FBG Constructive Criticism - was Fbg matchup analysis lacking (1 Viewer)

[rickyg]

Joe's Note: I changed the title to make it more a thread on all areas FBG can improve.

*******

Has anyone else noticed that in fbg's weekly fantasy analysis they only go on season long stats to determine whether a passing or rushing game has a great, good, neutral, or bad matchup? I feel as though their analysis is very 'surface' and does not go that extra step which is what really would be helpful. Perfect for instance is their analysis of the Oakland passing game vs. Cleveland defense this week:

Oakland Raiders Passing Offense vs Cleveland Browns Passing Defense (Good Matchup)

Carson Palmer's November rampage came to a halt at Cincinnati last week - he threw 19/34 for 146 yards passing, one TD and one interception during the 10-34 loss, the first time in four games that Palmer hadn't gone over 311 yards passing in a contest. During the lull, Jeremy Stewart (six targets for 6/37/0) and Brandon Myers (six for 5/37/0) led the team in receiving, while Denarius Moore (four for 1/20/1) handled the lone TD. We'll see if Palmer can jump-start the passing offense to a higher level at home this week.

The Browns' pass D is in the middle of the NFL range, averaging 243.7 net yards allowed per game (21st in the NFL), with 17 passing TDs allowed this year, while generating 13 interceptions (tied for seventh in the NFL) and 28 sacks (tied for 11th) so far. Oakland is 14th in the NFL with 24 sacks allowed to date. Charlie Batch managed 20/34 for 193 net yards, zero TDs and three interceptions at Cleveland last week, while Tony Romo put up 35/50 for 257 net yards, one TD and zero inteceptions, with seven sacks taken for -56 yards, two weeks ago.

Palmer throttled back during week 12, but he should be able to bounce back against the so-so Browns this week. Advantage, Raiders.

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning that many of the games that Cleveland played this war that got them the 19th pass defense ranking were played without how Haden? And that when he plays they are one of the stingiest pass defenses in the league? and that now he is playing?

To me this is not a good matchup for the oak pass game in the least bit. I couldn't care less that Cleveland ranks 19th vs the pass when considering season long stats I care about how they play when Haden is in the lineup, BC that is what is salient here.

Also, I've heard some Cleveland homers talk about how Cleveland rarely plays well on the west coast. I don't know how much truth the is to that, but I'd like to see some of that analysis factored into the matchup analysis by fbg as well. I realize that this would entail more digging and more work for fbg, but that is why we pay them for their services. People that don't have a career in fantasy football simply don't have the time to do that digging but a service that exists solely for the purposes of fantasy football expert advice should do this stuff I expect top notch breakdowns of very aspect of every matchup.

 

[Slapdash]

I agree. I'm finding these matchup pages to be little more than a couple of computer generated paragraphs that aren't very useful.

Maybe we need to get MOP on staff to highlight things in green and red.

 

[rickyg]

Another example of why I perceive to be analysis that is lacking. Look at the TE rankings for week13:

Jimmy Graham - NO at ATL

Tony Gonzalez - ATL vs NO

Aaron Hernandez - NE at MIA

Owen Daniels - HOU at TEN

Jason Witten - DAL vs PHI

Jermaine Gresham - CIN at SD

Brandon Myers - OAK vs CLE

Greg Olsen - CAR at KC

Antonio Gates - SD vs CIN

Kyle Rudolph - MIN at GB

Vernon Davis - SF at STL

Brandon Pettigrew - DET vs IND

Jared Cook - TEN vs HOU

Martellus Bennett - NYG at WAS

Jacob Tamme - DEN vs TB

Jermichael Finley - GB vs MIN

Scott Chandler - BUF vs JAX

Dallas Clark - TB at DEN

Brent Celek - PHI at DAL

Dustin Keller - NYJ vs ARI

Marcedes Lewis - JAX at BUF

Marcedes Lewis is the 21st ranked TE. If Blaine gabbert was still the qb I'd agree with this. But it seems like they have not even factored in that henne is the qb in jax now and that in 2 games as starter he has showed great rapport with Lewis. In those 2 games Lewis has scored 2 Tds. He is a big red zone target and henne looks for him. The jags passing game is actually fantasy friendly once again with very little run game to speak of. Plus they play buffalo, a neutral matchup for tight ends and a bad defense period. This game has all the makings of a high scoring affair. Before gabbert became qb for the jags Lewis made the pro bowl in 2010 with 10 td catches. He was a top 5 TE that year if my memory serves me correctly.

Lewis is ranked behind guys like Greg Olsen and his 30-50 yards a week receiving. Or gates who is really only ranked that high based on name BC outside of one great game like 6 weeks ago he has not done anything. Or Scott chandler who has already had his couple of decent games for the year. Or Rudolph who may or may not play with a concussion and other injuries. I'd rank Lewis in the top 10 this week. And of course I might be wrong and he might crap the bed, but that doesn't mean my analysis wasn't sound.

I am not trying to bash fbg I just want to understand better what goes into their analysis for matchups And rankings. BC sometimes it does not seem that much thought goes into it.

 

[rickyg]

I agree. I'm finding these matchup pages to be little more than a couple of computer generated paragraphs that aren't very useful. Maybe we need to get MOP on staff to highlight things in green and red.

100% agree I think that much more thought goes into MOPs breakdowns. I may not always agree but I always appreciate the thought that goes into them.

 

[rickyg]

And just as I write this thread MoP puts out an analysis of tonight's matchup that destroys the matchup analysis of fbg. Thanks mop!

 

[Hopeless Lions Fan]

He's the number one fantasy back in the land, folks!

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.

And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

 

[Gottabesweet]

The good, neutral bad matchups are junk, I dont even read those.

The TE ranks are also bad. Everyone is 4-50 or 5-50 Not really seperating or factoring in the matchups or injuries I feel.

 

[Gottabesweet]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

Agree 100 percent.

