*** FBG Complaint Thread *** (1 Viewer)

[messinwithu]

If you were able to update the individual player pages as the year went along and added dynasty value on the pages from the beginning it would be a great help. An example would be Brandon Marshall - the information under outlook still says about value will increase if they get rid of Lelie (I know it was from preseason) but it would be great to see that kind of information updated after the 1st 4 games then after 8 games (or if their situation changes) and say how the player is developing during the season. There are several threads that the information is being posted by the staff so why not update players page so that we could look someone up and have your most recent thoughts about those players. A good example would have been Reggie when he started out slow and how his season has changed. I know that I have seen staff on several occasions posting information about his situation and his outlook but it would be much easier to check on his player page and get you latest thoughts. Searching for Reggie or Bush brings up so many posts where teams have him listed at the bottom of the page on their roster. It has come to the point that searching for player information has become a waste of time.

Some guys could use a spell check on the message board.

 

[kal-el]

Game logs for team defenses would be fantastic. In most leagues, defenses can be the key to victory in most weeks. Having easy access to data on their performance over the course of the season would be very useful.

That's (IMHO of course) a good idea. I created an Excel spreadsheet to track how "giving" each team in the league has been in fantasy points terms throughout the season, and though I've had to input the results each week to keep it current, it's been very useful to me in strategizing about which D I might want to pick up off of waivers for next week, or even the week after. Something along these lines should be fairly simple to code, and would provide useful info to subscribers.The suggestion that follows is solely based on my own beliefs regarding the proper presentation of information to make it more useful to a "consumer", viewed from the perspective of a software developer who has been working with similar presentation issues for some 30+ years now. This perspective isn't infallible, but it might be worth thinking about, and it's offered free of charge. Often in various articles reference is made to facts such as "team x is ranked 29th in rushing TD's given up", but finding the rankings to back that up isn't as easy as it could be. The info may well be online, but it isn't always presented in a manner that is easily scanned and understood. The tendency to try to make the info "presentable" on the web page often can make the information harder to digest, spreading it out vertically, with the result being that the headings for every single bit of data have scrolled off the page long before you reach the point where you're looking at the info related to the particular team you might be looking for. (Kickermania comes to mind as a prime example of this). That makes interpretation much more difficult, because you're having to "remember" which column represents what (since you can't just glance up at the column headers), and that's very distracting in itself. An approach that goes a long way towards addressing that deficiency is to spread out the same info horizontally across (ideally) one line per team, with the option of clicking on column headings to sort the displayed info based on the data in each column. To the extent that it is possible to provide this sort of presentation as either a replacement presentation or an optional one (the best solution, but harder to code), I'm of the opinion that it would make FBG's "product" far easier for the typical user to make use of.

One more related suggestion: Provide customizable cheatsheets for team defenses. There's probably the highest level of variation in scoring systems for the team defense position. Would be nice to be able to easily calculate how the projections translate to our individual scoring systems.

 

[Scrap Iron]

No complaints. Just suggestions:

I think this is mentioned above, but I'll second it ... Include an option for customizing Top 250 Forward to league settings similar to Custom Cheatsheets.

Regarding the concept of staff consensus projections, I think the average FBG should be careful what he asks for. Dodds' projections have been treating most of us pretty good. Why rock the boat? If you do go to a consensus format, make sure it includes separate projections for each contributing staff member as well. That way, if someone wants to stick mainly with Dodds' (or any other staffer's) projections, they'll be able to do it.

Subscriber forum - tough call whether this would be successful or not. Some days, you have to wade through a lot of garbage to find useful information in a post/forum. Are most of the "quality" posts coming from subscribers or is it evenly mixed with non-subscribers? If subscribers seem to be the best contributors, maybe a Subscriber forum would not be a bad idea. You could do it on a trial basis.

 

[PsychoMan]

SUGGESTION

What about adding some kind of risk & reward factor to the football guy projections? Maybe it's already used in the formula to determine the projects, but I would like to see how football guys evaluates the risk of the weekly plays.

For instance, two players might be projected for 10.2 points. PlayerA may consistently put up between 7-13 points where PlayerB is known to have bigger games, but is coming off an injury or something. The risk and reward is much greater for PlayerB, but that will be more or less attractive to me depending on what exactly I'm looking to get out of playing this player.

I think this could be very very useful in determining who to play. One week, I had a choice between 5 tight ends that were within .2 points projected. In this case, the projections don't do me any good, but looking at the risk & reward of the play may help me in my decision.

 

[BassNBrew]

1. This is probably my biggest complaint particularly as, outside of the Shark Pool, I think it's also FBG most important, high-profile service. The Cheatsheets and the Rushing/Passing matchups are insufficient, fundamentally flawed and/or counter-intuitive. As much respect as Dodds gets for all the work he does (well deserved), the Cheatsheets are the opinion of one man and as a result, occasionally wildly wrong. The adage "two heads are better than one" definitely applies here. And for FBG, it could be 10 heads are better than one. In the run-up to fantasy drafts, FBG produces a ranked draft list by position that's a compliation of FBG staff opinion. The Cheatsheets should be a similar compilation. For example, no way should Pennington have been ranked the #23 QB last week against Minnesota. But Dodds felt he should be. If two other guys rank Pennington at #10, his ranking moves from #23 to a more reasonable #14. There is strength in numbers. Maybe there's a way to weight the ranking assigned by staff members who are more accurate week after week.

