Flaws in other websites player projections

[Flux]

Ive looked at many projections on different websites and ive noticed a really weird trend (well maybe not weird, but inconsistent)


When I look at some of the rankings I see a lot of players normally lower than where I would project them. These guys are usually the possible RBBC candidates such as (TJ, Garner, Staley, KJ, JJ, George, Martin, etc).

I dont have a problem w/ them ranked low, but when you look at their projections you see stats of like 600-700 yds rushing a couple hundred receiving and maybe 5 TDs.

So those obviously arent great stats, and whats the first thing that comes to my mind? Well if they arent getting a ton of yards, surely there backups are. Then you go and look at the backups and often times they are around 200-400 yds and a few TDs themselves.

So combined, these teams are only putting up 1000 yds and like 8-10 TDs? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I mean I know that often times projections are total BS, but at least be consistent.

I guess I just wanted to rant and let everyone know not to put a ton of emphasis in player projections from sites when the numbers just dont add up

[DUKE]

I'm assuming you're referring to "overall" rankings, and I agree with you. That's why you have to take into consideration of trends in your draft, roster specifications, etc. rather than just pick straight off of a top 200 list. Doing this will get you either a kicker or backup TE too early .

[Flux]

I'm assuming you're referring to "overall" rankings, and I agree with you. That's why you have to take into consideration of trends in your draft, roster specifications, etc. rather than just pick straight off of a top 200 list. Doing this will get you either a kicker or backup TE too early .

watchoutalkingbout DUKE

Maybe my post is completely unclear and im an idiot. I also should have used an example and used 'projections' instead of rankings


Ok heres an example

I look at website X which has player projections

It has

Charlie Garner w/ 600 yds rushing, 300 rec and 4 TDs

then

Mike Alstott w/ 400 yds rushing 200 rec and 5 TDs


No other TB RB is on the list of the top say 50 RBs

So to me, these projectionists are thinking that TB will only rush for 1000 yds and 9 TDs

DET last year was pitiful and still managed 1300+ yds


Im just saying that if these projectors looked at the big picture, they would see they are doing some ridiculous things

[atvjerryrice80]

yes i see what you are saying, but im thinking that they assume you are adding the other RB's on the team into the equation w/o them doing it for you

[BigMusky]

projections are a complete waste. How does anyone know how many yards someone is going to get.

[Amazinz]

projections are a complete waste. How does anyone know how many yards someone is going to get.

Projections aren't a waste. When you rank players in a cheat sheet you're making projections. Projected statistics are just carrying it out one step further.

[Paladyr]

yes i see what you are saying, but im thinking that they assume you are adding the other RB's on the team into the equation w/o them doing it for you

yea but it still doesn't add up.

They are just being cautious. I'm sure most of them don't even think about the total rushing yards a team should get and THEN figure out what the individual players will do.

[Amazinz]

FootballGuys takes it into account and some others do too. IMO if this isn't taken into account then the projections are seriously flawed and just about useless.

[ironman]

I'm assuming you're referring to "overall" rankings, and I agree with you. That's why you have to take into consideration of trends in your draft, roster specifications, etc. rather than just pick straight off of a top 200 list. Doing this will get you either a kicker or backup TE too early .

watchoutalkingbout DUKE

Maybe my post is completely unclear and im an idiot. I also should have used an example and used 'projections' instead of rankings


Ok heres an example

I look at website X which has player projections

It has

Charlie Garner w/ 600 yds rushing, 300 rec and 4 TDs

then

Mike Alstott w/ 400 yds rushing 200 rec and 5 TDs


No other TB RB is on the list of the top say 50 RBs

So to me, these projectionists are thinking that TB will only rush for 1000 yds and 9 TDs

DET last year was pitiful and still managed 1300+ yds


Im just saying that if these projectors looked at the big picture, they would see they are doing some ridiculous things

My guess is they are factoring in Michael Pittman to get a bulk of yards too, but that wouldn't explain why he's not listed in the top 50.

From what I've seen sites have Pittman and Garner both getting between 500-600 yards each and Alstott around 300. They are projecting based on what is known right now. If for whatever reason Garner blows away Pittman this preseason or vice versa the projections will eventually adjust for that.

[KingGhidra]

FootballGuys takes it into account and some others do too. IMO if this isn't taken into account then the projections are seriously flawed and just about useless.

I know Ian Allan at fantasyfootballindex.com (not the Giants OL) does just that. He projects team yards and assigns them on a % basis to individual players.