 

[Sarnoff]

The TE ranks are also bad. Everyone is 4-50 or 5-50

That's kind of the same for all the positions. Which is why it's comical when people 1) look at the rankings on here, or, worse, 2) complain about the rankings here. The idea of rankings is garbage. The idea of judging "who predicts FF the best" by looking at how their rankings compare is ludicrous. Someone is ranked 20 spots ahead of someone else, but it's meaningless. Look at QBs... #4 is Peyton Manning. #24 is Jay Cutler. The difference between them is only six points. Six. Everyone between those two is separated by fractions of a point. Tenths. Worthless distinctions. If you need to look at a rankings chart to tell you to play Peyton Manning over Jay Cutler, you're beyond hopeless to start. But when the difference between #4 and #20 is just six points, it's pointless to even bring it up. #1, the best starter, outranks #13, a guy who shouldn't start, by just four points. Every starter then is in the same "tier". What's the use? Same thing with WRs, #1 is 3 points better than #13 and only 5 points better than the non-starer at #25. It's basically all one tier, might as well say "your WR#1 will score 12 +/- 2, and your WR#2 will score 9 +/- 2". Randomly selecting point totals for the top 24 guys and you'd have as likely a shot as producing decent rankings.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

Agree 100 percent.

This is said every year. It's ignored every year. It's easier to add bells and whistles than improve the product itself. Of course, the strategy works well for iPods, too.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Look at QBs... #4 is Peyton Manning. #24 is Jay Cutler. The difference between them is only six points. Six.

Six expected fantasy points is a lot. If we translate fantasy points into passing yards, it's more than an extra 100 passing yards. I think six expected fantasy points translates into something like an 80% chance that Manning will outscore Cutler.Projecting a bigger difference than that would be dishonest. It would give the false impression that we're even more sure that Manning will outscore Cutler this week than we really are. While that might be good marketing, the truth is that there's a lot of inherent unpredictability in fantasy outcomes. Manning might outscore Cutler by 12 points, or Cutler might outscore Manning by 6 points, or anything in between, and it would not be all that surprising. But actually predicting Manning to outscore Cutler by 12 points (or predicting Cutler to outscore Manning by 6 points) takes a certain amount of hubris, I think. Our projected differentials are more modest — but more honest, and (over the long run) almost certainly more accurate.

Randomly selecting point totals for the top 24 guys and you'd have as likely a shot as producing decent rankings.

I believe this is false. (CapnJB's daughter notwithstanding.)

 

[Bill]

QUOTE_That's kind of the same for all the positions. Which is why it's comical when people 1) look at the rankings on here, or, worse, 2) complain about the rankings here. The idea of rankings is garbage. The idea of judging "who predicts FF the best" by looking at how their rankings compare is ludicrous. Someone is ranked 20 spots ahead of someone else, but it's meaningless. Look at QBs... #4 is Peyton Manning. #24 is Jay Cutler. The difference between them is only six points. Six. Everyone between those two is separated by fractions of a point. Tenths. Worthless distinctions. If you need to look at a rankings chart to tell you to play Peyton Manning over Jay Cutler, you're beyond hopeless to start. But when the difference between #4 and #20 is just six points, it's pointless to even bring it up. #1, the best starter, outranks #13, a guy who shouldn't start, by just four points. Every starter then is in the same "tier". What's the use?

Same thing with WRs, #1 is 3 points better than #13 and only 5 points better than the non-starer at #25. It's basically all one tier, might as well say "your WR#1 will score 12 +/- 2, and your WR#2 will score 9 +/- 2". Randomly selecting point totals for the top 24 guys and you'd have as likely a shot as producing decent rankings. END QUOTE

agree 100%-most of this stuff is just fluff!

 

[rickyg]

Wow. I had no idea that others felt this way. I thought I was in the minority! What say you fbg?

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

FBGs uses normalized rankings. So they aren't predicting any one QB to throw for 4 TDs, they are more like what that player would be expected to do in similar circumstances averaged over time. So expecting a QB to score 30%+ more than another is significant.Projecting players to have monster games is a sure way to increase inaccuracy. I think maybe an indicator for upside and downside might be useful.

Also, I've heard some Cleveland homers talk about how Cleveland rarely plays well on the west coast. I don't know how much truth the is to that, but I'd like to see some of that analysis factored into the matchup analysis by fbg as well.

This starts to fall into the silly category. You can dredge up all kinds of goofy statistics, especially in football where there are fewer data points (games) than other sports. If there isn't a damn good reason that Cleveland doesn't play well on the West coast, then I don't care about that. If all East coast teams sucked on the West coast, that is worth mentioning. If one team has sucked, who cares? Cleveland, for instance, has played zero West coast games this year (until this week), two West coast games last year, and zero West coast games in 2010. What possible statistical relevance is to be found in that limited sample size?

 

[Abspara]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

My favorite is the copy and paste about players on the weekly WW upgrade and downgrades . The same write up about the player spanning several weeks. Too much quantity, not enough quality.

 

[rickyg]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

My favorite is the copy and paste about players on the weekly WW upgrade and downgrades . The same write up about the player spanning several weeks. Too much quantity, not enough quality.

This bothers me too. Reeks of laziness.

 

[Sarnoff]

Look at QBs... #4 is Peyton Manning. #24 is Jay Cutler. The difference between them is only six points. Six.

Six expected fantasy points is a lot. If we translate fantasy points into passing yards, it's more than an extra 100 passing yards. I think six expected fantasy points translates into something like an 80% chance that Manning will outscore Cutler.Projecting a bigger difference than that would be dishonest. It would give the false impression that we're even more sure that Manning will outscore Cutler this week than we really are. While that might be good marketing, the truth is that there's a lot of inherent unpredictability in fantasy outcomes. Manning might outscore Cutler by 12 points, or Cutler might outscore Manning by 6 points, or anything in between, and it would not be all that surprising. But actually predicting Manning to outscore Cutler by 12 points (or predicting Cutler to outscore Manning by 6 points) takes a certain amount of hubris, I think. Our projected differentials are more modest — but more honest, and (over the long run) almost certainly more accurate.

But the #24 QB is borderline unrosterable, barely a starter in a 2QB league. My point was that 20 positions are separated by 6 points total. Making the difference between any two pretty negligible.

 

[Marauder]

Too much quantity, not enough quality.

