Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
neverfox

Growing impatient for coherent commentary

Recommended Posts

Sun September 20, 6:38 PM Curtis Samuel totals six touches

Carolina Panthers WR Curtis Samuel rushed four times for 26 yards in Week 2 against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and he added two receptions for 13 yards on his only two targets.

Footballguys view: Samuel appears to be the odd man out in the Panthers passing game with Robby Anderson and DJ Moore both getting enough targets to equal many teams #1 receiver. He's not worth carrying in typical leagues.

Thu September 24, 6:50 PM OC wants Curtis Samuel more involved

Carolina Panthers WR Curtis Samuel is expected to be more involved because 'good things happen when the ball is in his hands,' according to offensive coordinator Joe Brady.

Footballguys view: Samuel could get some more touches out of the backfield to help replace Christian McCaffrey in addition to the short receptions as a wide receiver that set him up for run after catch opportunities. Check and see if he was dropped by an impatient fantasy GM.

🤔 So was Footballguys impatient? The "guys" might want to get on the same page if they're going to release commentary under one banner. I see this kind of thing a lot. I get that there's a team of folks with different takes responding to new information but when it's presented as the official consensus and contradicts itself, it's extremely frustrating. Would have been better to say "Well, we might have been rash earlier this week and it looks like Samuel may see more production," rather than implying that someone who might have followed their own advice would be an impatient GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is been mentioned in the past and something I’ve seen too. I usually skip the commentary as it rarely has any meat to it. What you’re suggesting (we may have been rash) has also been suggested in the past. Based on the response then, you’re dreaming if you think they’d ever offer some kind of a “we might have been wrong” statement.
This is very much a “pay for what you get” situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this is the "landscape" where prognostication is concerned. Everything is written in pencil and the eraser is following closely behind to remove any trace of anything that might have aged badly. We used to get weather forecasts. Now we have apps that update every five minutes and are therefore never wrong.

Edited by habsfan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess i don't aee the issue here since it is YOU that has the final say on roster changes.  Not to mention, the fantasy landscape in Carilina changed SIGNIFICANTLY between the first and last posts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can appreciate your frustration but it is up to us to make the final decision on these things as best we can with the info provided.  I mean who saw Dobbins for Balt. getting two touches last week???

In the end we read some facts & a lot of opinions on players & go from there.

good luck!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I see what you are saying. Perhaps this is a nice way of saying maybe our previous take was too impatient concerning him and maybe it was for others as well. Things have changed now.

In the context of this, all reports were that Samuel was having a lackluster training camp. So without the injury to CMC no reason to think he might see an uptick in opportunity. That changed and they are acknowledging that people may not have been anticipating that and should reconsider Samuel based on the new information.

I could be patiently waiting for nothing otherwise. Maybe Samuel doesn't do much more than he would have with CMC healthy. We just don't know do we? Instead we make the best guess we can based on the information we have at the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biabreakable said:

Instead we make the best guess we can based on the information we have at the time.

This. No one - FBG included - can predict what happens. You just have to make your own assessment on what’s out there and trust your gut. More often than not, unfortunately, it doesn’t work out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies everyone. Of course the decisions we make are ours. But this is also a paid product that you pay for to help with those decisions (and in some cases you're paying because you don't always want to follow the minutia that closely because life etc.) and I think there's a legitimate improvement that could be had with some continuity checks. I certainly don't think they shouldn't make the best adjustments to new information. Just don't sell it like it was a bad to think otherwise before the new information, as in this case. Another example is that players will be highly ranked in forecasts then have commentary that's harshly more negative than players forecast much lower. That's just confusing and it seems like that should all hang together more coherently. I'm a long time subscriber so I mean my criticism to be constructive.

Edited by neverfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, my OP wasn't saying that they should predict the future better, that forecasting is error-free, or that they shouldn't incorporate new information. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as it could have been.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, neverfox said:

Thanks for the replies everyone. Of course the decisions we make are ours. But this is also a paid product that you pay for to help with those decisions (and in some cases you're paying because you don't always want to follow the minutia that closely because life etc.) and I think there's a legitimate improvement that could be had with some continuity checks. I certainly don't think they shouldn't make the best adjustments to new information. Just don't sell it like it was a bad to think otherwise before the new information, as in this case. Another example is that players will be highly ranked in forecasts then have commentary that's harshly more negative than players forecast much lower. That's just confusing and it seems like that should all hang together more coherently. I'm a long time subscriber so I mean my criticism to be constructive.

The daily emails are free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, neverfox said:

Again, my OP wasn't saying that they should predict the future better, that forecasting is error-free, or that they shouldn't incorporate new information. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as it could have been.

So what was the OP saying? Because I read it as a combination of those things. 

I still don’t see the difference between the original complaint & reading 20 random posts by board denizens. They’re all just, like, opinions, maaaan. 

I see the FBG update changing with the situation. In the 1st they're correctly identifying a lack of use. In the next they’re speculating that usage might increase based on OC comments + CMC absence.

I guess I’m not sure I understand where the contradiction is. Time advances. Situations change. We all age. I just lost 3 mins in this topic, for example. 👀 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah agree with HSG I don’t see much of a contradiction in this example. The first post was written as post game wrap up before fully knowing extent of CMC injury and then 2nd takes that into account along with the OC comments.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, perbach said:

Not to mention, the fantasy landscape in Carilina changed SIGNIFICANTLY between the first and last posts.

"Samuel could get some more touches out of the backfield to help replace Christian McCaffrey in addition to the short receptions as a wide receiver that set him up for run after catch opportunities."

They literally give you the reason for why there was a turn around in outlook.

I get the over all sentiment -- I think with the rise of FF info everywhere, content is getting thinner, more repetitive/nothing truly new or analytical as opposed to the same "hot takes" you see everywhere. 

I don't think FBG is immune to this as I think the content has thinned in quality a little since their incorporating DFS analysis, but still far better insight than most. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, neverfox said:

 

🤔 So was Footballguys impatient?

No but some GMs that may have followed their advice may have been or maybe they weren’t.

I don’t think what you did or didn’t do with Curtis Samuel is going to matter much and I don’t think there’s quite the shame you’re imaging. At the time dropping Samuel seemed to be good advice. Now they’re saying pick him up if you have room. Where’s the big “got ya”?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's been said, but I think it bares repeating - when an offense's focal point goes on ir basically everything you said about that offense previously gets thrown out the window.

Don't be so impatient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bares repeating? Is that like a softcore sequel?

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Bares repeating? Is that like a softcore sequel?

I treat these kinds of things as a French benefit of coming to the forums.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

I treat these kinds of things as a French benefit of coming to the forums.

wgoldsph is top notch. Surprised and delighted to see a fun malaprop come from him. Then again, I actually got corrected on usage the other day and I was indeed totally wrong about the use of a word. I guess one man's French benefit is another man's Freedom Fries. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

I treat these kinds of things as a French benefit of coming to the forums.

I love the network effect of coming to these boards and sharing our opinions, views, and prognostications. 

It's spreads the knowledge, encourages wisdom of the crowds, and as a result, helps us and all our GBs here.

In that way we're all friends with benefits.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand and agree. The update after CMC's injury status was known reads as though only an impatient GM would have dropped Samuel, despite the prior determination that Samuel was not worth carrying on rosters. Free email or otherwise, it's not a great look to tell someone a player is not worth holding then imply they were rash to have dropped him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So what was the OP saying? Because I read it as a combination of those things. 

I still don’t see the difference between the original complaint & reading 20 random posts by board denizens. They’re all just, like, opinions, maaaan. 

I see the FBG update changing with the situation. In the 1st they're correctly identifying a lack of use. In the next they’re speculating that usage might increase based on OC comments + CMC absence.

I guess I’m not sure I understand where the contradiction is. Time advances. Situations change. We all age. I just lost 3 mins in this topic, for example. 👀 

It’s a little nit picky but as the OP points out the use of the word impatient is essentially criticizing people that followed the original advice. If you say a player isn’t worth carrying why refer to someone that drops him as impatient? I don’t think it’s a big deal, it’s just unnecessary.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, neverfox said:

Sun September 20, 6:38 PM Curtis Samuel totals six touches

Carolina Panthers WR Curtis Samuel rushed four times for 26 yards in Week 2 against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and he added two receptions for 13 yards on his only two targets.

Footballguys view: Samuel appears to be the odd man out in the Panthers passing game with Robby Anderson and DJ Moore both getting enough targets to equal many teams #1 receiver. He's not worth carrying in typical leagues.

Thu September 24, 6:50 PM OC wants Curtis Samuel more involved

Carolina Panthers WR Curtis Samuel is expected to be more involved because 'good things happen when the ball is in his hands,' according to offensive coordinator Joe Brady.

Footballguys view: Samuel could get some more touches out of the backfield to help replace Christian McCaffrey in addition to the short receptions as a wide receiver that set him up for run after catch opportunities. Check and see if he was dropped by an impatient fantasy GM.

🤔 So was Footballguys impatient? The "guys" might want to get on the same page if they're going to release commentary under one banner. I see this kind of thing a lot. I get that there's a team of folks with different takes responding to new information but when it's presented as the official consensus and contradicts itself, it's extremely frustrating. Would have been better to say "Well, we might have been rash earlier this week and it looks like Samuel may see more production," rather than implying that someone who might have followed their own advice would be an impatient GM.

So you'd prefer they don't change their commentary when the landscape changes?  How many points do you want them to project for Barkley this week?  I think 15.6 would be perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 10:00 PM, Hankmoody said:

So you'd prefer they don't change their commentary when the landscape changes?  How many points do you want them to project for Barkley this week?  I think 15.6 would be perfect.

Did you actually read what I said or any of the clarifying comments? Look at the two posts right before yours. They did.

On 9/26/2020 at 12:12 PM, I-ROK said:

The daily emails are free

Yes, and if there was no way such a thing could possibly say something about the coherence of their paid content also, you'd have a point.

Want another example of the kind of thing I'm talking about? Right now, Darrell Henderson is described as "a desperation play bench stash" and DAndre Swift as a "a fine flex play". What are the FBG PPR projections for these two for the rest of the season? 10.23/ppg and 9.95/ppg respectively. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing sometimes. I neither own nor plan to own either player. Just an observation and just a product review, pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, neverfox said:


Want another example of the kind of thing I'm talking about? Right now, Darrell Henderson is described as "a desperation play bench stash" and DAndre Swift as a "a fine flex play". What are the FBG PPR projections for these two for the rest of the season? 10.23/ppg and 9.95/ppg respectively. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing sometimes. I neither own nor plan to own either player. Just an observation and just a product review, pure and simple.

Have you considered not reading analysis you consistently disagree with? 

Certainly less taxing than complaining about it. 

that’s what I do. There are plenty of rankings I disagree with. I read it & move on, confident in my own assessment. Because that’s an option. 

:shrug:
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, neverfox said:

Yes, and if there was no way such a thing could possibly say something about the coherence of their paid content also, you'd have a point.
 

Ironic. Criticizing “coherence” and you write that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said they disagreed with themselves. FBG is more useful than not in doing leg work I don't always have time to do. It's a tool among many. But what exactly is taxing about giving honest feedback when you see things that could be improved in a product you've supported for years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 8:11 PM, rockaction said:

wgoldsph is top notch. Surprised and delighted to see a fun malaprop come from him. Then again, I actually got corrected on usage the other day and I was indeed totally wrong about the use of a word. I guess one man's French benefit is another man's Freedom Fries. 

I can't believe I didn't see this for weeks.  You're top notch too buddy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Folks. Having multiple voices is one of our strengths but also one of our challenges.

For the Daily Email Update where this came from, that's written by Cecil Lammey, Sigmund Bloom and myself. 

Our rest of year projections are by Bob Henry.

Our Weekly projections are by David Dodds, Sigmund Bloom and Maurile Tremblay.

So we have several voices.

Our bottom line, plant the flag position is the FBG Consensus view for projections each week. 

My job, as owner, is to present a unified FBG voice as best we can. We sometimes miss on that. 

If you see something where it looks like we're conflicting, please tag me here and we can take a look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks Folks. Having multiple voices is one of our strengths but also one of our challenges.

For the Daily Email Update where this came from, that's written by Cecil Lammey, Sigmund Bloom and myself. 

Our rest of year projections are by Bob Henry.

Our Weekly projections are by David Dodds, Sigmund Bloom and Maurile Tremblay.

So we have several voices.

Our bottom line, plant the flag position is the FBG Consensus view for projections each week. 

My job, as owner, is to present a unified FBG voice as best we can. We sometimes miss on that. 

If you see something where it looks like we're conflicting, please tag me here and we can take a look. 

Just curious - how does a person find a career writing for a fantasy football publication like the one you run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wgoldsph said:

Just curious - how does a person find a career writing for a fantasy football publication like the one you run?

Step one is you need to be one of Joes favorites lol

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wgoldsph said:

Just curious - how does a person find a career writing for a fantasy football publication like the one you run?

Great question. The unfortunate answer is there isn't any real short cuts. It's a long process of showing you bring value. Our latest staff hire was Chris Allen. He built his reputation up for a long time on twitter and other sites. 

Twitter is a great place to do that. This message board is a great place to do that. Basically anywhere you can have a public presence and show that you bring value. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Great question. The unfortunate answer is there isn't any real short cuts. It's a long process of showing you bring value. Our latest staff hire was Chris Allen. He built his reputation up for a long time on twitter and other sites. 

Twitter is a great place to do that. This message board is a great place to do that. Basically anywhere you can have a public presence and show that you bring value. 

 

Also to add. Matthew Berry's column on this is still good. https://www.espn.com/fantasy/football/story/_/page/TMR141120/matthew-berry-love-hate-list-sleepers-busts-best-starts-sits-fantasy-football-week-12

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Growing impatient for coherent commentary"

 

What a great thread title.  Spans several forums in it's accuracy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.