Personally I totally disagree with this opinion. Dodds is a full time employee and devoting much of his attention to doing weekly projections. I don't want them watered down by staffers who work a full day defending criminals or flipping burgers thowing together a ranking sheet in 20 minutes to meet a deadline. What you're asking for is a college football coaches poll. :yuck: I want the best opinion possible, not a consensus. If someone can consistantly outproduce Dodds, then they should replace Dodds.

 

[Troutfarmer]

What's "BBV?"

It stands for "brags, beats and variance", which is basically a way to say it's the forum for all the stories that are about you. On a forum like this, it could be a spot for all of the "my team is great" or "I'm screwed now that XXX is hurt" or "what do you need on Monday night" threads.The neat thing about the 2+2 forum is that not only does it clear those posts out of the other forums, but people know what to expect in BBV so you actually get discussion instead of nothing but "nobody cares, junior" replies.

Thanks, smcindoe. I agree, this would be a GREAT way to stream "all about my team" threads elsewhere.

 

[smcindoe]

So are Member's Only jackets and bell bottoms jeans on guys. Where are those equally amusing emoticons?

Are you threatening Shick?

 

[kal-el]

1. This is probably my biggest complaint particularly as, outside of the Shark Pool, I think it's also FBG most important, high-profile service. The Cheatsheets and the Rushing/Passing matchups are insufficient, fundamentally flawed and/or counter-intuitive. As much respect as Dodds gets for all the work he does (well deserved), the Cheatsheets are the opinion of one man and as a result, occasionally wildly wrong. The adage "two heads are better than one" definitely applies here. And for FBG, it could be 10 heads are better than one. In the run-up to fantasy drafts, FBG produces a ranked draft list by position that's a compliation of FBG staff opinion. The Cheatsheets should be a similar compilation. For example, no way should Pennington have been ranked the #23 QB last week against Minnesota. But Dodds felt he should be. If two other guys rank Pennington at #10, his ranking moves from #23 to a more reasonable #14. There is strength in numbers. Maybe there's a way to weight the ranking assigned by staff members who are more accurate week after week.

Personally I totally disagree with this opinion. Dodds is a full time employee and devoting much of his attention to doing weekly projections. I don't want them watered down by staffers who work a full day defending criminals or flipping burgers thowing together a ranking sheet in 20 minutes to meet a deadline. What you're asking for is a college football coaches poll. :yuck: I want the best opinion possible, not a consensus. If someone can consistantly outproduce Dodds, then they should replace Dodds.

I don't see Dodds making a lot of wild predictions. I think his projections are pretty darn close to what you'd get if you took the average of 5 or 6 experts.

 

[noneother]

i would really appreciate weekly updates in the offseason..maybe draft updates before the NFL draft? do a college conference a week...highlights of certain players... and then discuss NFL teams needs..and prospective draft picks for the teams... maybe even speculations.. for example the raiders need to trade out of the 2nd overall..brohm is the better qb and they could get him at 5th overall, if someone must have Calvin or adrien

maybe a dynasty report highlighting various positions 1 offense 1 defense position a week... just keep the info flowing....

i could go on...

 

[CYUNVme]

My biggest complaint comes this week - a large portion of the Wednesday material, including projections, isn't available as of 11:30PM EST. I know the holidays are upon us, but so are the damned Thursday games and our league's starting lineup deadline is 1 hr prior to the first game of the week!

 

[Fermi]

I have no complaints and want to thank everyone. thank you friends.

 

[shakeybarn]

So are Member's Only jackets and bell bottoms jeans on guys. Where are those equally amusing emoticons?

Are you threatening Shick?

shick isn't the most un-biased moderator F'Guys has seen... for the record...but regardless... any complaints on F'Guys... try other sites...seriously, you won't find something more replete and extensive as F'Guys. just don't say anything against Shick's homerism ;-) (I'm not the first, nor last to complain)

 

[shakeybarn]

My biggest complaint comes this week - a large portion of the Wednesday material, including projections, isn't available as of 11:30PM EST. I know the holidays are upon us, but so are the damned Thursday games and our league's starting lineup deadline is 1 hr prior to the first game of the week!

Try other sites.... you get it Thursday morning/early afternoon. I've always like F'guys ability to get the cheatsheet out first and foremost.... skip the commentary. Help us with pick ups and early deadlines...not to mention the .7 TDs...

 

[Brewzers]

SUGGESTION

What about adding some kind of risk & reward factor to the football guy projections? Maybe it's already used in the formula to determine the projects, but I would like to see how football guys evaluates the risk of the weekly plays.