There is some really good content, it's just hard to find it among all the crap. IMO, They could cut the staff in half and put out a better product if they are careful to just keep the best staff members. Or at the very least, invest in a quality web designer and software developer to re-design the subscriber pages so we could filter on staff member.

 

[pbandy1]

My thoughts exactly in regards to the comments here. Whenever I get 'Passing/Rushing/etc Matchups' emails, I reach for the delete icon. In fact the only FBG content I really look at are the daily email write-ups (which are too 'buzzwordy' indeed, perfect description), Random Shots, the rankings, and the waiver report (not the upgrades/downgrades which is useless). I used to look at the Top 250 but then I realized it was garbage and misleading.

 

[tinkertailor]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

My favorite is the copy and paste about players on the weekly WW upgrade and downgrades . The same write up about the player spanning several weeks. Too much quantity, not enough quality.

I agree with this. I am not doubting the writer's work, but its pretty useless if all the players have a "Waiver Wire Gem" next to their name. There need to be conviction picks by the writers who they feel will have a lasting impact on the season. After a bad week, Player A is downgraded, and the same player after a good week is again upgraded. All this effort, but not well conveyed.

 

[habsfan]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

My favorite is the copy and paste about players on the weekly WW upgrade and downgrades . The same write up about the player spanning several weeks. Too much quantity, not enough quality.

I agree with this. I am not doubting the writer's work, but its pretty useless if all the players have a "Waiver Wire Gem" next to their name. There need to be conviction picks by the writers who they feel will have a lasting impact on the season. After a bad week, Player A is downgraded, and the same player after a good week is again upgraded. All this effort, but not well conveyed.

This is similar to the way the weather industry has slowly shifted from "what will happen out there tomorrow" to "what is happening out there right now". They're never wrong because they just keep changing the ticker every hour.

 

[Hear-the-Footsteps]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.

And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

My favorite is the copy and paste about players on the weekly WW upgrade and downgrades . The same write up about the player spanning several weeks. Too much quantity, not enough quality.

Agreed. See this at post 53 (note 10:01pm).McGahee got hurt on a Sunday. Monday's waiver wire report said McGahee is still the best all around back in Denver and that he was at no risk to lose starter touches.

Someone defended this by saying to give them more time. Tuesday's included the exact same description - word for word - even at 10pm. That was two days removed from the injury. And many people have put in their weekly waiver wire claims by then.

Late Tuesday night (some time after 10pm) it was finally changed/updated.

Others issues like this. For instance, have you noticed when Tremblay's weekly projections come out - they are usualy the exact same as Dodds'? Eventually he tweaks/changes them. By why even release them as Tremblay's when they are literally the exact same as Dodds'?

Overall I really like the FBG product. But this year, more so than any other that I can recall, there have been many examples of this. Perhaps the poster who suggested better quality, even if it means sacrificing some quantity - was right.

Great overall product and great overall site. But sometimes when companies get big, they get complacent. I hope that does not continue here. I've been with FBG a long time. I hope that does not happen.

The Haden example is great. Year long stats serve a purpose. But what is currently going on serves a purpose too.

Fake example: Telling me not to start a QB against the Jets b/c they have a great pass D is irrelevant if in the first four weeks Revis and Cromartie both played, but in week 5 neither one is playing. Then their 3rd ranked pass D isn't close to 3rd. (Again fake example.)

 

[Warrior]

Another example of why I perceive to be analysis that is lacking. Look at the TE rankings for week13:Jimmy Graham - NO at ATLTony Gonzalez - ATL vs NOAaron Hernandez - NE at MIAOwen Daniels - HOU at TENJason Witten - DAL vs PHIJermaine Gresham - CIN at SDBrandon Myers - OAK vs CLEGreg Olsen - CAR at KCAntonio Gates - SD vs CINKyle Rudolph - MIN at GBVernon Davis - SF at STLBrandon Pettigrew - DET vs INDJared Cook - TEN vs HOUMartellus Bennett - NYG at WASJacob Tamme - DEN vs TBJermichael Finley - GB vs MINScott Chandler - BUF vs JAXDallas Clark - TB at DENBrent Celek - PHI at DALDustin Keller - NYJ vs ARIMarcedes Lewis - JAX at BUFMarcedes Lewis is the 21st ranked TE. If Blaine gabbert was still the qb I'd agree with this. But it seems like they have not even factored in that henne is the qb in jax now and that in 2 games as starter he has showed great rapport with Lewis. In those 2 games Lewis has scored 2 Tds. He is a big red zone target and henne looks for him. The jags passing game is actually fantasy friendly once again with very little run game to speak of. Plus they play buffalo, a neutral matchup for tight ends and a bad defense period. This game has all the makings of a high scoring affair. Before gabbert became qb for the jags Lewis made the pro bowl in 2010 with 10 td catches. He was a top 5 TE that year if my memory serves me correctly. Lewis is ranked behind guys like Greg Olsen and his 30-50 yards a week receiving. Or gates who is really only ranked that high based on name BC outside of one great game like 6 weeks ago he has not done anything. Or Scott chandler who has already had his couple of decent games for the year. Or Rudolph who may or may not play with a concussion and other injuries. I'd rank Lewis in the top 10 this week. And of course I might be wrong and he might crap the bed, but that doesn't mean my analysis wasn't sound. I am not trying to bash fbg I just want to understand better what goes into their analysis for matchups And rankings. BC sometimes it does not seem that much thought goes into it.

Mercedes Lewis isn't anything special and he's getting the same # of targets with Henne.They have this one spot on.

 

[Warrior]

BTW, totally agree that 95% of the articles and content is just fluff with very little use.

Calling Drew Brees a sleeper because of a good matchup and any random waiver wire QB with potential to be the 30th best QB in the league a 'potential ww gem' has no value in my opinion.

It's not just failing to add value to a subscription, I think it's decreasing the value. It's tough to find anything worth reading when you have to weed through 15 articles of fluff to get to one.

I'm sure they do this so that they can say things like "$30 for 1,500 articles, that's only 2 cents an article!" but they are neglecting other parts of their site for that fluff.

