Similar to the RotoSource findings, the QB and RB positions continued to grade out very well in my analysis. Now it is time to check WR and TE.

Wide Receivers/Tight Ends

The complete list ranges from Bernard Berrian as the most under-projected WR to Randy Moss as the most over-projected WR, and similarly Desmond Clark to Erron Kinney in the TE table.

In the QB analysis we cut down the list to only include projected starting QB at the start of the 2006 regular season. For RB, players who were projected and scored less than 60 fantasy points were removed from the list. The point at which we decided if players were over-projected, under-projected or on the mark was +/- 40 fantasy points for both QB and RB.

Now we are on WR and TE, I realize the 60/40 numbers may not be appropriate for these positions, since in general these positions score less than QB and RB in our FF Today Default (standard performance) Scoring. The following chart shows the fantasy points for the 1st, 12th, 24th, 36th, 48th and 60th ranked players at each of these 4 positions, every 12 spots being significant for a fictional 12 team league.

Assuming a starting lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, the starters are highlighted, plus 1 backup at each of QB and TE, and 2 backups for each of RB and WR. This would be a fairly common roster makeup for that starting lineup.

In looking at players of significance at which point we filter our complete projections vs. actual stat lists, 60 points looks about right for RB and WR. The last backup scores just above 60 points, so at 60 and less those represent essentially players that are not drafted. For QB, we filtered at the projected opening day starters. For TE, I'm going to keep the cutoff at 60 points, which was actually between the 14th and 15th ranked TE. The reason is because beyond this number, the TE are very low impact and interchangeable. It will be a small list but a 60 cutoff should give us a much more relevant TE list to analyze.

As for the +/- 40 point barrier used to determine the over-projected, under-projected and on the mark ranges, 40 seems excessive for WR and TE based on these numbers. I've decreased it to +/- 20 which gives us a similar margin of error percentage as used for QB and RB. Can Krueger project the WR and TE within 20 points of their actual stats, which is less than 1.5 points per week? That sure seems like a tough task. Let's see how he did.

Under-projected:

On The Mark:

Over-projected:

Wow, if we were still using +/-40 points, then there would be an additional 28 players in the on the mark range for WR. Some of these over and under-projected seem harsh. Terrell Owens just falls into the under-projected range. Projected 82-1,140-10 and finished with 85-1,180-13. A difference of 3 catches, 40 yards and 3 TD. Now that's some close projecting! The number of TD, which is one of the toughest things to project year over year and scores 6 points a pop, have a major impact on the difference column.

Unlike QB and RB, there is much wider variety of reasons for WR disparity in the projections vs. actual results, from injury (Larry Fitzgerald, David Givens) to poor play (Chris Chambers, Troy Williamson) to exceptional play (Marques Colston, Jerricho Cotchery) to poor quarterbacking (Randy Moss, Santana Moss) to poor attitude (Jerry Porter, Eric Moulds) to finding the end zone more (Chris Henry, Vincent Jackson). This all goes with the nature of the position that WR, with fewer opportunities per game to even things out, is more unpredictable than QB and RB.

As for the TE position, I'm about ready to give Krueger an A+ right now. Every one of his top 9 projected TE, from Antonio Gates to Randy McMichael, landed within +/- 20 of their projected fantasy points. Only 2 of significance were under-projected for the year, Kellen Winslow and Desmond Clark. Heath Miller and Ben Troupe were the highest projected TE who were over-projected by 20 or more fantasy points, but you would have been drafting them 10th or 11th TE off the board, and therefore likely had fairly low expectations of performance at that point.

Players That Matter

The meat of our analysis in this series is identifying and grading the players that matter - the players projected +/- 5 ranking spots from their ADP.

As it turns out there are no TE who fall within this range, except then-rookie Vernon Davis who Krueger's projections had him just under the 60 point barrier (59.6) and ranked him out at 19th amongst TE. His ADP ranked him the 13th TE off the board. Got to love the upside of those rookies! Davis' actual stats worked out to 44.5 fantasy points, a difference of 15.1 from the projections and a good projection for Krueger as he steered FF Today users away from drafting Davis.

