I'd argue that depending on your situation, stage of the draft etc, that a perceived more valuable player based on your rankings may not be the most valuable player for my roster. They may have a better spread across all categories, but if I have a different strategy and feel can structure my squad in a different way, then perhaps a more offensive player has more value. So, if I were to use your FHG rankings as guidance, I may dispute some of them. Value can go beyond just the straight numbers.
I know and respect that you are trying to come up with a system to keep this distinct, as it can help others gauge players and their contributions across the board to give them a specific value, or FHG number/ranking. I feel that it's not as clear cut as just assigning a number on someone (based on a set of conditions) and say that player x is more valuable than player y. Maybe the number is not as necessary in general (regardless of conditions), rather just list players using a set of categories based on strength/value and let us determine who we consider valuable. I don't know, might defeat the purpose of the rankings, but just trying to look at it from a different perspective.
That's just my opinion on how I value players. It's the reason I've debated some of Terry's earlier articles on assigning value to a player based on their FHG number. For example, having a 18th ranked FHG doesn't mean the player is the 18th most valuable in the league. It means he's 18th given the conditions set out to create that value, without considering how others may perceive the importance on specific categories. To others depending on how they evaluate based on categories and strategy, he could be 30th, 50th or even 70th (just random numbers, no specific player in mind). But any of those numbers could be irrelevant as it's highly situational.
Anyway, it's a good discussion and happy to contribute to it by highlighting a different perspective. It would be boring if we all agreed.