The Wisdom contest doesn't even have weekly overall standings...individual posters in the forum have to do it for them, despite it being a VERY basic thing that would only have to be implemented once and would take seconds to re-run and post each week. It would also help with the contest itself, as last year's top 12 were calculated and sent out incorrectly. It's sloppy and that's only one small example.

Get rid of the fluff. In email form and in article form on the site.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Others issues like this. For instance, have you noticed when Tremblay's weekly projections come out - they are usualy the exact same as Dodds'? Eventually he tweaks/changes them. By why even release them as Tremblay's when they are literally the exact same as Dodds'?

The early projections are Maurile's and I believe they are loaded under Dodds' name at first because that is where most people go for the official site projections. If you look early in the week, you'll notice that both MT and Dodds show the same projections. It takes Dodds a little more time to get his completed, but when he loads his they take over and MT's still show separately under his name. If you look back at previous weeks using the drop down menu, they are different.Note the different accuracy scores from last week here: http://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accuracy/weekly.phpMT was 1st overall and all 3 FBGs were in the top-14.

 

[David Dodds]

Others issues like this. For instance, have you noticed when Tremblay's weekly projections come out - they are usualy the exact same as Dodds'? Eventually he tweaks/changes them. By why even release them as Tremblay's when they are literally the exact same as Dodds'?

The early projections are Maurile's and I believe they are loaded under Dodds' name at first because that is where most people go for the official site projections. If you look early in the week, you'll notice that both MT and Dodds show the same projections. It takes Dodds a little more time to get his completed, but when he loads his they take over and MT's still show separately under his name. If you look back at previous weeks using the drop down menu, they are different.Note the different accuracy scores from last week here:

http://www.fantasypr...racy/weekly.php

MT was 1st overall and all 3 FBGs were in the top-14.

Correct. Maurile does the 1st projections and we load under both of our names so that all of the tools can be powered as soon as possible. My numbers take me a ton of work and they get released Tuesday night.

 

[thayman]

BTW, totally agree that 95% of the articles and content is just fluff with very little use.Calling Drew Brees a sleeper because of a good matchup and any random waiver wire QB with potential to be the 30th best QB in the league a 'potential ww gem' has no value in my opinion.It's not just failing to add value to a subscription, I think it's decreasing the value. It's tough to find anything worth reading when you have to weed through 15 articles of fluff to get to one.I'm sure they do this so that they can say things like "$30 for 1,500 articles, that's only 2 cents an article!" but they are neglecting other parts of their site for that fluff.The Wisdom contest doesn't even have weekly overall standings...individual posters in the forum have to do it for them, despite it being a VERY basic thing that would only have to be implemented once and would take seconds to re-run and post each week. It would also help with the contest itself, as last year's top 12 were calculated and sent out incorrectly. It's sloppy and that's only one small example. Get rid of the fluff. In email form and in article form on the site.

I don't even go into the article section anymore because of all the rubbish in there. I've been a subscriber since 2005 and I won't be resubscribing next year.

 

[Beerguzzler]

The Cleveland passing defense is night and day dependent on whether or not Joe Haden plays.

 

[John 14:6]

I only subscribe for the Draft Dominator and main daily news e-mails.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm a subscriber and I don't read 95% of the "analysis" published. I think FBG would be much better served with focusing on higher quality analysis across fewer products.And get some better writers and editors. I've complained for years about the buzzwordy crap in the email writeups. And now we get lazy analysis like "player A is a 'what the heck' flex." WTF is that? It's a copout.

My favorite is the copy and paste about players on the weekly WW upgrade and downgrades . The same write up about the player spanning several weeks. Too much quantity, not enough quality.

I agree with this. I am not doubting the writer's work, but its pretty useless if all the players have a "Waiver Wire Gem" next to their name. There need to be conviction picks by the writers who they feel will have a lasting impact on the season. After a bad week, Player A is downgraded, and the same player after a good week is again upgraded. All this effort, but not well conveyed.

I think we all appreciate the feedback here even if some folks may not think so. I also appreciate the understanding that there is a lot of work that goes into the Waiver Wire and Upgrades-Downgrades. The fundamental misunderstanding with some of the commentary here about the Upgrades and Waiver wire reports is that this has been conceived to be a one-size-fits-all report. I have to account for folks in large and small leagues, 2-QB and 1-QB leagues. The process requires me to list players as ***Potential Waiver Wire Gems*** when they fall near or below the demarcation line you'll find in the Top 250 Forward report. I wrote an article to explain this in detail at the beginning of the season and we link to this explanation weekly so there's a frame of reference about the way the three reports interact. Despite this explanation, I still believe there needs to be improvement with the reports to communicate how they work to the reader. There are gaps with the presentation and communication of the materials that I believe can be fixed to promote a better understanding of how the content works. As for the Willis McGahee example within the Hillman blurb, I have no problem being accountable for having something on the Waiver report from the week prior that wasn't changed. It was changed in the Upgrades-Downgrades report, but we missed going back to the WW report to change it as well.I also have no problem telling you that I consult my previous weeks or reports and copy and paste relevant player blurbs into the current week where applicable. I do this with players I mentioned as guys to monitor or acquire as handcuffs. I do it for lotto-ticket type of guys in larger leagues. I then work to make small tweaks to that copy to keep it current where necessary. Did the McGahee example within the Hillman blurb fall through the gaps? Yes, my apologies. I will say that this section of the report in question is something I've actually added to the report to beef up the content so I can help as broad of a cross section of fantasy owners as possible who play in leagues beyond the typical Yahoo! ESPN or 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 Flex, formats. Some of you may perceive that I'm throwing darts at a dartboard when you read that Brandon Weeden is labeled as a ***Potential Waiver Wire Gem***, but you're either not grasping the context of the report or not reading the explanation for the recommendation. Still, a good portion of that is our responsibility to make the report easier to digest and understand. To my knowledge, we're the only site that provides this level of detail and nuance on Monday afternoon-evening. The challenge of that is that we've felt we've needed to cover a broader waterfront. I believe there is room for improvement for the process, as well as the communication and presentation of that process. We'll be working on it.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I think we all appreciate the feedback here even if some folks may not think so. I also appreciate the understanding that there is a lot of work that goes into the Waiver Wire and Upgrades-Downgrades. The fundamental misunderstanding with some of the commentary here about the Upgrades and Waiver wire reports is that this has been conceived to be a one-size-fits-all report. I have to account for folks in large and small leagues, 2-QB and 1-QB leagues. The process requires me to list players as ***Potential Waiver Wire Gems*** when they fall near or below the demarcation line you'll find in the Top 250 Forward report.

I wrote an article to explain this in detail at the beginning of the season and we link to this explanation weekly so there's a frame of reference about the way the three reports interact. Despite this explanation, I still believe there needs to be improvement with the reports to communicate how they work to the reader. There are gaps with the presentation and communication of the materials that I believe can be fixed to promote a better understanding of how the content works. As for the Willis McGahee example within the Hillman blurb, I have no problem being accountable for having something on the Waiver report from the week prior that wasn't changed. It was changed in the Upgrades-Downgrades report, but we missed going back to the WW report to change it as well.

I also have no problem telling you that I consult my previous weeks or reports and copy and paste relevant player blurbs into the current week where applicable. I do this with players I mentioned as guys to monitor or acquire as handcuffs. I do it for lotto-ticket type of guys in larger leagues. I then work to make small tweaks to that copy to keep it current where necessary. Did the McGahee example within the Hillman blurb fall through the gaps? Yes, my apologies.

I will say that this section of the report in question is something I've actually added to the report to beef up the content so I can help as broad of a cross section of fantasy owners as possible who play in leagues beyond the typical Yahoo! ESPN or 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 Flex, formats.

Some of you may perceive that I'm throwing darts at a dartboard when you read that Brandon Weeden is labeled as a ***Potential Waiver Wire Gem***, but you're either not grasping the context of the report or not reading the explanation for the recommendation. Still, a good portion of that is our responsibility to make the report easier to digest and understand. To my knowledge, we're the only site that provides this level of detail and nuance on Monday afternoon-evening. The challenge of that is that we've felt we've needed to cover a broader waterfront.

I believe there is room for improvement for the process, as well as the communication and presentation of that process. We'll be working on it.

With all due respect and with regard to the bold, you should consider that perhaps your approach is ineffective and should be either abandoned or retooled. You can attempt to educate as much as you like but if it lacks intuitiveness or is an attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" approach, you may pushing a rock uphill every season. The analysis should speak for itself. You shouldn't need to write instructions on how to interpret the analysis. There's likely a better way to go about it that may even require less effort.

 

[tinkertailor]

I believe there is room for improvement for the process, as well as the communication and presentation of that process. We'll be working on it.

Thanks for the well thought out reply. We do understand that this report is coming from someone who analyses tape/scouts players and not from one of the millions of other fantasy sites that look at stats and give their "expert" opinions. What could change is the conviction with which a player is backed. Looking at the Upgrades/Downgrades, that article is too repetitive in my opinion. Take for example your wk 4 column, it Downgrades Drew Brees saying the whole team is letting him down. Now, if someone is taking your opinion, he would look to sell Brees for someone (like RG3, Rodgers, Brady or whoever). But the wk5 column Upgrades Drew Brees after a better all round performance by Saints (or I forget for what reason). Its just too many players that an opinion is given about every week, which maybe leads to decrease in value of the whole column.What should be perceived as "This column will give me an answer for my Waiver as it is coming from an esteemed writer" is, for me, perceived as "Oh, this long report with a view on every relevant player in the league, with a value I have to dig through for a hint". Maybe, we should be doing that, but you would think we want answers on a plate since we subscribe for this awesome service.

 

[NYRAGE]

My favorite feature is probably the Fantasy Roundtable because you get to see the thought process behind how the staff feels about players.

I never look at the passing/rushing match-ups anymore. However, I would love to see the thought process behind the ranking of some of these players like Bloom does at times even if it's just a few words. I know some people take the rankings as gospel while others ignore them entirely. I make my own weekly line-up decisions, but the more helpful piece would be if the rankings had explanations. It doesn't mean that you agree with it, but at least you can make you own judgement calls based on the staff's thought process.

It's hard to cater to everyone though. I love the IDP columns, while others may ignore it. The betting/confidence articles appeal to some,but not others. FBG should probably do some kind of survey to find out what its clients like and find useful.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

It's hard to cater to everyone though. I love the IDP columns, while others may ignore it. The betting/confidence articles appeal to some,but not others. FBG should probably do some kind of survey to find out what its clients like and find useful.

The part about it being hard to cater to everyone is very true. FBG offers so much that many people simply use it for a small number of things and ignore the rest. The challenge is generally organizing things in a way that allows everybody to find what they need and get the most out of their subscription.I'm pretty sure we've done quite a few surveys in the past, but the better indicator is likely page hits. If an article gets no page hits, then people aren't reading it. If it's being offered here year after year (like many of our weekly content pieces), chances are there are some people out there who read it regularly and will be upset if it's taken away.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

It's hard to cater to everyone though. I love the IDP columns, while others may ignore it. The betting/confidence articles appeal to some,but not others. FBG should probably do some kind of survey to find out what its clients like and find useful.

The part about it being hard to cater to everyone is very true. FBG offers so much that many people simply use it for a small number of things and ignore the rest. The challenge is generally organizing things in a way that allows everybody to find what they need and get the most out of their subscription.I'm pretty sure we've done quite a few surveys in the past, but the better indicator is likely page hits. If an article gets no page hits, then people aren't reading it. If it's being offered here year after year (like many of our weekly content pieces), chances are there are some people out there who read it regularly and will be upset if it's taken away.

The "cater to everyone" claim is a bit of a copout. I'd bet for 99.9% of us, we're interested in the basics. Performance for 12-man leagues, roughly 18 or so spots on a roster. That's somewhere around the top 200 players. We want basics for these guys. Yes, the list changes depending on redraft/keeper/dynasty, but the concept doesn't stretch too far from that. When you scratch below these nearly-universal interests, you get into nuances - like IDP - that probably take a lot of time at very little return on investment. And maybe the attention paid to these efforts to cater to nuanced fantasy leagues is eating at the core mission.There's another side to the flood. I am so overwhelmed with the information that I don't bother to read things that I used to seek out. All I look at now are the projections from Dodds, Tremblay, Bloom for each position. I rarely bother with written analysis because finding the valuable information is like finding the value in a hype-Hillman-like thread. There's no better site in the hobby. Nobody's even close. But you may be reaching a point of criticality and which direction FBG goes probably is not a guess, but more a function of solid decision making.

 

[Bill]

i have been a member for over 10 years and i have to agree with everyone else on here that there is to much fluff(i don't want to say garbage). who cares about the passing matchups/running matchups. those opinions should be expressed in the weekly rankings. but thats another problem, players who are projected to get 10.1 fantasy points verses another who is ranked 15 spots lower projected to get 10.9 points. doesn't seem like much thought went into it. i could write an article under that criteria-just take players who have more points year to date and rank them .4 points better than someone ranked a little lower. wow-thats brilliant.

bottom line: this site used to be great. now its still good but there is way to much "filler" on this site. i am not sure if thats just so FBG can claim they printed out so many thousand words or not. but who cares if its useless.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I think we all appreciate the feedback here even if some folks may not think so. I also appreciate the understanding that there is a lot of work that goes into the Waiver Wire and Upgrades-Downgrades. The fundamental misunderstanding with some of the commentary here about the Upgrades and Waiver wire reports is that this has been conceived to be a one-size-fits-all report. I have to account for folks in large and small leagues, 2-QB and 1-QB leagues. The process requires me to list players as ***Potential Waiver Wire Gems*** when they fall near or below the demarcation line you'll find in the Top 250 Forward report.

I wrote an article to explain this in detail at the beginning of the season and we link to this explanation weekly so there's a frame of reference about the way the three reports interact. Despite this explanation, I still believe there needs to be improvement with the reports to communicate how they work to the reader. There are gaps with the presentation and communication of the materials that I believe can be fixed to promote a better understanding of how the content works. As for the Willis McGahee example within the Hillman blurb, I have no problem being accountable for having something on the Waiver report from the week prior that wasn't changed. It was changed in the Upgrades-Downgrades report, but we missed going back to the WW report to change it as well.

I also have no problem telling you that I consult my previous weeks or reports and copy and paste relevant player blurbs into the current week where applicable. I do this with players I mentioned as guys to monitor or acquire as handcuffs. I do it for lotto-ticket type of guys in larger leagues. I then work to make small tweaks to that copy to keep it current where necessary. Did the McGahee example within the Hillman blurb fall through the gaps? Yes, my apologies.

I will say that this section of the report in question is something I've actually added to the report to beef up the content so I can help as broad of a cross section of fantasy owners as possible who play in leagues beyond the typical Yahoo! ESPN or 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 Flex, formats.

Some of you may perceive that I'm throwing darts at a dartboard when you read that Brandon Weeden is labeled as a ***Potential Waiver Wire Gem***, but you're either not grasping the context of the report or not reading the explanation for the recommendation. Still, a good portion of that is our responsibility to make the report easier to digest and understand. To my knowledge, we're the only site that provides this level of detail and nuance on Monday afternoon-evening. The challenge of that is that we've felt we've needed to cover a broader waterfront.

I believe there is room for improvement for the process, as well as the communication and presentation of that process. We'll be working on it.

With all due respect and with regard to the bold, you should consider that perhaps your approach is ineffective and should be either abandoned or retooled. You can attempt to educate as much as you like but if it lacks intuitiveness or is an attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" approach, you may pushing a rock uphill every season. The analysis should speak for itself. You shouldn't need to write instructions on how to interpret the analysis. There's likely a better way to go about it that may even require less effort.

No worries. I can tell you that I have thought the same. If you read the part above where I essentially said that if we need to write an article to explain the report perhaps that it's a problem.

 

[Bill]

here's a better analysis from the thursday content:

Thursday, November 29th

2nd Opinion Projections ------------ Bloom/Herman--sometimes read

Kickermania - Herman---------------don't bother to read

For The Win - Pasquino-------------don;t read

Swing For The Fences FBG Staff------don't read

Value Plays - Tefertiller----------don't read

Overvalued Players - Jeff Tefertiller-sometimes read

From The Tape - Tefertiller---don't read

Beyond the Stats - Haseley---don't read

Triage - Garda-----------------don't read

General Admission - Baker-----don't read

Inside the Insider - Haseley/Hester-don't read

FanDuel Bargains - Cummings--sometimes read

Confidence Pool - FBG Staff--never read

Fantasy Roundtable - FBG Staff-never read

IDP Buy Low / Sell High - Borbely-not into IDP

Tiers - Bloom--don't read

Thursday Night Lights - Garda-don't read

Ear to the Ground - Magaw--don't read

Updated Projections - Dodds/Tremblay/Bloom/Norton/Herman

QB · RB · WR · TE · Rec · Flex · PK · Def

DL · DE · DT · LB · ILB · OLB · DB · CB · S · All IDP-always read

Updated Cheatsheets/Rankings *** - Dodds-sometimes read

Updated Cheatsheets/Rankings (PPR) - Dodds-sometimes read

Custom Cheatsheets/MyFBG - Drinen-sometimes read

Custom Top 250+ Forward - Dodds/Henry-always read

Lineup Dominator - Henderson-never read

The Profit - Brown-read once or twice

Players in the News *** - Gray/Bryant-sometimes read

note- i am a fantasy football junkie. i subscribe to FBG, H******, Fantasy ****. and i do like this site but i liked it a lot more when there wasn;'t so muc fluff on here. please stick to the basics and deliver quality insight.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I believe there is room for improvement for the process, as well as the communication and presentation of that process. We'll be working on it.

Thanks for the well thought out reply. We do understand that this report is coming from someone who analyses tape/scouts players and not from one of the millions of other fantasy sites that look at stats and give their "expert" opinions. What could change is the conviction with which a player is backed. Looking at the Upgrades/Downgrades, that article is too repetitive in my opinion. Take for example your wk 4 column, it Downgrades Drew Brees saying the whole team is letting him down. Now, if someone is taking your opinion, he would look to sell Brees for someone (like RG3, Rodgers, Brady or whoever). But the wk5 column Upgrades Drew Brees after a better all round performance by Saints (or I forget for what reason). Its just too many players that an opinion is given about every week, which maybe leads to decrease in value of the whole column.What should be perceived as "This column will give me an answer for my Waiver as it is coming from an esteemed writer" is, for me, perceived as "Oh, this long report with a view on every relevant player in the league, with a value I have to dig through for a hint". Maybe, we should be doing that, but you would think we want answers on a plate since we subscribe for this awesome service.