For instance, two players might be projected for 10.2 points. PlayerA may consistently put up between 7-13 points where PlayerB is known to have bigger games, but is coming off an injury or something. The risk and reward is much greater for PlayerB, but that will be more or less attractive to me depending on what exactly I'm looking to get out of playing this player.

I think this could be very very useful in determining who to play. One week, I had a choice between 5 tight ends that were within .2 points projected. In this case, the projections don't do me any good, but looking at the risk & reward of the play may help me in my decision.

A player Beta...thats really a great, great idea!

 

[videoguy505]

My biggest complaint comes this week - a large portion of the Wednesday material, including projections, isn't available as of 11:30PM EST. I know the holidays are upon us, but so are the damned Thursday games and our league's starting lineup deadline is 1 hr prior to the first game of the week!

Try other sites.... you get it Thursday morning/early afternoon. I've always like F'guys ability to get the cheatsheet out first and foremost.... skip the commentary. Help us with pick ups and early deadlines...not to mention the .7 TDs...

"Try other sites" isn't a great response... they're looking for ways to be better, most other sites rate a D or C/C+. If FBG wants to rest on a B/B- grade, fine, but there's plenty of ways they can improve.As far as early deadlines, my main league's waivers run at 11:59PM Tuesday. So you have to make all your decisions on who to pick up for the next week right away, and for those that follow the FBG advice of playing matchups, especially at QB and DST, those waiver moves are crucial. Cheatsheets are 24 hours away.

 

[BassNBrew]

My biggest complaint comes this week - a large portion of the Wednesday material, including projections, isn't available as of 11:30PM EST. I know the holidays are upon us, but so are the damned Thursday games and our league's starting lineup deadline is 1 hr prior to the first game of the week!

Try other sites.... you get it Thursday morning/early afternoon. I've always like F'guys ability to get the cheatsheet out first and foremost.... skip the commentary. Help us with pick ups and early deadlines...not to mention the .7 TDs...

"Try other sites" isn't a great response... they're looking for ways to be better, most other sites rate a D or C/C+. If FBG wants to rest on a B/B- grade, fine, but there's plenty of ways they can improve.As far as early deadlines, my main league's waivers run at 11:59PM Tuesday. So you have to make all your decisions on who to pick up for the next week right away, and for those that follow the FBG advice of playing matchups, especially at QB and DST, those waiver moves are crucial. Cheatsheets are 24 hours away.

Serious question here, why don't you get that waiver deadline moved back. I see people asking for earlier material release, but how is it possible to forecast a whole week in less than 24 hours? I really don't want shoddy product just to satisfy the waiver dates for less than 5% of the leagues out there. I noticed a week ago that Vegas wasn't release numbers until Tuesday afternoon. How is Dodds' supposed to release 1000x the material Vegas does with 1/1000 of the resources and budget they have???

 

[videoguy505]

I've seen waivers on Tuesday evening in more than 5% of leagues. And my point is I like content earlier. It's not like I expect 24 hours to make it 100% accurate. It's a guess anyway no matter when it comes out, as everyone always points out after a prediction is wrong, after the PTTS posts pile it on.

Nowhere do I imply it's acceptable for the quality to suffer to get it out quicker. I want my cake and I want to eat it too.

Like I said, "Hey, FBG does it pretty good already" is a B response. And, it's not the point of this thread. They're looking for all input and I'm giving it. The same quality a day earlier moves the B to an A.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

1. This is probably my biggest complaint particularly as, outside of the Shark Pool, I think it's also FBG most important, high-profile service. The Cheatsheets and the Rushing/Passing matchups are insufficient, fundamentally flawed and/or counter-intuitive. As much respect as Dodds gets for all the work he does (well deserved), the Cheatsheets are the opinion of one man and as a result, occasionally wildly wrong. The adage "two heads are better than one" definitely applies here. And for FBG, it could be 10 heads are better than one. In the run-up to fantasy drafts, FBG produces a ranked draft list by position that's a compliation of FBG staff opinion. The Cheatsheets should be a similar compilation. For example, no way should Pennington have been ranked the #23 QB last week against Minnesota. But Dodds felt he should be. If two other guys rank Pennington at #10, his ranking moves from #23 to a more reasonable #14. There is strength in numbers. Maybe there's a way to weight the ranking assigned by staff members who are more accurate week after week.

Personally I totally disagree with this opinion. Dodds is a full time employee and devoting much of his attention to doing weekly projections. I don't want them watered down by staffers who work a full day defending criminals or flipping burgers thowing together a ranking sheet in 20 minutes to meet a deadline. What you're asking for is a college football coaches poll. :yuck: I want the best opinion possible, not a consensus. If someone can consistantly outproduce Dodds, then they should replace Dodds.

:( I don't see Dodds making a lot of wild predictions. I think his projections are pretty darn close to what you'd get if you took the average of 5 or 6 experts.

