This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Can we have a little more consistancy on player value across the site

1 post in this topic

I know that there are different people working at FBG, and there will be slight differences in opinion, but many times opinions are so varied that it makes decisions harder to make rather than easier (which is why most people subscribe). For instance, this week Mike Thomas is listed as the #37 (non-PPR) and #30 (PPR) WR in the top 200 forward. His cheatsheet ranking for this week is #25 WR. However, when you click his name and go to his player page the "Upgrade/downgrade/waiver" comment says that he is worth dropping in most leagues. Those rankings pretty much mean that he is a must roster player in most leagues, and a must start in leagues that start 3 WR and a bye week start in leagues that start 2 WR. That is far from dropable.

Essentially one area/tool is contradicting others. I have seen things like this many times, but finally decided to say something. Articles are one thing, but the main tools on the site need to be in closer agreement. There needs to be some consensus/coordination on things like that. There is a huge difference between a starter ranking and a player being dropable. When I click on the link on a page that says he is top 30 going forward, I expect the player page to elaborate on why he is top 30. When I instead see that he is worth dropping, what am I to believe? How am I supposed to make a decision? Those contradictions makes me have to go elsewhere for information, and I shouldn't have to.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.