A few things here. First, there's the overall philosophy of how we decide to frame the report. Your recommendation of "what should be perceived" has merit, but I can also say that the way you perceive is a reflection of the downside of the current philosophy that we have opted to approach it. While I get several emails weekly from people who in fact, compliment us for the value of the report, it doesn't cancel out the criticisms like yours and some of the others here who feel it should be more intuitive. I feel that way and I write it. Personally, I think your perception stated above underscores the point that the entire process of how our reports feed into other content on the site is not understood by readers. I think that's a problem we need to resolve. I know something that as a team we are working on to improve. It's a process and we have been exchanging ideas behind the scenes based on the feedback we receive from readers and staff. I also have my share of ideas.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Guys. I changed the title to make this more about all areas we can improve.

Please keep the comments coming. The biggest challenge we have is that we have a wide range of "interest levels" from our customers. I know you know it, but you guys here are by far the most hardcore group. Most of our readers are not into it enough to participate in the boards like this so the desires of the Shark Pool are a little different than the desires of the readership as a whole. But on the flip side, you're obviously our most valued readers.

The second biggest challenge as I see it is how to present a ton of information so that it's not cluttered. I think this is one of our biggest failings. I look at our offering and I'm not pleased with how cluttered it is.

I don't have the answers but the feedback from you guys is very important as we look at this.

I have to be honest and say I"m also fearful of changing a ton. We've not changed the way we present the info much as even though it's certainly not perfect, it seems to be satisfying what most folks want. And for sure, we'll never be able to completely give everyone what they want. But we can do our best.

So please keep the thoughts coming on this. Thanks.

J

 

[HookAndSliceSince1991]

There seems to be an impression that "volume" of information (i.e filler, fluff, etc) pulls away from the core analysis that we long time members appreciate. I differ in my opinion. I think as FBG has added more authors to the staff, the variety of opinions is what helps me to consider all sides.

Where I agree with many of the posts here is that there is no identifieable differentiation in the content before you read it. It would be very helpful to have some organization and tagging around the amount of analysis that goes into the posted work. As David mentioned, his work takes longer to complete on a weekly basis and we appreciate the effort. Other posts may take no where near the time, we should know that as well.

How about categorizing the data around depth of analysis? There could be a section for "Facts" that encompasses actual performance, targets, red zone, etc. A section on "In Depth Analysis" that would be the home for the "hard core" and then a section on "Outside the lines" - for those that are interested in more of a "change in perspective" that may be less based on detailed projections.

Just some thoughts

 

[G5781]

I agree that less is more. Like others have stated, 95% of the articles go unread with me. I don't even know where to start when I open up the articles page. It's visually cumbersome.

I also subscribe to fantasy guru and I think they do it right. There's probably less than 5 on staff but the quality is tremendous. They focus on fantasy relevant articles like waiver wire, upgrades/downgrades, players to trade and trade for, a weekly strategy article, projections, and then a huge detailed fantasy relevant preview of the weeks games. That's their bread and butter and they focus mainly on that content. It's a great formula and the content is detailed, fresh and easy to read.

I love this site and understand that it has to appeal to a wide variety of FF players. Its gotten to the point that that I spend all my time on the forums and then just check the projections when I need them. I probably won't subscribe again but hope that improvement is made with the site since there are a lot of talented writers on here who have great FF minds

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Look at QBs... #4 is Peyton Manning. #24 is Jay Cutler. The difference between them is only six points. Six.

Six expected fantasy points is a lot. If we translate fantasy points into passing yards, it's more than an extra 100 passing yards. I think six expected fantasy points translates into something like an 80% chance that Manning will outscore Cutler.Projecting a bigger difference than that would be dishonest. It would give the false impression that we're even more sure that Manning will outscore Cutler this week than we really are. While that might be good marketing, the truth is that there's a lot of inherent unpredictability in fantasy outcomes. Manning might outscore Cutler by 12 points, or Cutler might outscore Manning by 6 points, or anything in between, and it would not be all that surprising. But actually predicting Manning to outscore Cutler by 12 points (or predicting Cutler to outscore Manning by 6 points) takes a certain amount of hubris, I think. Our projected differentials are more modest — but more honest, and (over the long run) almost certainly more accurate.

But the #24 QB is borderline unrosterable, barely a starter in a 2QB league. My point was that 20 positions are separated by 6 points total. Making the difference between any two pretty negligible.

I get your argument here and I'm sure there are weeks where the top 24 are close to random.But over the course of a season good projectors (and there are some consistently good ones) beat the bad ones by maybe 6-7%. And that's after the matchup choices that are unanimously agreed on are eliminated. Even if you only compare the guys who are serious about projecting, the good ones give you something like a 2-3% percent lift.

For me, across 12 leagues, that would work out to be worth maybe 35 points a week, which are in turn worth something like 5-6 wins a year -- or a bit less than a half win per league. Given that you can get into the playoffs with as few as seven wins, a half win per league is a nice edge. Or at the very least you don't lose ground to people who are using good projections.

And Dodds is almost always near the top in the rankings, along with a few others. IMO his projections are right up there with the subscriber contest in terms of best reasons to subscribe.

But it's easy for people to say the projections don't add value when the lift is small, pretty hard to see and the naysayers don't have to prove the case.

As for the OP here -- I agree. There's an awful lot of stuff that's not done very well or doesn't have much value. Doing a site analysis and some subscriber research to find out what people are using and what people value would be a great place to start.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Let's talk about "less is more" for a second.

Given the choice of two sites.

Site A has:

1. Offensive Rankings.

2. Offensive Projections.

3. Matchup information.

4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info.

