QB Rankings (for research) - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

QB Rankings (for research)

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby brdmaverick » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:34 am

Kensat30 wrote:You're looking at QB rankings based on ability right? But you're taking that ability and placing it in a bubble that doesn't include the surrounding talent on their team or the system they are playing in?



yes, go with the bubble analogy. That is not that far fetched though because essentially isn't that what all teams do when they draft a player from college? The QB's college teammates don't come with him when he is drafted, so he the player is measured on his own ability.
brdmaverick
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1829
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby brdmaverick » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:45 am

mattb47 wrote:I agree...it seems what you're asking for is us to evaluate equally QBs that are in completely unequal situations and schemes.



yes, that is why I went with the draft analogy (see my post directly above this one). I agree that it is not easy to try to evaluate a QB's true ability by taking away his current surroundings.


I wanted to avoid giving away my specific research in case it created bias, but to help clear up some confusion I will divulge........

Each year a team is given a "strength of schedule" that is based on their opponent's win-loss percentage from the previous season. We all know that this is flawed with the tremendous amounts of free agency moves, retirements, etc.

I want to analyze each team's strength of schedule by measuring their opponents' starting quarterbacks for 2009. I'll be the first to admit that this is still VERY flawed, but I thought it might be interesting none-the-less. In order to do this, however, I need to assign a number (1 to 32) to each starting quarterback. I could come up with my rankings, but I wanted some more unbiased (or at least different biased) opinion so that this study would be as accurate as possible. I will post the results of my study as soon as they are complete.

As such, I wanted this study to be based on quarterback ability, and quarterback ability alone. Yes, I understand that a QB would do better with Moss/Welker but I want rankings to be done as if all QBs had the same receivers/offensive line/ tight ends/ etc.
brdmaverick
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1829
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby Kensat30 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:49 pm

brdmaverick wrote:
mattb47 wrote:I agree...it seems what you're asking for is us to evaluate equally QBs that are in completely unequal situations and schemes.



yes, that is why I went with the draft analogy (see my post directly above this one). I agree that it is not easy to try to evaluate a QB's true ability by taking away his current surroundings.


I wanted to avoid giving away my specific research in case it created bias, but to help clear up some confusion I will divulge........

Each year a team is given a "strength of schedule" that is based on their opponent's win-loss percentage from the previous season. We all know that this is flawed with the tremendous amounts of free agency moves, retirements, etc.

I want to analyze each team's strength of schedule by measuring their opponents' starting quarterbacks for 2009. I'll be the first to admit that this is still VERY flawed, but I thought it might be interesting none-the-less. In order to do this, however, I need to assign a number (1 to 32) to each starting quarterback. I could come up with my rankings, but I wanted some more unbiased (or at least different biased) opinion so that this study would be as accurate as possible. I will post the results of my study as soon as they are complete.

As such, I wanted this study to be based on quarterback ability, and quarterback ability alone. Yes, I understand that a QB would do better with Moss/Welker but I want rankings to be done as if all QBs had the same receivers/offensive line/ tight ends/ etc.


I still don't have any idea how QB ability alone translates to strength of schedule. Can you explain your thinking behind this? Are you going to include seperate WR, RB, and TE rankings and use weighting? I don't see how you can use arbitrary rankings to formulate how Orton will do with Marshall/Royal or how Cutler will do with Hester/Olsen by combining two or even three sets of rankings. I think it is much easier and more accurate to grade passing offenses as a whole. There are too many variables that go into this sort of thing to limit yourself to just one position at a time. You would need to grade QB, WR, RB, TE, o-line, coaching, gameplanning, defensive ability, division, etc. to get an accurate result on who will be the most deadly QB to face in 2009. That's what humans do intuitively without formulas and complicated systems. That's is how we all come up with our fantasy QB rankings for the 2009 redraft season.

QB ability is just one tiny piece of the puzzle and it is hard to grade a QB accurately without looking at the pieces that he has available to him. Part of the reason Peyton Manning is so consistent is that he has been with the same franchise and working with the same WRs and grooming them to the system for almost a decade. Reggie Wayne has seemlessly transitioned from a rookie to taking over for Marvin Harrison and Manning hasn't missed a beat. IF we saw PEyton Manning goto a team like Tampa Bay for whatever reason, he won't even be close to the #1 QB anymore simply because the system is different, his WRs don't know him, the talent is inferior, the division and conference would be new, etc. etc. That's why you can't just rank ability in a bubble and expect to get accurate results. Bubble grading only works for "virtual GM" scenarios and at the draft before these players go into teams and situations. That's why we see pre-draft and post-draft re-rankings for fantasy. You can't just ignore situation when proposing strength of schedule analysis.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby Sex Panther » Fri May 01, 2009 7:46 am

Kensat30 wrote:
brdmaverick wrote:
mattb47 wrote:I agree...it seems what you're asking for is us to evaluate equally QBs that are in completely unequal situations and schemes.



yes, that is why I went with the draft analogy (see my post directly above this one). I agree that it is not easy to try to evaluate a QB's true ability by taking away his current surroundings.