Here is the table for WR:

This table includes 35 players who fell +/- 5 spots from their ADP. Similar to my comments about the RB players that matter, some of these players are projected low, drafted low, ended up with low actual stats and didn't really have a major impact on many fantasy teams in 2006. These would be players such as Bobby Engram, Corey Bradford, Joe Jurevicius and Amani Toomer. Players that are drafted as backup fantasy players and performed as backups, easily transitioned back and forth from active roster to free agency throughout the fantasy season. If you drafted any of these guys as players you counted on last year, then my suggestion would be to invest some earlier draft picks in the WR position this year.

Then there are players that really matter. Players projected and drafted high who have an impact on your fantasy team because you did count on significant contributions from them. Players such as Donald Driver, Joey Galloway and Roy Williams.

In the interest of not splitting hairs though, all the players that met our 60 point barrier and landed on this list get graded the same way, but as you can see some grades do count for more than others. Combining the above tables, here are the players that matter at WR and whether they fell in the under-projected, over-projected or on the mark category, and were then assessed as either good or bad projections.

Overall, 18 good projections and 17 bad projections for a nearly 50-50 split. For interest sake, I looked at just the players projected in the top 25, which would be most relevant for a 12 team, start 2 WR league, and it was a similar 5-4 split for the good side.

Best Projection

There may be some personal bias here, but I'm going with Donald Driver as Krueger's best WR projection of 2006. I drafted at the bottom of the order in a lot of my drafts last year, 10th, 11th or 12th in mostly 12 team leagues. What this meant was Driver, averaging the 14th WR off the board, would make it back to me in the late-3rd or early-4th round. It got me antsy waiting to see if he would make it since he stood out like a beacon all alone on my WR cheatsheet in Draft Buddy ranked 5th while all the WR around him were already drafted. Make it he did to be drafted as my WR1 or WR2 in many leagues. He finished within 7.4 fantasy points of that high projection, and it paid dividends big time last year. Thank you Mike.

All the top TE projections were so good its tough to pick one best one. Perhaps Vernon Davis for not buying into the unrealized hype, but also Todd Heap sticks out. A projection of 69-815-6 turned into actual stats of 73-765-6, a difference of only 4 catches for 50 yards on the season.

Worst Projection

There may be some personal bias here... (wink). Krueger wasn't the only one around projecting a breakout season from Matt Jones, super athlete college QB turned WR. Someone on the Jacksonville Jaguars, a good, solid, potentially playoff bound team, was going to step up and wow us at the WR position in 2006, right? Apparently not, as none of Jones, Reggie Williams or Ernest Wilford broke 650 yards receiving. Jones did lead the trio in fantasy points, started off the season with good target numbers, but then missed a couple games and was relegated to non-starting status doing little to nothing until he finally found the end zone in 4 of the final 6 weeks. Too little, too late, and a ways off a projected 1,000+ yard and 7 TD season. At a projected rank of 14th and ADP of 25th, many FF Today users likely drafted Matt Jones in 2006.

At TE, Krueger went conservative with Kellen Winslow but Winslow exceeded the projections by 37 catches and 310 yards (25 fantasy points), and landing him ranked 6th amongst TE using FF Today Default Scoring. Krueger projected Winslow 13th while ADP had him the 11th TE. While that difference is minimal, if I have to pick one TE as a worst projection I'll hang it on Winslow.

Wide Receiver and Tight End Overall Grade

WR grade out very similar to QB, which earned a B. The TE projections graded out extremely good for an A. Average these out and we have a solid B+ for these combined positions.

Final Thoughts

This was an interesting exercise to work through. It started out as a process for FF Today to show appropriate accountability about its pre-season player projections. It turned into a strong reinforcement for me that Mike Krueger does a heck of a job.

In all honesty, the way I assessed the under-projected, over-projected and on the mark categories of players, plus assessed good vs. bad projections, I feel is a very critical way to judge the projections. Look back at some of the detailed projections vs. actual stats of these players, even players who fell beyond the borders of the on the mark categories. He was extremely close on so many players it is uncanny.

Sure there are going to be hits, and there are going to be misses every year. If it was easy predicting this stuff, then fantasy football would get boring pretty fast. What I like to see is someone who puts their neck out there a little bit while picking his spots to do so, being more right than wrong in the process. We've got that at FF Today, and accountability. Now we just need some similar accountability from other fantasy football websites for a true test comparison. The ball is in their court...