One way to get around the issue would be - as someone suggested - to separate the rankings by each analyst. Dodd's has got a hard job and probably does what he does better than most. But I'll take quality consensus opinion (not burger flippers) over one man's projections just about every time.

 

[BassNBrew]

One way to get around the issue would be - as someone suggested - to separate the rankings by each analyst. Dodd's has got a hard job and probably does what he does better than most. But I'll take quality consensus opinion (not burger flippers) over one man's projections just about every time.

I agree with your first point in theory. In practice another full time employee would be needed. At $100K per year across 20000 subscribers, that's another $5 the subscription cost has to go up. Personally I'll take the best opinion opinion over a consensus any time.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

One way to get around the issue would be - as someone suggested - to separate the rankings by each analyst. Dodd's has got a hard job and probably does what he does better than most. But I'll take quality consensus opinion (not burger flippers) over one man's projections just about every time.

I agree with your first point in theory. In practice another full time employee would be needed. At $100K per year across 20000 subscribers, that's another $5 the subscription cost has to go up. Personally I'll take the best opinion opinion over a consensus any time.

$100k? I know plenty who would do a good job for $10k. No reason for it to be a full-time job.I think there's a law of diminishing returns here in terms of time. What somebody can accomplish in 10 hours of analysis for any given week is not likely to get considerably better (i.e. more accurate) in 20 hours of analysis. What you know after 10 hours is likely what you will know after 20 hours. It's what you decide in that first 10 hours that's important and unlikely to be fixed if flawed. My interpretation: Dodds ranks in the upper tier in his understanding of the hobby but there may be many whose understanding and passion are as strong around here. Dodds happens to have created a forum for his passion and is devoted to it. That makes him an excellent entrepreneur. Does it make him a great analyst? No, although I respect his work.If I am buying a stock, I usually won't look at stocks that are covered by one company. I will look at investing in a company that is covered by several companies...and then I'll look at the ratings of the big guys - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc. Fantasy is the same way. I want to see many opinions. Then I'll decide whose I consider important or not. The point is that I have a lot of information that I prioritize. At FBG, there is only one opinion, one analysis for what might arguably be the most important piece of weekly fantasy information: a ranked "Who Do I Start" report. I'd like to see multiple informed reports, rankings, etc. with rationale backing up the selections. That's a product I'll pay money for.

 

[noneother]

someone metnioned player beta, above, very nice,.. I would also like to see a "2year, 4 year forecast" for dynasty something like

Player ------------- Current - 2YR fcst (2008) - 4YR - fcst (2010)

Larry Maroney - ----- 20 --------- 8 -------------------- 5

Fed Taylor ----------- 12 ---------- 18 ------------------- RETIRED

 

[huckyoda]

Great job all around... except for those Bob Henry emails. The next email I get from FBG (via Bob Henry) telling me that Peyton Manning and Ladanian Tomlinson are sleepers for the week... just two paragraphs above some guy who just got cut but happened to catch 40 yards the previous week (giving him 45 yard on the season) and I am going to mark all FBG emails as spam. Anyone can look at the previous week's overachievers and label them must-adds on a waiver report - that waiver report is even worse than the "sleepers". I am sorry, but that guy is simply not up to the FBG standard.

 

[smcindoe]

At the risk of sounding ungrateful...

FBGs needs to figure out what they want to do with freelance articles. It's a cool concept, but there have been a couple of serious problems over the years:

- The pay is ridiculous. I realize they're not necessarily looking for professional-quality stuff, and nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to particpate, but $30 is just too low for this sort of work. If they were asking for a one-time license to post the content, $30 would be bad. Since they actually get exclusive, permanent rights to the content, it's awful. You can try to play semantics by calling it a "contest", but the truth is you're asking for freelance content and you should be willing to pay something approaching a going rate for it.

- The timing. The last few years, the freelance articles haven't been posted until shortly before the start of the season. This year, that meant that the promised freelance leagues had to be scrapped and replaced with a hastily thrown together FFTOC format league, which was disappointing but not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that, given that many of the articles deal with topics like drafting and off-season strategy, they're of little use to anyone when posted so late. Each year the plan seems to be to post them earlier, but they end up being pushed back.

I know FBGs is a business with a budget and limited resources. You have to pick and choose what you do and not everything can be a priority. But it's not fair to have a freelancer (who's also a FBG customer) spend the time and effort to write an article for virtually no pay and then not even see anyone get any use out of it.

 

[EdwardCat]

This board needs a BBV forum a la 2+2. Start moving posts there and keep the shark pool clean(er).Also, have the forum administrator disable quoting as the default when replying to a thread. It's completely out of control.

What's "BBV?"

Start a glossary page so those that have no clue what someone means by "BBV" and "2+2" can figure it out. Lots of people use acronyms or obscure terminology that keeps those of us who aren't in-the-know in the dark. We could have a FGB terminology and reference wiki.