I wanted to avoid giving away my specific research in case it created bias, but to help clear up some confusion I will divulge........

Each year a team is given a "strength of schedule" that is based on their opponent's win-loss percentage from the previous season. We all know that this is flawed with the tremendous amounts of free agency moves, retirements, etc.

I want to analyze each team's strength of schedule by measuring their opponents' starting quarterbacks for 2009. I'll be the first to admit that this is still VERY flawed, but I thought it might be interesting none-the-less. In order to do this, however, I need to assign a number (1 to 32) to each starting quarterback. I could come up with my rankings, but I wanted some more unbiased (or at least different biased) opinion so that this study would be as accurate as possible. I will post the results of my study as soon as they are complete.

As such, I wanted this study to be based on quarterback ability, and quarterback ability alone. Yes, I understand that a QB would do better with Moss/Welker but I want rankings to be done as if all QBs had the same receivers/offensive line/ tight ends/ etc.


I still don't have any idea how QB ability alone translates to strength of schedule. Can you explain your thinking behind this? Are you going to include seperate WR, RB, and TE rankings and use weighting? I don't see how you can use arbitrary rankings to formulate how Orton will do with Marshall/Royal or how Cutler will do with Hester/Olsen by combining two or even three sets of rankings. I think it is much easier and more accurate to grade passing offenses as a whole. There are too many variables that go into this sort of thing to limit yourself to just one position at a time. You would need to grade QB, WR, RB, TE, o-line, coaching, gameplanning, defensive ability, division, etc. to get an accurate result on who will be the most deadly QB to face in 2009. That's what humans do intuitively without formulas and complicated systems. That's is how we all come up with our fantasy QB rankings for the 2009 redraft season.

QB ability is just one tiny piece of the puzzle and it is hard to grade a QB accurately without looking at the pieces that he has available to him. Part of the reason Peyton Manning is so consistent is that he has been with the same franchise and working with the same WRs and grooming them to the system for almost a decade. Reggie Wayne has seemlessly transitioned from a rookie to taking over for Marvin Harrison and Manning hasn't missed a beat. IF we saw PEyton Manning goto a team like Tampa Bay for whatever reason, he won't even be close to the #1 QB anymore simply because the system is different, his WRs don't know him, the talent is inferior, the division and conference would be new, etc. etc. That's why you can't just rank ability in a bubble and expect to get accurate results. Bubble grading only works for "virtual GM" scenarios and at the draft before these players go into teams and situations. That's why we see pre-draft and post-draft re-rankings for fantasy. You can't just ignore situation when proposing strength of schedule analysis.


I think you're reading too much into this, what I got out of the intent of the OP's post was pretty simple. If you were to build a NFL franchise from the ground up what QB would you take for 1 season and 1 season only, in this case 2009.
Kate Upton's Husband - dead
Mr. Blonde - champ
Yo Soy Fiesta - dead
Old South - champ
Full of Fanta Tonight - champ
Sex Panther (SB) - dead
Sex Panther (FF) - dead
Sex Panther (IBL) - dead
Sex Panther (Dynasty) dead
Sex Panther
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 3029
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby brdmaverick » Fri May 01, 2009 12:24 pm

Sex Panther wrote:I think you're reading too much into this, what I got out of the intent of the OP's post was pretty simple. If you were to build a NFL franchise from the ground up what QB would you take for 1 season and 1 season only, in this case 2009.


Thanks, I think you summed up my intentions quite nicely (and in a much less confusing way that I am apparently am doing) .


Kensat - it's a request for a research that I am interested in doing. I am interested in seeing which team has to face the most elite quarterbacks in the league and see which teams have a it easy when it comes to their opponent's quarterback. I don't want to be like this, but it doesn't matter if it makes sense. I agree that it is flawed if using this as the sole measure of how tough one's schedule really is. It is just an area of research that I am interested in.

