New MyFootballguys (Top 200 Forward, Primer etc) (1 Viewer)

[Gottabesweet]

Is there a way to view the top 200 forward like last year?  This years version is formatted differently within my FBG's.  The old way you could sort by fantasy teams and see total points rest of season, not AVG's etc.

 

[phowler13]

.?

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

the "new" myFBG is very different and honestly I don't like it. I like the old way too. If this is what you mean, when hover over the myFBG link on top of the page, it gives you the option to go into the classic view and it's still there.

 

[Wrigley]

You can access the top 200 inside the inseason page

 

[OU#1]

You can go to the FBG home page then click My FBG and choose My FBG classic 

 

[smcindoe]

The direct link to the "old" MyFBG is https://subscribers.footballguys.com/myfbg/my.php

The top 200 forward and everything else is there.

 

[KingPrawn]

I too am using the classic MyFBG. The so called new and improved new version is pretty much unreadable.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I admit it takes a little while to get used to, understand, and for some reason trust. But that's common when it's new.

I like the feature of the "stock up" report in the Waivers/FA tab (which I take is another name for Top 200 -- note to FBG, would help ease transition if you at least kept the naming convention the same and just name this the Top 200 Forward instead of the Waivers/FA report) but I imagine the "All Free Agents" is the real Top 200 list to pay attention to.

ETA: Just realized that it's the Season Rankings tab that's the most analogous to the Top 200 forward. So yes. This new format is confusing to me, even though I should have realized that Season Rankings means rankings for the rest of the season...obvious though not intuitive.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I too am using the classic MyFBG. The so called no and improved new version is pretty much unreadable.

Not only that but the projections are incorrect (at least with MFL-linked leagues), which I’ve alerted the “help desk” to multiple times but I guess they don’t care.

bells and whistles don’t mean #### if the blocking and tackling is broken

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Not only that but the projections are incorrect (at least with MFL-linked leagues), which I’ve alerted the “help desk” to multiple times but I guess they don’t care.

bells and whistles don’t mean #### if the blocking and tackling is broken

I haven't seen a single ticket on this. All my MFL leagues work perfectly. Why don't you send it directly to shepherd at footballguys dot com over email. I encourage everyone to do that with any issues. If you want to skip helpdesk, fine, I'll talk over email and sort out any problems you have. I see a lot of posts like this on the forum but I don't honestly see the same kind of things reflected at help desk or over email. So fill my inbox! Keep me busy!

Guys, Season Rankings has all the same data as the top 200 on the new system. It's rankings for the season; the dashboard screen explains it further "All players ranked based on forward projections for the remainder of the season.". A similar tooltip has that info when you hover on the menu icon too.

If you think something is missing there, just say so.

the "new" myFBG is very different and honestly I don't like it.

Ok; why? Specifically, how can we make it better? Or even, specifically, what don't you like about it?

I too am using the classic MyFBG. The so called new and improved new version is pretty much unreadable.

I'm not sure what this means; it's tabular form just like the old one. Is there a display issue? Something not displaying as it should perhaps? Can you put your finger on why you feel it's unreadable?

We have some really good feedback on the new system. A lot of people love it. We've had some negative stuff too and I've been working through those. When we get that detail, most of the time I'm able to go back and forth with the customer and make a change that leaves them happy.

I am here and I am all ears, ready to do all that I can to get people to move over to it. All I ask from you guys is some detail and specifics rather than generalized comments.

Yes, the classic version remains up on the site. No-one is taking that down.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

I admit it takes a little while to get used to, understand, and for some reason trust. But that's common when it's new.

I like the feature of the "stock up" report in the Waivers/FA tab (which I take is another name for Top 200 -- note to FBG, would help ease transition if you at least kept the naming convention the same and just name this the Top 200 Forward instead of the Waivers/FA report) but I imagine the "All Free Agents" is the real Top 200 list to pay attention to.

ETA: Just realized that it's the Season Rankings tab that's the most analogous to the Top 200 forward. So yes. This new format is confusing to me, even though I should have realized that Season Rankings means rankings for the rest of the season...obvious though not intuitive.

Thanks, yes you're right there in the last paragraph. The reason I've been apprehensive there is that it's more than 200 players that it lists. But I'll change this because I agree it's more important people can find stuff. Thank you!

The Waivers/FA screen is actually 1) Sigmund's stock up free agents in your league and 2) all the free agents listed to how well they help your team. So we go through all the free agents and every remaining week of the NFL season, and calculate if they'd ever start for you, and if so how many points they'd add, and the same for your bench. This is a nice shiny new feature that I think is quite useful! As it works in your positional weaknesses of your current roster.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Too many colors, the ranking is on top of the player, not easily sortable. I like where I click my opponents and it highlights all of them.  The regular version is clean-crisp and easy to follow-  gives me a PPG and rest of year score with the value.  The new version it's all jumble tight and together.

