
  • Whos_Ur_DoggieWhos_Ur_Doggie Posts: 2,962
    Wooters said:

    @Boobam- We don't need to drink the same Kool-aid.  I was just asking for clarification on how he got to those rankings.  We don't need to agree.  Show me the rationale behind the rankings, in order for me to get on board with what he is throwing down.


    But here's the hard truth of the matter- there's a reason why he hasn't responded.  The answer?  He can't.  He can't because the rankings will not jive with any set of criteria other than his gut feeling.  He even put a disclaimer in there that says "It would be a mistake to read these rankings linearly."  I mean, are you kidding me?  That's total cover-your-ass lingo right there.  Basically he's just throwing down a bunch of names in a 'close enough' manner, and then he is telling us 'don't follow my rankings because they aren't in the correct order'.  That's just lazy.

    @ Doggie- First, strange thing to say coming from a moderator.  You should be more impartial.  Secondly, you can ignore me all you want, but I've been doing IDP for 24 years, and I know what I'm talking about.  But that's neither here or there with my contention with these "rankings".  I believe I made fair, legit points- and your friend or not- Tav should respond to them. 
    I don't find my comment strange at all and it has nothing to do with me being a moderator.  Not sure why you are tying the two together.  In your OP, you are stating that the IDP rankings developed by Tav do not meet your liking and that you "don't feel like a lot of thought was put into these".  In my response to your post, I am merely advising you that the same could be said about your opinions/rankings.  Not sure I see the problem here other than you felt that it was ok to express your opinion and apparently I should be "censored" when expressing my opinion.
    SleeperU Forum Moderator
  • WTCMWTCM Posts: 7,702
    edited June 16
    Wooters said:

    cohendpt said:

    @wooters great info by you though thanks!

    Thanks!  Maybe, I should take over the IDP portion of the league...
    Nice to have you back "@wooters" after your absences. I'm not big on IDP, so glad now.
    The "U's" Forum Moderator
    Montreal, Canada
    Proud Canadian  image
    Also creator of this:
  • boobam13boobam13 Posts: 1,616
    Wildcat said:

    Aren't IDP rankings kinda like Kicker rankings?  Outside of a couple blue-chippers, they're all a dime a dozen.  I rarely even draft them in an IDP league; I just stock up on skill players with a chance to emerge in preseason, then drop as many as needed to fill out my roster with free agent IDPs.  Keep an eye on the waiver wire for the first few weeks and upgrade as needed.


    The only IDP league I'm in so far saw 6 IDPs score more than 120 points last season; the next 85 IDPs scored between 80 and 120 points (a difference of 2.5 pts per week from top to bottom).  There's just no reason to value one that much more highly than the next.
    so many factors change the names from year to year - more about positions and role than the names
Sign In or Register to comment.