I am a fan of the Pats, and they have the third toughest schedule (according to last year's win percentage). In looking over the schedule, however, I don't see many games against great quarterbacks, and I just wanted to put some stats and figure to this claim. I am interested to see the figures for each team, actually.
brdmaverick
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1829
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby Kensat30 » Fri May 01, 2009 2:59 pm

Now that I've kind of worked out what you are trying to do here, I think you are oversimplifying things to a horrible extent. I think your research will turn out to be useless, because you are only getting one small part of the picture with the QB ranking. I could do a "kicker research" project to determine who faces the best kickers each season, but what good are those results? Nevermind that a kicker might only be good because his QB sucks and he has to kick a lot of short field goals. Or nevermind that a kicker only has a high percentage because he gets taken out for long kicks. Who is to say that the kicker who has the most field goals and extra points in a season is the best rather than a guy who simply got the most chances? See what I'm getting at here?

You're playing fantasy GM and using that type of simplistic ranking data and trying to turn it into something useful. You obviously don't care if I agree with you, I understand that. But let me explain this to you. Strength of schedule analysis is based on winning percentage from the previous year. That's how those rankings are determined. Those rankings actually have some limited use because they factor in the entire team performance that determines those wins and losses. A lot of fantasy analysts will go further and split the strength of schedule down into offensive and defensive segments, passing and rushing segments, and even individual positional segments. But all of these rankings rely on actual data, real quantifiable data. It's my personal opinion that if you want to use pure ranking data, you want to get as broad of a picture as possible to capture all the variables. IF you're not going to use pure statistics and data manipulation, use the most powerful computer in the world (your brain) and rank based on every single possible variable you can all at the same time.

You are intently limiting your data gathering to a relatively small aspect of one position and trying to correlate that with "real" strength of schedule. Playing fantasy GM is fine and good, but it seems to me that you are ok with willfully ignoring important data in an attempt to do something different and you are asking other people to go along with that without explanation. The reference to "schedule analysis" in the very first post throws everything off. If you want to play fantasy GM just call it fantasy GM.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby brdmaverick » Fri May 01, 2009 8:50 pm

Kensat30 wrote:Now that I've kind of worked out what you are trying to do here, I think you are oversimplifying things to a horrible extent. I think your research will turn out to be useless, because you are only getting one small part of the picture with the QB ranking. I could do a "kicker research" project to determine who faces the best kickers each season, but what good are those results? Nevermind that a kicker might only be good because his QB sucks and he has to kick a lot of short field goals. Or nevermind that a kicker only has a high percentage because he gets taken out for long kicks. Who is to say that the kicker who has the most field goals and extra points in a season is the best rather than a guy who simply got the most chances? See what I'm getting at here?

You're playing fantasy GM and using that type of simplistic ranking data and trying to turn it into something useful. You obviously don't care if I agree with you, I understand that. But let me explain this to you. Strength of schedule analysis is based on winning percentage from the previous year. That's how those rankings are determined. Those rankings actually have some limited use because they factor in the entire team performance that determines those wins and losses. A lot of fantasy analysts will go further and split the strength of schedule down into offensive and defensive segments, passing and rushing segments, and even individual positional segments. But all of these rankings rely on actual data, real quantifiable data. It's my personal opinion that if you want to use pure ranking data, you want to get as broad of a picture as possible to capture all the variables. IF you're not going to use pure statistics and data manipulation, use the most powerful computer in the world (your brain) and rank based on every single possible variable you can all at the same time.

You are intently limiting your data gathering to a relatively small aspect of one position and trying to correlate that with "real" strength of schedule. Playing fantasy GM is fine and good, but it seems to me that you are ok with willfully ignoring important data in an attempt to do something different and you are asking other people to go along with that without explanation. The reference to "schedule analysis" in the very first post throws everything off. If you want to play fantasy GM just call it fantasy GM.


Ouch, man. I don't know what the hell your problem is. I am interested in seeing what team plays against the toughest QBs in the league. Is that a crime?

I am not going to over generalize and say that the team who faces teh toughest QBs is the team with the toughest schedule. It is just one asepct that I was interested in looking at. For instance, after my research, I may be able to make a statement like 'the pats may have one of the toughest schedules in the league, but at least they face some of the worst quarterbacks in the league'.

Comparing QBs and Kickers is laughable. While QBs are not the tell all (see Baltimore), I think we can all agree that the quarterback is the single most important player on a football team.

Bottom line, however, is that I don't really care if you think this whole thing is pointless. All I did was post a request, and you could either participate or not. You think it's stupid, then don't respond and move on. Honestly, the amount of over-thinking and over-analyzing of a simple request is somewhat mind blowing.
brdmaverick
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1829
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby mattb47 » Sat May 02, 2009 11:57 am

I think some people don't want to put the time and effort into figuring out how to rank 32 different players in an accurate order unless they feel like it will be worthwhile or at least used for something worthwhile. I also somewhat fail to see how "they face some of the worst QBs in the league" will be of value for anything other than team defense projections fantasy wise? I mean it's unlikely that the Pats facing Peyton Manning or Kyle Orton is going to give or take away an edge for Tom Brady or Randy Moss...just wondering what effect you anticipate finding there.

