ESPN Makes 28 Factual Errors in their Fantasy Guide

Lmaoo this is awsum... some guy found 28 errors in ESPN's fantasy guide like listing players twice and calling Greg Jones "Greg Smith."

WalterFootball.com: 2008 ESPN Fantasy Football Magazine: 28 Factual Errors, Omissions and Illogical Statements (http://walterfootball.com/espnfantasy.php)

I expected more from ESPN, but I'm glad he pointed these mistakes out. Lollll

That's funny! How does that crap make it to print??

A blind editor?

I blame SmootSmack.


I am WAY too busy today to be on the Interwebs.

Doesn't their fantasy material come from Scouts, Inc? Those guys are awful, just awful!

Under quarterbacks, ESPN has Aaron Rodgers 17th and Jason Campbell 18th. I like Rodgers more than that, but whatever; I'm not really going to argue rankings.

But here's the weird part: They gave Rodgers 2,620 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 picks. For Campbell, they projected 3,410 yards, 194 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

Umm... what the heck does ESPN base its rankings on? Why rank Player B lower than Player A, if you're predicting better stats for Player B? We already knew that ESPN loves to hire people who can't use grammar correctly. Apparently, they've brought in some writers who are mathematically challenged as well.

Under quarterbacks, ESPN has Aaron Rodgers 17th and Jason Campbell 18th. I like Rodgers more than that, but whatever; I'm not really going to argue rankings.

But here's the weird part: They gave Rodgers 2,620 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 picks. For Campbell, they projected 3,410 yards, 194 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

Umm... what the heck does ESPN base its rankings on? Why rank Player B lower than Player A, if you're predicting better stats for Player B? We already knew that ESPN loves to hire people who can't use grammar correctly. Apparently, they've brought in some writers who are mathematically challenged as well.

So, apparently there are no other stats than passing yards, TD's and picks? This really bothered me when he said this, it's not probable and I don't think it will happen, but those 2 could have those stats and it wouldn't be a statistical impossibility that Rodgers has more points for the season. Like I said, I don't think it will happen, but there are leagues where you can lose points for fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks.

That would mean that Campbell would have to lose about 32 points because of fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks. (that's based on my league) Will it happen? Probably not, but it's not impossible...@$$

All that said, just because they have projections doesn't mean that they don't consider things like upside, so maybe ESPN thinks Rodgers has more upside next season than Campbell.

I used to like this guy, but if you're going to correct people, you'd better be sure you're right. He makes his disdain for ESPN pretty clear before he gets into the article, but some of his points were a little weak.

So, apparently there are no other stats than passing yards, TD's and picks? This really bothered me when he said this, it's not probable and I don't think it will happen, but those 2 could have those stats and it wouldn't be a statistical impossibility that Rodgers has more points for the season. Like I said, I don't think it will happen, but there are leagues where you can lose points for fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks.

That would mean that Campbell would have to lose about 32 points because of fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks. (that's based on my league) Will it happen? Probably not, but it's not impossible...@$$

All that said, just because they have projections doesn't mean that they don't consider things like upside, so maybe ESPN thinks Rodgers has more upside next season than Campbell.

I used to like this guy, but if you're going to correct people, you'd better be sure you're right. He makes his disdain for ESPN pretty clear before he gets into the article, but some of his points were a little weak.

impossible you say?

what about rodger's 43 tackles, or campbells 14 fumbles?

improbable is more like it.

J.T. O'Sullivan a sleeper? Oh snap, that's amongst the most hilarious things I've ever heard.

ESPN's proof reader obviously didn't do his job, if they even had a proof reader that is. That tells me the guide was done hodge podge at the last minute. Just pure laziness.

My guess was they used some half-assed computerized ranking system to order their players, and that same system to project stats. How else would a guy who's done for the year be projected to catch 21 passes? What a joke. I've always thought their fantasy magazine was a bunch of unreaserched fluff. This proves it. I know next to nothing about compiling, editing, and printing a magazine, but I would say the man hours that went into this one weren't very significant.