5. Roundtable discussion

Site B has:

1. Offensive Rankings.

2. Offensive Projections.

3. Matchup information.

4. Free Agent / upgrade / downgrade info.

5. Roundtable discussion

6. IDP deep analysis

7. Strength of Schedule breakdown.

8. Dynasty news

9. Strategy article on trading

10. Commissioner article

Are we saying people would prefer site A?

It's a serious question. And I really want your guys feedback. But I need more thinking behind your answers.

Dave Thomas the Wendy's restaurant guy had some really good points in his book about not trying to be everything. He was convinced early that hamburgers should stay their main thing. That having salad bar and chicken and such actually hurt. Other places now have everything on the menu.

There is some value to having a wide offering. And the internet especially makes skipping over stuff you don't want very easy. Especially compared to print.

But I'd like to hear your reasoning and deeper thoughts on the "less is more". Thanks.

J

 

[Bill]

Are we saying people would prefer site A?

no- i'd prefer B but if you look at just Thuirsday's updates there were 27 articles to click on not just 10. i definetely would prefer less. less is more. it seems like a lot of what you post is to show how you arrived at your weekly rankings. you(and your staff) spend all week on this stuff but we don't need to know every nuance of how you got to your rankings. it would be like you posting a link to all the videos of the previous weeks games that you reviewed to show why you ranked so and so higher than another guy. i know some would want to watch the games again but i certainly don't have time to watch all of them-thats why i subscribe to this site and others to have you guys do the leg work.

like i posted above i have subscribed to this site for over 10 years and to two other main fantasy football sites and i will resubscribe to this one even if you don't change anything its just that we are trying to tell you that it seems like this site went on "information overload". give us less. the old saying applies-"quality over quanity".

and thanks for listening to us. its appreciated.

 

[theedge]

These are the articles and projections I try to read every week.

Monday

Waiver Report *** - Waldman

IDP Upgrades/Waiver - Rudnicki

Tuesday

Target Details - Drinen

Updated Offensive Upgrades/Waiver - Waldman

Dynasty News - Tefertiller

Early Projections - Dodds/Tremblay/Norton

QB · RB · WR · TE · Rec · Flex · PK · Def

DL · DE · DT · LB · ILB · OLB · DB · CB · S · All IDP

Wednesday

Film Room - Bloom

IDP Matchups to Expoit - Larkin

Dynasty Movement - FBG Staff

IDP Sleepers - Borbely

Reading the Defense - Bramel

Eyes of the Guru - Norton

Second Opinion - Bramel

Random Shots - Bryant

Thursday

Swing For The Fences - FBG Staff

General Admission - Baker

Confidence Pool - FBG Staff

Fantasy Roundtable - FBG Staff

IDP Buy Low / Sell High - Borbely

Tiers - Bloom

Ear to the Ground - Magaw

Friday

Buy Low / Sell High - Bloom

Updated Projections - Dodds/Tremblay/Bloom/Norton/Herman

QB · RB · WR · TE · Rec · Flex · PK · Def

DL · DE · DT · LB · ILB · OLB · DB · CB · S · All IDP

Sunday

Injury Report - Dodds

Players in the News *** - Gray/Bryant

Breaking News/Sunday Updates/Inactives *** - Bryant

Obviously this site helps me in all of my leagues. I have no problems with the amount of information available.

Thanks guys!

 

[tinkertailor]

But I'd like to hear your reasoning and deeper thoughts on the "less is more". Thanks.J

Hi JoeI feel the biggest upgrade that would be easily seen/felt is by removing the clutter on the weekly page. I feel the content here can be divided into three categories: 1) Articles - these are the crux for me. What you can get easily from FantasyPros is rankings from different sources (no dig at quality of rankings here). But what I really look forward to is articles with voice/conviction giving your reasons as to why you like a particular team/player/outcome. These are generally the Waiver articles by Matt, Buy Low/Sell High, Rent-a-defence, Rountable, Injury Reports, IDP reports etc type articles. There are a lot in this category which are all quality, but these should be advertised in a different segment (as and when they are out).2) Rankings/Projections - these are again important and second on my list. But if everyday the links are going to be updated (and point to the same URL), i.e data is overwritten, then posting them as a new link is just a waste of space, as they don't really show me how the rankings changed. My point is, they can all be cluttered into 1 MAIN link which points to the rankings and a mention of when they were last updated. This would reduce a lot of 'article' content. Strength of Schedule comes in this category as well.3) Stats-type/Auto-generated articles - these are helpful in deciding DSTs to take to see good/bad matchups. But they really should be bunched together on one page, under a drop box or something. I don't see the point of 'Prelim YTD stats' and 'Final YTD stats' and PPR/non-PPR and all the other combinations to be article titles. This just adds a whole lot of low value content which degrades the look of the product (by increasing quantity, not necessarily decreasing quality). The Data Dominator, Historical Data dominator are just links that are updated, which again could be one link that updates whenever it has to. A new title every day pointing to the same page is just a waste. Other articles here are Stats Allowed/Matchups/etc like articles which could similarly be bunched in a different section.This is just an idea, but looking at 5 auto-updating links instead of 30 over 5 days would definitely reduce clutter. This is just one idea and my take. Disclosure: This is my first year on any kind of paid subscription for FF, and I will be back because the product is way too good with quality content.

 

[cvnpoka]

waiver report absolutely needs to be revised and updated better. i dont watch all the games, nor do i want to scour every single box score and game report. furthermore, even if i did, it would be valuable to have a concise reference for ww decisions.

anyway, the main issue is that the report is confusing an unorganized. it often says stuff like "last week player x had this 10 touches for 75 yards, he is trending upward." but no, that did not happen last week, it was like 5 weeks ago.

even worse is when it says "with the injury to starter x, backup y is looking at an increase in workload." so i think, oh wow, this dude got hurt and may miss time. but that happened like 3 weeks ago and the starter has been fully healthy.

so the ww report is actually useless or makes me do the actual research bc now i must double check nearly every interesting capsule to make sure it is up to date.

its really simple too and it is arguably the most valuable piece of information.

 

[surferguy]

Can the Content page be formatted so you can choose what you want to see and what you don't want to see. Kinda like the myfantasyleague site where I can set my page however I want?