IDP Game Recaps (1 Viewer)

[StinkyCheeseman]

I play in a league where the the individual defensive players (2DL, 2LB & 2 DB) are given relatively equivalent weighting to the offensive players (1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE & 1 K) and we play through the Superbowl. Over the years I have really enjoyed the game recap articles on the offensive players and would really appreciate seeing similar content in regards the key defensive players as well.

I appreciate that the "Eyes of the Guru" and the "Reading the Defense" articles provide good topical content, but they are limited as to the content they can realistically cover.

Any support out there ? Hopefully there is and FBG are listening !

 

[kurtrudder]

This would be amazing to have but the resources needed to do this I don't think could possibly be compatible with someone like Dr Jene who has to work as well. It sounds like a full time staffer job for one person.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I play in a league where the the individual defensive players (2DL, 2LB & 2 DB) are given relatively equivalent weighting to the offensive players (1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE & 1 K) and we play through the Superbowl. Over the years I have really enjoyed the game recap articles on the offensive players and would really appreciate seeing similar content in regards the key defensive players as well.I appreciate that the "Eyes of the Guru" and the "Reading the Defense" articles provide good topical content, but they are limited as to the content they can realistically cover. Any support out there ? Hopefully there is and FBG are listening !

I'm not going to pull any punches here... Defensive game recaps would be awesome. David and Joe are extremely progressive with the depth and breadth of IDP content that they include throughout the preseason and regular season. We have talked about including defensive players in a recap format. But it's unlikely that it would make sense to devote the same amount of resources to defensive recaps given the relative percentage of readership that the IDP content gets during the season. And I'm not particularly interested in adding any half-assed content to our current lineup. John's column is an established thing. He's been writing in that team-by-team format for nearly 20 years now. For the most part, he hits the most critical pieces of information every week on about 18-25 teams. Aaron's column is pretty established, too. That format makes a lot of sense in that folks look at the box scores, see something funky -- a stud that sucked, a name with big numbers they don't recognize -- and want to know what happened.But my part in this is flexible. I'm drawn to trends, numbers, schemes and film study and I try to fill in the gaps or amplify or contrast those two opinions. If that's too specific, I can take things in a different direction. There's no way I can do positional reviews for each team by Monday night/Tuesday AM. But I can take the RTD column in a different direction -- leaving the numbers and trends for Larry's spreadsheet and some of the compare/contrast waiver discussions to the other columns in lieu of team-by-team positional discussions, scouting, playing time, etc.Quite honestly, compared to the number of page views I get each week, I get very little feedback on the content of the column. I generally assume that the steady readership means that folks are getting what they want and need. But if something more/different is better, please speak up.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

we've talked about doing this in the past but I don't think there's enough interest to make it worthwhile for all the effort and time and manpower it would take to do it right.

I wish I had more time to study every game closely or a team of people to feed me information before submitting the upgrades on Mondays, but I just don't have time so I mostly have to scan the gamebooks and look for any Monday news stories that come out. It might be possible later in the week for the bunch of us on staff to do something like that, but much of that same content is already being covered by Jene, John, and others in their weekly columns, and waivers have already run by that point in most leagues so not sure how helpful it would even be to the readers if it didn't come out much earlier in the week.

Seems like something that you'd need to have a big staff for so people could focus on a couple games and do it right. But the interest in IDP leagues and content just isn't there yet to justify it I don't think, even though I wish that wasn't the case.

 

[StinkyCheeseman]

Thanks Jene and Aaron for the responses. Looking at the small number of posters to the IDP Forum pages as compared to the Shark Pool it is probably a fair sample size comparison with which to extrapolate to the number of leagues that play IDP. I have never understood why the IDP side is not more popular given that every time there is an offense on the field there is a defense on the field.

In our league, our title was decided by a single point last year - unbelievable ... a single tackle decided the title (as it turns out pretty much the last play of the superbowl). We play accumulated points through the year (no head to head) and we play upto and including the Superbowl (would be great if you could tweak your regular season Top 200 forecast to include the playoffs - but that I suspect is asking too much !)

 

[Hoss Style]

I'm always up for more IDP content. I'd even pay extra for additional IDP content. I'm sure I'm in the minority, though, and I don't know how far my $9.99 would go towards new IDP staff...

 

[lyon812]

Thanks Jene and Aaron for the responses. Looking at the small number of posters to the IDP Forum pages as compared to the Shark Pool it is probably a fair sample size comparison with which to extrapolate to the number of leagues that play IDP. I have never understood why the IDP side is not more popular given that every time there is an offense on the field there is a defense on the field.

I've always felt it's because the reasons for a defensive player’s success appear harder to understand than offense, and individual players are more fluid from year to year. There are fewer things to debate. It's relatively easy to start an argument about how awesome C.J. Spiller is going to be and how he's the next Chris Johnson because his college highlight reels were great, or argue what WR should be listed ahead of what RB in your dynasty rankings. People get focused on individual talents without appreciating the whole picture. On the IDP side, there seems to be much less of that. Hype starts later, it takes longer for many players to develop or get an opportunity, and it’s easier for late-round talents to thrive. The IDP community seems to embrace a flexible tier-based approach from year-to-year because there are fewer long-term elite prospects. We just don’t get into the “Willis is not better than Mayo you’re crazy, his closing speed isn’t nearly as high” type of arguments. Which I kinda like.

 

[Jestefarean]

I'm always up for more IDP content. I'd even pay extra for additional IDP content. I'm sure I'm in the minority, though, and I don't know how far my $9.99 would go towards new IDP staff...

I'd pay extra for more content.