Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Really? He always strikes me as very bright.IheartGuinness said:
This. He has done a GREAT job as a spokesman for fantasy football. He has drafts with Jay Z. His book was a best-seller. I am extremely grateful of Matthew Berry. He has probably done more to make fantasy football mainstream than anyone. I remain a big fan.
My guess is that he bases how much he writes on pageviews and readership history, not ego.
If you like the FBG podcasts, check out the DLF podcasts. It's a dynasty angle on everything, but if you prefer the more serious FF talk, they are only second to FBG podcasts, that I have found.
Was this really "his" doing per say though, or was he just the guy called on when ESPN said "we need to start taking advantage of this fantasy football thing".
This is the game we play and follow. It would have happened with or without ESPN. Berry just happened to be one of us. A guy who loved fantasy sports and took a chance to write about it for a living at a time when NO ONE was doing that. He built himself into the most recognizable name in the fantasy game on his own. So if ESPN didn't put him on at the rise of Fantasy sports popularity, someone else would have.
Yeah at a time when nobody gave fantasy sports mainstream attention, Berry had a very popular California column and was repeatedly being invited back to FOX radio to talk fantasy. His segment was so popular that it got attention from ESPN. No doubt he chose the right career at the right time, but he wasn't just some random talking head that ESPN said, "hey you are the only guy around Bristol that knows what fantasy is so you are going to be our fantasy guru."
He actually gave to up his career as a Hollywood writer (Married with Children, Croc Dundee 2) to devote himself to fantasy sports.
Does it matter? I mean, we could ask how much of Joe Montana's success was Joe Montana and how much was him just landing in the perfect place at the perfect time. After all, Ken Anderson and Steve Young were also both all-time greats in that system. If the Niners had gotten someone else, would they still have won any titles in the '80s? Would they have traded for Steve Young and started him sooner? Would they have been awful and wound up with John Elway, instead? Somehow I suspect that even without Joe Montana, Bill Walsh wasn't going to be retiring without a few Superbowl rings.
In one of the recent podcasts, he was calling in from NY because he had just been on the Stern show.
1. Harvin will be top 10 WR this season.
Harvin has never finished top 10 and had all of 1 catch last year. He's currently being drafted in the 4th round.
Well, if you base all your expectations solely on past performance, I can see why you agree with Berry about Seattle this year. That isn't my methodology.
If you base all your decisions by projecting outlandish stats and taking on inordinate amounts of risk then more power to you. I like to avoid as much risk as possible.Well, if you base all your expectations solely on past performance, I can see why you agree with Berry about Seattle this year. That isn't my methodology.
Do you consider it outlandish to project a QB who has finished top 8-9 in his first 2 seasons to finish top 8 this season?If you base all your decisions by projecting outlandish stats and taking on inordinate amounts of risk then more power to you. I like to avoid as much risk as possible.Well, if you base all your expectations solely on past performance, I can see why you agree with Berry about Seattle this year.That isn't my methodology.
Wilson finished 12 and 13 respectively his first 2 years in what I saw.Do you consider it outlandish to project a QB who has finished top 8-9 in his first 2 seasons to finish top 8 this season?If you base all your decisions by projecting outlandish stats and taking on inordinate amounts of risk then more power to you. I like to avoid as much risk as possible.Well, if you base all your expectations solely on past performance, I can see why you agree with Berry about Seattle this year.That isn't my methodology.
Do you consider it outlandish to project a WR who finished as WR #7 in 2011 and was WR #3 when he got hurt in 2012 to finish top 10 this season?
Do you consider it outlandish to project a WR who finished as WR #38 last season in an offense that should pass more frequently to be a top 30 WR?
Do you consider it outlandish to project an increase in pass attempts for a team that demonstrated its desire to strengthen its passing game by paying a hefty price for Harvin?
Do you really believe such projections represent "inordinate amounts of risk"?
My point in posting was that it didn't seem that Berry is really paying attention to the Seattle offense. Now it seems like you aren't either.
I disagree with all of this. And whether I am right or wrong, this is exactly what a "proper" fantasy analyst should be doing... Analyzing, not regurgitating.
Maybe you can show me where those stats are from. Ah I see you added the rushing. Do you believe he will be used nearly as much as he was in Minnesota for rushing purposes?
One of the things Berry does emphasize is that stats can talk up or talk down any player you want. Don't think he hasn't analyzed the situation.
I don't believe he will be used THAT much in the running game, but i do believe he will be used. Remember, Percy Harvin was a running back at Florida. He had identical college rushing totals to Frank Gore. He was the leading rusher (from either team) in the Superbowl. He set the record for most career rushing yards by a WR when he was 25 years old. Harvin's going to run.
What I like about Ravitz is he calls him out for loving everyone and tries to pin him down. Like ok Matthew, you can't say you love all ten of these sleeper TE's and say "I told you so" when one of them breaks out. That needs to be said occasionally.placebo said:
I'm not a journalist so you'll have to forgive my rudimentary understanding of the ethics of disclosure rules, but I don't think they're really necessary in colloquial settings like a message board or twitter, which is basically (in my mind) the digital equivalent of casual conversation. I think if I were writing an article about Matt Berry, it would probably be a good idea to be as up-front as possible about FBGs' relationship with him just to avoid any appearance of impropriety; in a loose and unstructured setting like this, based on the facts that FBG has made no secret of the relationship, (it's in a pinned thread at the top of the page), and the fact that I had nothing to do with the relationship, (I'm the guy in the cube farm, I don't get conferenced in to calls in the board room), I generally don't even consider whether disclosure would be appropriate for me. As an agent of FBGs I have a relationship with Matt Berry. As a someone who has been hanging out around here posting for a dozen years, I do not. When I'm posting here, am I an agent of FBGs or an independent guy who has been posting here for a dozen years? Or, am I both at the same time? Which I suppose gets into the thorny dynamics of posting on the FBG-run message boards as a paid staff member of FBGs, and probably speaks at least a little bit to why message board participation typically declines when someone makes staff.
