Rankings Disclaimer/Explanations

NUMERICAL PLAYER VALUES:
The "100" scale is intended to be a way to better reflect value than a simple 1 thru 75 numbering sequence. By way of example, if the previous off-season's rankings of Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Marc Bulger, Michael Vick, and Vince Young were a hair's width apart in value, I needed a better system than a simple 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 sequence. Young at #8 may well be much closer in value to McNabb at #5 than whomever I have ranked at #9 directly behind Young. I needed a system to reflect value more accurately, and a "100 scale" was the number I picked. There really is no significance to the number 100 beyond that.

Nov. 28, 2006: Championship banners fly forever, and I'm in the thick of the playoff race. Consequently, if it looks like veterans on playoff teams are higher here than they should be, their value to me is reflected as opposed to their value to a rebuilding team. I've tried to keep myself from drastically over-valuing playoff players, but I may have inadvertently slipped here and there.

Bottom line: your unique situation is likely to be different from mine or anybody else's. Please keep this in mind.

Dec. 20, 2006: I realize many dynasty leaguers have shifted their emphasis to the 2007 season; however, my regular season is still going on. While my rankings are beginning to shift toward the future, there are still some that are slanted towards the rest of this season and the playoffs.

Mar. 15, 2007: I used to toy around with those kinds of point scales based on handing out 1-10 points per category and tallying them all up to see who goes where. There are several problems with these systems. First of all, not all categories are created equal. Secondly, it's an unscientific grade that you're assigning each category, so it's nonsensical to aim for a scientific outcome. Finally, I'm never satisfied with the outcomes. For example, somebody like Culpepper will end up finishing way too high. And then you have to start fudging with the numbers to get him lower. Then if you're fudging his, you end up messing with a few others as well. To sum up, I've found those types of scales to be literally more trouble than the spreadsheet they're printed on are worth.

Frankly, these rankings are not very scientific. There are two reasons for that. First, the goal is not a complex one: per requests in other dynasty threads, I'm simply trying to better represent value by showing where the gaps are and using a system that assigns value much better than a simple 1 thru 75 numbering sequence. Secondly, I think we're overloaded with numbers, studies, etc. anymore. Ten years ago, most of us in this thread dominated all of our leagues strictly as a result of having more information than the other guys in our leagues. The internet changed all of that now. Everybody has access to quality information on a regular basis. Fantasy football studies are ubiquitous...especially on this site (which is a great thing). So what happens when everybody is looking at the same studies? Opinions vary much less because we tend to fall in line behind "proof" and hesitantly push our instincts and gut-feelings to the side. How then do we gain an edge on the guys looking at the same information?

My theory is this: if we all have ready access to the same information, how do you gain an edge on the upper echelon competition? Instincts honed by knowledge, which is honed by news updates, stats, trends and studies. That's what these rankings are in a nutshell. Instincts. There's no statistical or scientific basis to the numbers, but rather an attempt at showing differences in value as I perceive them.

May 6, 2007: These numbers are not intended as a trade guide across positions. If they do happen to serve that purpose for some owners who find a beneficial way to tinker with the numbers, that's a bonus. I probably wasn't all that clear in my intentions, but I think this quote sums up the problems with an overall ranking vs. a positional ranking:

"Until we all start playing by the same rules and scoring systems, I think an overall ranking with a built-in trade value scale for dynasty leagues would be next to impossible. I imagine I could take a stab at it if I had to, but there's really no incentive to put even more time and effort into something that probably wouldn't be all that useful."