I think you need to take a step back, not be quite so frustrated and understand that you're asking people to spend time building a good rankings for you and some people just may want to know why they would spend their time doing so. If you're going to come with something like this to a board, you have to realize that some people are going to ask why and not just do it for the heck of it.
Image
mattb47
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 14238
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby brdmaverick » Sun May 03, 2009 12:16 am

mattb47 wrote:I think some people don't want to put the time and effort into figuring out how to rank 32 different players in an accurate order unless they feel like it will be worthwhile or at least used for something worthwhile.


...and these people have the right to NOT participate in this thread and NOT take the time to rank the quarterbacks. These people can also just NOT respond and view other posts as opposed to leaving posts explaining why this is a dumb idea. I don't think it takes THAT long to rank 32 QBs.

mattb47 wrote: I also somewhat fail to see how "they face some of the worst QBs in the league" will be of value for anything other than team defense projections fantasy wise?


...it is just a point of interest to me. I'm not claiming to be reinventing the wheel and create a new draft philosophy or something. It's something that I would have put together myself, except that I realize that the way that I would rank the quarterbacks would not be a true indication of how everyone would rank the quarterbacks. That is where members of this forum come in. If people are kind enough to participate, I very much appreciate it. If you don't want to, then don't.

mattb47 wrote: I think you need to take a step back, not be quite so frustrated and understand that you're asking people to spend time building a good rankings for you and some people just may want to know why they would spend their time doing so. If you're going to come with something like this to a board, you have to realize that some people are going to ask why and not just do it for the heck of it.


My frustration comes from responses received about whether or not this study makes sense. The bottom line is that it is an area of interest TO ME, and so I posed this request. It is a request and only a request. Again, if you don't want to do it then don't do it. I'm not really interested in hearing whether or not one finds it worthwhile, because I am going to do it regardless and am only really interested in one's rankings (as opposed to rants). I understand that curiosity does come into play, which is why I divulged what I was doing with each person's rankings.

Am I asking too much? I thought I was requesting a relatively simple request that would take someone an average of ten minutes to complete. For those who did not care to help, they would just move along to other threads. I really did not forsee all of this bickering.

I would like to say thought that I do appreciate all of those who did leave his/her rankings.
brdmaverick
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1829
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: QB Rankings (for research)

Postby glackk » Sun May 03, 2009 12:37 am

brdmaverick wrote:
mattb47 wrote:I think some people don't want to put the time and effort into figuring out how to rank 32 different players in an accurate order unless they feel like it will be worthwhile or at least used for something worthwhile.


...and these people have the right to NOT participate in this thread and NOT take the time to rank the quarterbacks. These people can also just NOT respond and view other posts as opposed to leaving posts explaining why this is a dumb idea. I don't think it takes THAT long to rank 32 QBs.

mattb47 wrote: I also somewhat fail to see how "they face some of the worst QBs in the league" will be of value for anything other than team defense projections fantasy wise?


...it is just a point of interest to me. I'm not claiming to be reinventing the wheel and create a new draft philosophy or something. It's something that I would have put together myself, except that I realize that the way that I would rank the quarterbacks would not be a true indication of how everyone would rank the quarterbacks. That is where members of this forum come in. If people are kind enough to participate, I very much appreciate it. If you don't want to, then don't.

mattb47 wrote: I think you need to take a step back, not be quite so frustrated and understand that you're asking people to spend time building a good rankings for you and some people just may want to know why they would spend their time doing so. If you're going to come with something like this to a board, you have to realize that some people are going to ask why and not just do it for the heck of it.


My frustration comes from responses received about whether or not this study makes sense. The bottom line is that it is an area of interest TO ME, and so I posed this request. It is a request and only a request. Again, if you don't want to do it then don't do it. I'm not really interested in hearing whether or not one finds it worthwhile, because I am going to do it regardless and am only really interested in one's rankings (as opposed to rants). I understand that curiosity does come into play, which is why I divulged what I was doing with each person's rankings.

Am I asking too much? I thought I was requesting a relatively simple request that would take someone an average of ten minutes to complete. For those who did not care to help, they would just move along to other threads. I really did not forsee all of this bickering.

I would like to say thought that I do appreciate all of those who did leave his/her rankings.


Everyone is entitled to think what they want. It took me <5mins to cut and paste the QBs in my order, which was fine because I enjoyed the process of thinking out which QBs I would like to have if I was a GM. I'd be interested to see what kind of results you come up with, regardless of whether I ultimately find it useful for anything other than entertainment. ;-D Don't let it bother you too much.
glackk
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 792
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 4:42 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact