Fantasy footballers on soundcloud.
Smash Jackson.
Fantasy Focus sucks now. It's 99% BS with 1% of analysis that is only skin deep. If you're already here on the forums, you know more than they tell you on that podcast.TZMarkie said:What this guy right here said. ^^
The only thing I don't like, is the growing trend that most podcasts seem to want to be "entertaining". Often you can skip right on past the first 8-10 minutes of any show.
I don't want entertainment. I want fantasy information and viewpoints.
I know some of you might like the more lighthearted or entertaining podcasts, but I don't listen for that.
Its not just the Footballers, its something that almost every podcast has been doing a bit more of in the last few years.
I know they are trying to appeal to the masses more, and its a money making process, but I am not interested in that.
I don't tune in for humor and jokes, I tune in strictly for fantasy information and viewpoints.
On that note - I think the best podcasts (over the years) were the older ESPN ones with Matthew Berry and Nate Ravitz. They just seemed to play off each other so well.
Once Nate Ravitz left, the ESPN podcasts have never been the same.
TZM
TryI've tried a couple of them lately and so Around the NFL and The Audible are my favorites while Dynasty Nerds is just purely annoying. I'll try some more in the next couple of days too. Thanks for the options everyone.
The DLF Filmetrx podcast provides NFL player analysis in a unique and balanced format. George Kritikos leverages his professional experience analyzing statistics and developing advanced metrics. He applies this to his love of football to identify advantageous trends and forecast player potential from an analytics perspective. Nick Whalen brings his experience as a college football coach and passion for analyzing player film to his search for promising prospects. Together George and Nick provide balanced perspectives and deep insights in an informative and thought provoking fantasy football podcast
I agree. I think people mostly like it because they have been listening for awhile (before there were so many pods) and like the personalities. Dave Richard is just awful though. His takes are so bad that even the host (Adam) who is not an expert has to constantly correct him on basic things.Know there aren't a lot of choices, but surprised the mostly positive reviews of cbs. I listen to almost everything and it's just so darn generic/common sense I can't enjoy it. Feels to me like the information is gleaned/averaged from other sources and repacked (poorly) hoping the name cbs can sell it.
I listen to CBS mostly because it's something to listen to during work and I don't mind the guys. The content is not all that great and it usually only seems like one guy knows what he's talking about.Ilov80s said:I agree. I think people mostly like it because they have been listening for awhile (before there were so many pods) and like the personalities. Dave Richard is just awful though. His takes are so bad that even the host (Adam) who is not an expert has to constantly correct him on basic things.
I like cbs for the rapport of the hosts, they are a nice and easy listen, and very reliable with consistent output, as I like to listen at lunch. I think there take is usually decent, but I just like to hear current podcasts without many sound effects and too much nonsense. I think Dave is pretty solid, he's been with Sig on the couch, and Jamey is underrated imho. Heath doesnt do much for me, but hes fine.Bonfire said:Know there aren't a lot of choices, but surprised the mostly positive reviews of cbs. I listen to almost everything and it's just so darn generic/common sense I can't enjoy it. Feels to me like the information is gleaned/averaged from other sources and repacked (poorly) hoping the name cbs can sell it.
I think Heath is actually the most modern fantasy player and he has a better sense of the current thinking among FF community. Dave is so bad. His arguments and comments are regularly torn about by the Adam who is just the host. All of Dave's arguments are (to steal from another podcaster, Chris Harris) crutch arguments.I like cbs for the rapport of the hosts, they are a nice and easy listen, and very reliable with consistent output, as I like to listen at lunch. I think there take is usually decent, but I just like to hear current podcasts without many sound effects and too much nonsense. I think Dave is pretty solid, he's been with Sig on the couch, and Jamey is underrated imho. Heath doesnt do much for me, but hes fine.
It's an easy listen like the old espn used to be, not major number crunching but a good overall fantasy podcast. Without too many mind numbing commercial interruptions.
i'm gonna check out some of these other suggestions.. thanks guys.
We can agree to disagree, I like Dave. Heath just doesn't do it for me.I think Heath is actually the most modern fantasy player and he has a better sense of the current thinking among FF community. Dave is so bad. His arguments and comments are regularly torn about by the Adam who is just the host. All of Dave's arguments are (to steal from another podcaster, Chris Harris) crutch arguments.
I can't disagree moreRotounderworld with Matt Kelley
The podcast, along with rankings, is a cheat code. You're playing from a disadvantage if you aren't listening
Picking Cam Meredith 2 weeks before anyone knew about him didn't work out for you? Do you have Treadwell or Kevin White on every team? (I'm mostly being sarcastic, but his hit rate was incredible last season.)I can't disagree more
Yeah he had a lot of big hits (misses too) but I like that he has a process and it's mostly based on research. The process isn't always right but he's not just throwing darts or following a heard. He gets top notch guests (Evan Silvia, JJ Zacharison, Chris Harris, etc.) so he's gained a lot of respect in the industry very quickly.Picking Cam Meredith 2 weeks before anyone knew about him didn't work out for you? Do you have Treadwell or Kevin White on every team? (I'm mostly being sarcastic, but his hit rate was incredible last season.)
I also appreciate the fact that he owns the show completely, which grants him the right to have a bit of an edge and non-muted personality. Very much in contrast with the CBS or ESPN talking heads.
He's also lost a lot of respect in the community due to how he conducts himself and attacking others in the industry.Ilov80s said:Yeah he had a lot of big hits (misses too) but I like that he has a process and it's mostly based on research. The process isn't always right but he's not just throwing darts or following a heard. He gets top notch guests (Evan Silvia, JJ Zacharison, Chris Harris, etc.) so he's gained a lot of respect in the industry very quickly.
Footballers are good, great production value but the info is targeted to the masses so it's pretty basic. Late Round Podcast is good. Episodes are short and completely on FF, no filler. He tackles bigger picture stuff and not just rehash of news, Rotounderworld is my favorite but there's a lot of schtick.
That doesn't bother me. Many of his takes on other analysts are accurate which is why people get so upset about it. The one analyst (don't know his name) who spam trade offers everyone in the league got mad that Matt called him out on Twitter about it? Boo hoo. The show definitely isn't for everyone, but I enjoy the edge he has and it's been very successful for him.He's also lost a lot of respect in the community due to how he conducts himself and attacking others in the industry.
"Attacking" seems a bit strong here. He calls people out, especially the ff giants like Matthew Berry and Mike Clay etc, for terrible takes. He mocks stale show scripts and the industry's over-reliance on 'watching game film' etc. Of course some people will be upset but imo he's generally not wrong in the critiques.He's also lost a lot of respect in the community due to how he conducts himself and attacking others in the industry.
Right, Marvin Jones was a good example of that last year. He had that red hot start and was the WR1 in fantasy. However, it was based on a huge game against the Packers where Detroit got down big early. The Packers defenders basically fell down or just lost sight of him and he scored 2 long TDs without much effort. There was no way he was going to keep anything close to that kind of pace.One annoying thing is that most fantasy podcasts don't seem to watch actual game tape. They just reference stats, but if you actually saw the tape then you know that things aren't necessarily black and white when it comes to the stats.
That was a nice get for the Footballers. I will be curious to see how the Reception/Perception data grows as he adds more receivers. Will it be effective at predicting more breakouts or WR decline? I know he hit very big on AR15 2 years ago. However, his Tyler Lockett tout for 2016 was a total dud.This isn't necessarily part of the podcast but one thing I love about the Footballers is that they have Matt Harmon's Reception Perception. I've found his info to be pretty helpful when looking at WRs.
I drafted Shepard late in my draft last year based on his data. Shepard wasn't a huge stud but was a nice late draft pick for me.That was a nice get for the Footballers. I will be curious to see how the Reception/Perception data grows as he adds more receivers. Will it be effective at predicting more breakouts or WR decline? I know he hit very big on AR15 2 years ago. However, his Tyler Lockett tout for 2016 was a total dud.
Can you give an example of a situation in which stats cannot measure what you see in game tape?One annoying thing is that most fantasy podcasts don't seem to watch actual game tape. They just reference stats, but if you actually saw the tape then you know that things aren't necessarily black and white when it comes to the stats.
I suppose it depends on what statistics they're looking at. If only looking at the end of year stats I would say that's a bad idea. Hopefully they are looking at stats by a per game basis. There are a lot of players that had decent end of year stats but the majority of those stats only came from a couple games, meaning they only helped in those couple games and didn't the rest of the season.Can you give an example of a situation in which stats cannot measure what you see in game tape?
How can you reconcile the fact that 5 different tape grinders can reach 5 varying conclusions based on the same game film? The idea of preferring analysis based on what someone thinks they saw, over actual measurable statistics is very odd to me. Seems a very outdated concept given how we analyze and talk about basically every other sport in 2017
What year is this, 2005?I suppose it depends on what statistics they're looking at. If only looking at the end of year stats I would say that's a bad idea. Hopefully they are looking at stats by a per game basis. There are a lot of players that had decent end of year stats but the majority of those stats only came from a couple games, meaning they only helped in those couple games and didn't the rest of the season.
Visually watching (for the purpose of evaluation) players tells the whole story. With running backs it's especially important because of the schemes they face and their team uses. It also shows how well the OL did. Even something as simple as "plays vs a stacked (7 or 8+) box" can be deceiving because is that LBs or nickels, are they immediately bailing just to disguise a front, and so on.Can you give an example of a situation in which stats cannot measure what you see in game tape?
How can you reconcile the fact that 5 different tape grinders can reach 5 varying conclusions based on the same game film? The idea of preferring analysis based on what someone thinks they saw, over actual measurable statistics is very odd to me. Seems a very outdated concept given how we analyze and talk about basically every other sport in 2017
I get the merit in understanding what's happening schematically (etc) on a particular play, and agree that a massive amount of nuance does exist in evaluating prospects. But to me that's even more reason to lean on the stats. I don't think we, as humans, are particularly adept at ignoring preconceived notions/expectations of players and being objective about what we're watching. What's the first thing you think of when you hear that a rb is over 6' tall?Visually watching (for the purpose of evaluation) players tells the whole story. With running backs it's especially important because of the schemes they face and their team uses. It also shows how well the OL did. Even something as simple as "plays vs a stacked (7 or 8+) box" can be deceiving because is that LBs or nickels, are they immediately bailing just to disguise a front, and so on.
You mention stats in being advanced for every other sport but football is different because it involves 22 on the field at once plus lots of teams have open stadiums which add the weather elements to the equation. Also, when you add in the sprint and stop nature of 22 players that puts more weight on play calling than any other sport.
It's not to say that each aspect can't be broken down and added into some formula but the correlation of each individual event is equal on a given play, never mind trying to expand it out over an entire season.
When you watch a play you see this all. Entry level scouts are there not to evaluate but to compress what they see for the actual evaluators. Yes, there can be 5 different evaluations from 5 different people from the game tape but those are evaluations. The same can be done with happen with evaluation through stats. The film and the advanced stats are the same but it's the value/weight that each person puts on specific aspects that will cause varying evaluations or opinions.
I think maybe you and I are slightly off topic since we are in a podcast thread. I don't want to clog it up anymore. Start a "Watching Film is Barbaric, Stats are our Savior" or something (maybe a little less grandiose) and we can get into this more.I get the merit in understanding what's happening schematically (etc) on a particular play, and agree that a massive amount of nuance does exist in evaluating prospects. But to me that's even more reason to lean on the stats. I don't think we, as humans, are particularly adept at ignoring preconceived notions/expectations of players and being objective about what we're watching. What's the first thing you think of when you hear that a rb is over 6' tall?
We also tend to overrate "exciting" plays too much. The Marion Barber Effect. We see a stocky bowling ball of a rb running through people, dreads bouncing, carrying fools to the end zone, and we instantly overrate him, and anyone who shares a similar style to him and happens to have dreads. I don't mean you specifically but that ####ty comp resonates throughout the fantasy community.
an example of a stat that is widely quoted but I don't particularly care for:
- yards after contact - punishes runners who evade tackles rather than breaking through contact. Further, the top yac players every year are based on outlier-type plays where someone breaks one tackle at the line or on a screen and runs otherwise untouched for 80 yards.
That is a great thread title. You should start a "Tape Grinders Matter" thread.I think maybe you and I are slightly off topic since we are in a podcast thread. I don't want to clog it up anymore. Start a "Watching Film is Barbaric, Stats are our Savior" or something (maybe a little less grandiose) and we can get into this more.
That doesn't bother me. Many of his takes on other analysts are accurate which is why people get so upset about it. The one analyst (don't know his name) who spam trade offers everyone in the league got mad that Matt called him out on Twitter about it? Boo hoo. The show definitely isn't for everyone, but I enjoy the edge he has and it's been very successful for him.
I strongly disagree with that. I listen to a few different podcasts and always try to get opinions from a variety of sources.I guess nobody else can have another opinion of Matt Kelley then
I'm saying in here....nobody can have another opinion of him in here. Two people disregarded it and put him on a pedestal.I strongly disagree with that. I listen to a few different podcasts and always try to get opinions from a variety of sources.