 

[EdwardCat]

Great job all around... except for those Bob Henry emails. The next email I get from FBG (via Bob Henry) telling me that Peyton Manning and Ladanian Tomlinson are sleepers for the week... just two paragraphs above some guy who just got cut but happened to catch 40 yards the previous week (giving him 45 yard on the season) and I am going to mark all FBG emails as spam. Anyone can look at the previous week's overachievers and label them must-adds on a waiver report - that waiver report is even worse than the "sleepers". I am sorry, but that guy is simply not up to the FBG standard.

LT and Manning have never been mentioned as sleepers in Henry's reports. There's also a better way than marking all FBG email as spam...unsubscribe.I've actually found these emails very helpful. Each week there's someone who breaks out. Whether they will be useful or not in the coming weeks is for me to decide. He just provides a laundry list of players who are generally below average or overlooked who could bring a team some juice. I believe his work to be easily up to FBG standards. He's very detailed and extensive in his approach.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You know how in the NFL, the second guy to commit the personal foul is the one who normally gets penalized? It's the reaction, not the first offense that usually catches the ref's eye?Well, I suggest we do the same thing here. The only thing more annoying than posts that stray off-topic or into WDIS are the whiny librarians who spend lots of screen space pointing it out. And they paste the offender's entire post, too. So technically, they waste a little more space than the first guy.Instead, how about a "get this thread back on topic" smiley that should be used alone, NOT with a paste of the original post? Just a gentle reminder that there is a specific topic for that thread.Thanks. This forum is a great resource, and I appreciate the care you put into making it a success.

Yeah. And the "point to the shirt" smiley is lame. Get rid of it.

Agreed. ptts is about as hilarious and creative as a "morning zoo" disc jockey using pre-recorded animal noises during segment bumpers. Maybe once, years ago, it was funny. Now it's overused and overrated.

 

[BassNBrew]

You know how in the NFL, the second guy to commit the personal foul is the one who normally gets penalized? It's the reaction, not the first offense that usually catches the ref's eye?Well, I suggest we do the same thing here. The only thing more annoying than posts that stray off-topic or into WDIS are the whiny librarians who spend lots of screen space pointing it out. And they paste the offender's entire post, too. So technically, they waste a little more space than the first guy.Instead, how about a "get this thread back on topic" smiley that should be used alone, NOT with a paste of the original post? Just a gentle reminder that there is a specific topic for that thread.Thanks. This forum is a great resource, and I appreciate the care you put into making it a success.

Yeah. And the "point to the shirt" smiley is lame. Get rid of it.

Agreed. ptts is about as hilarious and creative as a "morning zoo" disc jockey using pre-recorded animal noises during segment bumpers. Maybe once, years ago, it was funny. Now it's overused and overrated.

Still a winner in my book.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Levin and MT won't be receiving any Xmas cards from this Rivers/Bush/Bell owner that will be home for the holidays.

I had Rivers ranked as QB13 during the preseason and he is currently QB12. Sorry for the inaccuracy.

 

[H.K.]

Not really a complaint, but more of a suggestion:

Add a "statistical impossiblity" forum. Lots of people familiar with the concept can discuss the applicable situations in the pre-season and weekly match ups.

TIA

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

1. This is probably my biggest complaint particularly as, outside of the Shark Pool, I think it's also FBG most important, high-profile service. The Cheatsheets and the Rushing/Passing matchups are insufficient, fundamentally flawed and/or counter-intuitive. As much respect as Dodds gets for all the work he does (well deserved), the Cheatsheets are the opinion of one man and as a result, occasionally wildly wrong. The adage "two heads are better than one" definitely applies here. And for FBG, it could be 10 heads are better than one. In the run-up to fantasy drafts, FBG produces a ranked draft list by position that's a compliation of FBG staff opinion. The Cheatsheets should be a similar compilation. For example, no way should Pennington have been ranked the #23 QB last week against Minnesota. But Dodds felt he should be. If two other guys rank Pennington at #10, his ranking moves from #23 to a more reasonable #14. There is strength in numbers. Maybe there's a way to weight the ranking assigned by staff members who are more accurate week after week.

Personally I totally disagree with this opinion. Dodds is a full time employee and devoting much of his attention to doing weekly projections. I don't want them watered down by staffers who work a full day defending criminals or flipping burgers thowing together a ranking sheet in 20 minutes to meet a deadline. What you're asking for is a college football coaches poll. :yuck: I want the best opinion possible, not a consensus. If someone can consistantly outproduce Dodds, then they should replace Dodds.

The amount of work that goes into the weekly projections probably is too much for anyone who doesn't do it full-time. JMHO. In addition to having to have a system that accounts for all the statistical trends, you have to factor in every piece of news on every player.

 

[BassNBrew]

Levin and MT won't be receiving any Xmas cards from this Rivers/Bush/Bell owner that will be home for the holidays.

I had Rivers ranked as QB13 during the preseason and he is currently QB12. Sorry for the inaccuracy.

Yeah...but much like any other NCState grad, you can count on them to fold when it really matters.