 

[Gottabesweet]

I too am using the classic MyFBG. The so called new and improved new version is pretty much unreadable.

very difficult to read.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Too many colors

Ok; thanks. That's two strikes for too many colors so I'll add that to the list - an option to take away colors from positions and teams.

the ranking is on top of the player

could you send a screenshot to my email? That sounds like it may be a display issue.

I like where I click my opponents and it highlights all of them

This is available under the Settings dialog top right on every screen. I could have that as its own panel menu on desktops if the consensus is that this is something that needs quicker access?

Just a quick note too! Obviously we plan this stuff a ton. I build it, we show it to staff, go through tons of feedback until we're happy, but at some point, we have to stop testing and throw it to you guys. All this stuff here is really fine tuning and I hope you'll see that we are able to respond quickly and put out the changes. And of course - the biggest thing here is thank you for the feedback. This only works if it works for you - our customers - so when you take your time to tell us how it could be better for you - thank you.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

very difficult to read.

I am reading from these comments that the columns need to be more spaced out. Let me try that later on.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Ok; thanks. That's two strikes for too many colors so I'll add that to the list - an option to take away colors from positions and teams.

could you send a screenshot to my email? That sounds like it may be a display issue.

This is available under the Settings dialog top right on every screen. I could have that as its own panel menu on desktops if the consensus is that this is something that needs quicker access?

Just a quick note too! Obviously we plan this stuff a ton. I build it, we show it to staff, go through tons of feedback until we're happy, but at some point, we have to stop testing and throw it to you guys. All this stuff here is really fine tuning. And of course - the biggest thing here is thank you for the feedback. This only works if it works for you - our customers - so when you take your time to tell us how it could be better for you - thank you.

That would be great. I like the team names all on tabs above the listings to quickly highlight them to figure out potential trade partners.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That would be great. I like the team names all on tabs above the listings to quickly highlight them to figure out potential trade partners.

Seconded.  I found it but would prefer not to have to drill down twice into a menu to get there.  Also I like the idea of allowing different colors for different teams, which would be an improvement over the classic version, but many of the colors are too similar which defeats the purpose.  Should make them customizable.

Also re: too many colors, had the same complaint last year with the new Draft Dominator.  I don't need the two-tone team tag next to the position, it's too much visual noise and makes it harder to distinguish across positions while adding nothing of value.  Kill that, no one will miss it. 

It also suffers from the same problem as every other website in the universe built in the last few years: too much whitespace.  If I look at, for example, the "Season Rankings" page in the new MyFBG I can see 13 players on the screen without scrolling.  On the Top 200 Forward page on classic, I can see 27.  And somehow, despite giving me twice as many players at a glance, it's also easier to read than the new version.  

Could probably come up with many more suggestions, e.g., the new version of 10 second primer is worse than classic, the Trades tab is a great idea but has some flaws, etc. but for the most part so far I've just avoided using the new MyFBG.  

 

[Gottabesweet]

Seconded.  I found it but would prefer not to have to drill down twice into a menu to get there.  Also I like the idea of allowing different colors for different teams, which would be an improvement over the classic version, but many of the colors are too similar which defeats the purpose.  Should make them customizable.

Also re: too many colors, had the same complaint last year with the new Draft Dominator.  I don't need the two-tone team tag next to the position, it's too much visual noise and makes it harder to distinguish across positions while adding nothing of value.  Kill that, no one will miss it. 

It also suffers from the same problem as every other website in the universe built in the last few years: too much whitespace.  If I look at, for example, the "Season Rankings" page in the new MyFBG I can see 13 players on the screen without scrolling.  On the Top 200 Forward page on classic, I can see 27.  And somehow, despite giving me twice as many players at a glance, it's also easier to read than the new version.  

Could probably come up with many more suggestions, e.g., the new version of 10 second primer is worse than classic, the Trades tab is a great idea but has some flaws, etc. but for the most part so far I've just avoided using the new MyFBG.  

This times 100% thanks for wording it better!

 

[Simon Shepherd]

the new version of 10 second primer is worse than classic

Thanks; why is that?

In the new version the 10 second primer condenses all our projections down into one consensus. With the old version, you have to look at 2-3 different blocks to work out what to do. For me the 10 second primer needs to be as condense and short as possible, so I see that one as a nice upgrade.

Otherwise, the formatting is close to identical save for the colored team boxes (which I will add an option in to toggle off; I know you guys wouldn't miss them. The shark pool is way above our average customer or prospective customer in terms of NFL/fantasy knowledge and I get good feedback on those boxes from other crowds)

 

[cheese]

I think the new format is better on a phone than Classic was. 

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thanks; why is that?

In the new version the 10 second primer condenses all our projections down into one consensus. With the old version, you have to look at 2-3 different blocks to work out what to do. For me the 10 second primer needs to be as condense and short as possible, so I see that one as a nice upgrade.