 

[Biabreakable]

I really wish people would stop making stoopid threads about the same topics that have allready been started.

I rarely bump threads like that as it is counter productive and posting honda doesen't work for this for the same reason. Wish I had a solution but I don't.

 

[63SG]

In the upgrades/downgrades sections it would be nice have a link for each player that showed whether they had been upgraded or downgraded though out the season, or at least within the last few weeks. Maybe like you do for the weekly recaps in the "My Team Tool", it shows the recaps for the last three weeks.

Great job this year.

 

[PatsWillWin]

First off, this was my first year as a subscriber, and I really thought it was great information. I started IDP's this season and I basically learned the entire IDP side of fantasy football using FBG content and the FBG forum.

So, great job.

I had one minor suggestion that is not really a "complaint" about the dynasty rankings. First, as others have said, I think it'd be great to get a couple of more people to do updated dynasty rankings. I think Bloom and Jeff do a great job, but dynasty is more subject to opinion than re-draft rankings, I think, so more opinions are always good.

But specifically, my suggestion is about when you view the dynasty rankings. Currently, you are allowed the option to view rankings that were submitted within the past X number of days. That's obviously a good idea so you can just look at recent rankings, but I think it would be a great idea to include another dropdown that would allow you to view just one person's rankings at a time.

For example, if Bloom submitted rankings on 12/20 and then Jeff did on 12/22, I can look at just Jeff's rankings by looking at rankings submitted "1" day ago. But I can't just look at Bloom's rankings without looking at Jeff's because Jeff's were submitted more recently.

I think it'd be valuable to be able to see just one person's rankings alone, so they're easier to view without being rearranged to average out with another person's rankings. This is specifically useful because both Bloom and Jeff clearly have different overall opinions about things that make their rankings very different - for example, Bloom ranks quarterbacks as a position much lower than Jeff does overall. If I were to agree more with Jeffs or Bloom's philosophy in this regard, it could be valuable for me to just view one list.

Just a thought.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it'd be valuable to be able to see just one person's rankings alone, so they're easier to view without being rearranged to average out with another person's rankings.

If you click a person's name at the top of the rankings (e.g., click the little arrow just under "Sigmund Bloom"), the rankings will be displayed in the order of just that persons' submission -- not the averaged out order.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think it'd be valuable to be able to see just one person's rankings alone, so they're easier to view without being rearranged to average out with another person's rankings.

If you click a person's name at the top of the rankings (e.g., click the little arrow just under "Sigmund Bloom"), the rankings will be displayed in the order of just that persons' submission -- not the averaged out order.

Wow you guys work on these suggestions fast!

 

[Chaz]

Suggestion here...

Many people complain about the AC forum being dead. Maybe we can come up with a volunteer system where five subscribers/week volunteer to "man" these boards. Just answer as many Q's as possible, to the best of their abilities. This will at least get discussions going over there and hopefully more members will then contribute on their own.

In the offseason, we would need 80 "slots" filled voluntarily (16 weeks x 5 board members/week). I know that I would have no problem devoting a couple of weeks over there to answering what I could. Although, anyone taking my advice would be wise to consider the source

 

[gheemony]

For projections, top 250, dynasty rankings, and other rankings, show movement since the prior rankings on the same sheet. I shouldn't have to click to another link to see who has changed in rankings. EVen a simple arrow up or down would be nice. Check out Yahoo - they do a decent job on their big board. I really like that they explain why a player has moved up or down.

I also find it amazing that one week of football can cause a player to jump up or down dynasty rankings. Outside of a major injury creating a new role for someone or ending anothers' career, that doesn't make a lot of sense. It is ONE game. Dynasty rankings are for the long term.

And I think the top 250 moves up and down way too much. Does a player's value for the rest of the season really change as much as 10 spots because of ONE bad game. Let's be more realistic.

Also, the top 250 should factor in bye weeks. I've seen the top 250 have one kicker who has not had his bye week ranked above a very comparable kicker who has already had a bye week. If the top 250 is really a rating of value for the rest of the season, you have to move up the kickers (and other players) that have already had a bye week. Any right-minded person would trade straight up one player past his bye-week straight up for a comparable player that has not had his bye week. I think the top 250 doesn't factor this in.

Again, just suggestions. Been subscribing and will continue to do so.

 

[gheemony]

1. Page for Auction leagues. I think the freelance article this past season pointed how flawed the VBD App's Auction values are. Along with Dynasty leagues, I think auction leagues will be more popular, so worth getting ahead in supporting the content.

2. Blogs: Give each willing staff member a blog. Would love to get their thoughts.

3. Sunday running commentary: ESPN and Football Outsiders have posts/blogs of running commentary during Sunday's games. I know the staff is watching the games, maybe even watching all of them in a room full of TVs. Would love to get immediate thoughts. Sort of like Random Thoughts Live. Check out the Quick Updates from Fox Sports. Nice running commentary from one of their staff members. Give me a reason not to stare at ESPN Gamecast.

4. Break up the Audible by Game. It would be nice for me to just hear the commentary about a certain game if I have limited time. Would be a great addition to the written Game Recaps. Heck, maybe have someone read the Game Recaps and put up a podcast. I'd download that so that I could get the info during my commute.

5. Mobile access: Any chance you could set up a mobile version of the site that is low on graphics. It works with the lo-fi version of the Shark Pool, but getting the real content is more challenging.

Tip: check out your competition. While weak in many areas, Yahoo, ESPN, 4for4, FFToday, Sportsline, and Fox Sports have some great ideas. Borrow from them.

I recognize that some of these are pie-in-the-sky, but I figure you could put them somewhere on your list of things to improve. Maybe someday.

 

[gheemony]

Game logs for team defenses would be fantastic. In most leagues, defenses can be the key to victory in most weeks. Having easy access to data on their performance over the course of the season would be very useful.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I also find it amazing that one week of football can cause a player to jump up or down dynasty rankings. Outside of a major injury creating a new role for someone or ending anothers' career, that doesn't make a lot of sense. It is ONE game. Dynasty rankings are for the long term.

This is why I only do mine about once a month. I don't like too much in-season influence. Recent memory can cloud the overall picture. I do agree, though, that about once a month you can get a decent perspective (basing on 3-4 past games to make adjustments).Injuries to McNabb and KJones also factor in, but for the most part I agree with your sentiment. I think I mentioned that in my last rankings thread (BTW, I just updated mine again, but won't touch them again until January).

 

[Tornacl]

I would like to see separate forums for dynasty, IDP, and PPR (and maybe other topics). If that isn't feasible, then I'd like to see filters so that you can just look at certain types. For example, I don't participate in any IDP leagues, so I'd like to remove them from my view.

Of course this would require people to learn to mark their topics if they apply to specific types. (Like learn to use the crown.

I would also like to see a separate forum dedicated to the Denver RB situation.

 

[gheemony]

I also find it amazing that one week of football can cause a player to jump up or down dynasty rankings. Outside of a major injury creating a new role for someone or ending anothers' career, that doesn't make a lot of sense. It is ONE game. Dynasty rankings are for the long term.

This is why I only do mine about once a month. I don't like too much in-season influence. Recent memory can cloud the overall picture. I do agree, though, that about once a month you can get a decent perspective (basing on 3-4 past games to make adjustments).Injuries to McNabb and KJones also factor in, but for the most part I agree with your sentiment. I think I mentioned that in my last rankings thread (BTW, I just updated mine again, but won't touch them again until January).

Hate to show too much man-love, but that's why I love your dynasty rankings. I know that some of the sharks have been posting their own rankings, but I have a hard time taking them seriously when a player jumps 10 spots because of ONE good game.

 

[gheemony]

Improved career stats. For example, for a WR, I'd love to see targets, catches, catch %, RZ targets, RZ catches, RZ catch %, GL targets, GL catches, and GL catch % all on one line. Maybe it is too much for one HTML page, but I'd love to be able to get that from the Data Dominator or download the file to Excel. I want all that data so that I can create projections, but it is hard because I have to download three different pages of data, sort by player name, and combine. Seems like this should be on one page.

 

[Hook Em]

May be in left field here, but I'd love to see a "gut feeling" based cheatsheet in addition to the standard one, with an explanation tied to the ranking that is out of line with the standard. I lost several games this year by going against my own gut and off of the cheatsheet (which, tied to the projections, I assume is based of some purely objective statiscal model). The key to winning in FF and any wagering in sports is being able to predict the difference that emotion has on the game, which is where the gut feel comes in (because x happened, y team QB (or overall offense/defense etc.) is going to outperform expectations this week, kind of thing). I love getting a second and third opinion on this, which the board is good for, but hearing the staff gut feel on rankings on a regular basis would be a nice addition.

 

[valhallan]

Be more realistic with your release schedule. When you say something will be posted Wednesday and it shows up at 11:59pm, that's a little silly. Just file it under Thursday and no one will complain.

 

[redjake]

Be more realistic with your release schedule. When you say something will be posted Wednesday and it shows up at 11:59pm, that's a little silly. Just file it under Thursday and no one will complain.

It's more than a little silly, it's dishonest and aggravating as hell. I agree that, in your scenario, if the delivery was promised on Thursday and it actually came out late Wednesday night, FBG would actually get props as opposed to complaints.

 

[Aerial Assault]

There are some really good thoughts in this thread - - most of my comments will be amplifications, and not original ideas.

Subscriber Web/E-Mail Content

I used to read the rushing and passing matchups, but they have honestly become almost useless, to me anyway. They seem to say the same thing from week to week and contain little of independent value - - even the e-mails themselves blast you with the fact that THE CHEATSHEETS ARE THE FINAL SAY. Well, yeah. So what is the point of these comments again? I think just defensive rankings versus the rush and pass would be nice, perhaps with a three-week trendline, and maybe a few comments, which (especially early in the season) would help weed out, e.g., defenses that had great pass defense numbers because they'd only played teams with terrible QBs, or had played from behind every week, reducing opponents' willingness to go deep.

I like the waiver wire e-mails but find the sleeper e-mails redundant. Perhaps they could be combined in some way.

I think Dodds is a good guy based on his persona on the boards, and he knows his football, but having one person do the cheatsheets is ridiculous, and DD, like probably anyone in the same situation, can be WILDLY off. I don't understand why it would be so hard to have Dodds do the work and then have three FBG staffers examine it and alter the rankings as they see fit based on whatever knowledge or insight they have.

I like Random Shots. The hard-luck awards, though, are getting tired. I'd delete those this coming season. As the man says, "sometimes it's better just not to know." I agree.

I'd like to see less of the lemminglike, sometimes downright wacky overreactions that the staff often has when players get injured. The classic example from this season is Portis' initial injury. Sure, he got shut down later, but at first, you would have thought his career was over, and I could not *believe* the love for T.J. Duckett that was being sprayed around. Just take a step away from the keyboard for a moment and think.

The actual professional medical opinions are fantastic.

Please make the D/ST rankings customizable. As a smart poster said above, here is where much of the scoring system variance in fantasy takes place.

Adding college year-by-year stats to the player pages is an outstanding idea.

The game recappers should be paid more like $150 or so per recap, not $30. I wanted to do it this season, but (and I apologize to anyone who is offended by this), $30 is simply not worth it to me given the level of detail and observation required to do a recap correctly. By the way, this is not an indictment of the current group of recappers.

Forums

Please create a dynasty-only forum.

Please create a forum where the forums themselves can be discussed, all in one place. This could be a valuable resource for anyone looking for general information on how the forums work, the meaning of various acronyms, and discussion of what some tool said in the Shark Pool.

Don't alter the quotation system. It's like this - - just scroll down. Not hard. However, anyone doing a "good posting" should limit themselves to quoting only the post they are praising. In fact, an argument can be made to eliminate the good posting smilie altogether - - perhaps more discussion would be fostered.

Enough of the fan police!! FBG should warn all posters that "Dude, I don't care about your team"-style posts add nothing and will not be tolerated. I cannot stand having the game threads sidetracked by these sorts of bozos.

I believe that sig references to players show up in searches. This should be eliminated.

I would happily volunteer for AC answer duty, as, I'm sure, would many others. That is an outstanding idea.

That's it. Thanks for a great product and one of the best message board networks around.

 

[chris1969]

First of all I would like to say that I have absolutely no complaints and will buy again next year. If your looking for suggestions though.....

It would be nice to see a little slicker user interface. the current one is a little dated. I would suggest using xml to open up your options later on.

I'd like to see all the dominators in one program. After all it's pretty much all the same data being used. why not the same program.

For those of us in alot of leagues, it would be nice if there were an easier way to enter league transactions. Maybe a way of screen scraping popular leagues sites.

If you go with the xml idea, your current customers would be able to develop their own plug-ins and changes to DD very easily and share those with others, so you can add value to your content without paying more staffers.

just a few thoughts.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I also find it amazing that one week of football can cause a player to jump up or down dynasty rankings. Outside of a major injury creating a new role for someone or ending anothers' career, that doesn't make a lot of sense. It is ONE game. Dynasty rankings are for the long term.

ghee,this is a very fair critique. When I examine my dynasty rankings after each week of play, my first priority is reflecting injuries and depth chart changes, but "what I learned" about players during that week's games also plays a big role in my re-ranking. Of course this opens me up to be too greatly swayed by too small a sample of play.On the other hand, I am committed to my rankings being somewhat close to "real time" and one element of that is "buzz" because general perception of a player affects his trade value, which is a somewhat objective factor to measure.When Addai ran for 4 TDs, his trade value rose in a real way. The owner committed to his evaluation may not have changed his long term expectations of Addai, but that game definitely left an impression on enough owners to affect his trade value in the short term.When we get to the offseason, my rankings will settle into more of an "initial dynasty draft" mode, where my personal long view carries an even larger weight than during the season, when trade value's importance is increased because trade value gives more room to make in season adjustments and get better production NOW.I have weighed the pros and cons of updating at longer intervals, so that my changes are based on more reflection, versus simulating "real time" rankings, and lurching about during the season, and decided that on the whole, people are consulting my rankings more for trade evaluation. There has been a suggestion to keep separate sets of rankings for contending teams and rebuilding teams as the season goes on, and I am open to answering questions along these lines during the season.I know this is rambling, but rest assured that I put a lot of thought into adjustments for the rankings - but also know that they are based somewhat on gut feeling and talent evaluation, which is based on perception. Sometimes a player performs so well or so badly that you see him in a new light. I am constantly discovering things about players when I watch games, and I *hope* that my open mind leads to my ranking being better than if I was more stubborn about my talent evaluation.Thanks for tuning in and I hope Im helping everyone out there improve their teams.