On the classic version the thing that jumps out most (black font) is "the players on my roster that I should start this week" which is primarily what I come to this page for.  Then in clear blue font, "free agents that would be an upgrade this week" which is a useful secondary purpose.  I'm not really coming to this page to get advice on free agent pickups, but it's useful to see here.  And both are placed into larger context by listing them in order among other players (both those on my roster and free agents) in a much lighter font, so the info is there but isn't distracting.  On the new version, the thing that jumps out most (bold full color font) is "the combination of your players and available free agents that you should start" which is, again, a secondary purpose of this page.  I'm usually not actually going to pick up all the free agents this page recommends.  Meanwhile a player I actually own is now in normal weight light gray font.  Font weight / color should be used to effectively communicate info and I feel like that's being done worse in the new version.  For example I just looked at at the TD position in one of my leagues I see:

Falcons (8.73), Cowboys (8.72), Jets (8.31), Titans (8.26), Patriots (8.16)

I own the Patriots and without making any free agency moves, that's who I should start this week, yet I can barely see them.  Meanwhile, the Falcons and Cowboys are both "teams I don't own that would be an improvement over my best starter" yet they have different font weight/color.  Sure, you're recommending the Falcons as a (infinitesimally) better start than the Cowboys but they are basically the same category, they should be the same font.  

And I get the thinking behind the condensed "David Dodds agrees with this lineup," "Maurile Tremblay would start this guy and sit this other guy" but for me that loses the context that the original version provided.  For each projector I can see all of my players and a decent number of the available free agents which is useful.  The new version is telling me that Tremblay would start Philip Dorsett at WR3 and sit Tyler Lockett, but I have no idea if he thinks Lockett is WR4 or WR20, and who else he might have ranked between them.  And I don't know where Dodds has Dorsett ranked at all.  All of that info is available at a glance on the classic version.  I agree that 10-second primer should be as condense as possible, but it feels like the new version has lost useful info for the sake of being more condense.  If making it short is the goal you could make it even shorter by just showing "here's who you should start this week" but you didn't because that would be less useful, so clearly there's a tradeoff and I think it went too far. 

Otherwise, the formatting is close to identical save for the colored team boxes (which I will add an option in to toggle off; I know you guys wouldn't miss them. The shark pool is way above our average customer or prospective customer in terms of NFL/fantasy knowledge and I get good feedback on those boxes from other crowds)

I guess I'm never surprised by customer feedback but I have a hard time believing anyone cares about or uses those colored team boxes for anything.  What possible purpose do they serve?  "I need to pick up a player this week, but I only want someone from the Giants or Texans, so let me look for players with a blue and red tag next to their name.  But also I don't want any Patriots so..."  The colors don't convey anything useful, I know what colors the Vikings are, I don't need a purple and yellow pill next to Adam Thielen's name everywhere.  It's just noise that distracts from the color-coded position tags, which are actually useful as a visual aid. 

 

[Gottabesweet]

On the classic version the thing that jumps out most (black font) is "the players on my roster that I should start this week" which is primarily what I come to this page for.  Then in clear blue font, "free agents that would be an upgrade this week" which is a useful secondary purpose.  I'm not really coming to this page to get advice on free agent pickups, but it's useful to see here.  And both are placed into larger context by listing them in order among other players (both those on my roster and free agents) in a much lighter font, so the info is there but isn't distracting.  On the new version, the thing that jumps out most (bold full color font) is "the combination of your players and available free agents that you should start" which is, again, a secondary purpose of this page.  I'm usually not actually going to pick up all the free agents this page recommends.  Meanwhile a player I actually own is now in normal weight light gray font.  Font weight / color should be used to effectively communicate info and I feel like that's being done worse in the new version.  For example I just looked at at the TD position in one of my leagues I see:

Falcons (8.73), Cowboys (8.72), Jets (8.31), Titans (8.26), Patriots (8.16)

I own the Patriots and without making any free agency moves, that's who I should start this week, yet I can barely see them.  Meanwhile, the Falcons and Cowboys are both "teams I don't own that would be an improvement over my best starter" yet they have different font weight/color.  Sure, you're recommending the Falcons as a (infinitesimally) better start than the Cowboys but they are basically the same category, they should be the same font.  

And I get the thinking behind the condensed "David Dodds agrees with this lineup," "Maurile Tremblay would start this guy and sit this other guy" but for me that loses the context that the original version provided.  For each projector I can see all of my players and a decent number of the available free agents which is useful.  The new version is telling me that Tremblay would start Philip Dorsett at WR3 and sit Tyler Lockett, but I have no idea if he thinks Lockett is WR4 or WR20, and who else he might have ranked between them.  And I don't know where Dodds has Dorsett ranked at all.  All of that info is available at a glance on the classic version.  I agree that 10-second primer should be as condense as possible, but it feels like the new version has lost useful info for the sake of being more condense.  If making it short is the goal you could make it even shorter by just showing "here's who you should start this week" but you didn't because that would be less useful, so clearly there's a tradeoff and I think it went too far. 

I guess I'm never surprised by customer feedback but I have a hard time believing anyone cares about or uses those colored team boxes for anything.  What possible purpose do they serve?  "I need to pick up a player this week, but I only want someone from the Giants or Texans, so let me look for players with a blue and red tag next to their name.  But also I don't want any Patriots so..."  The colors don't convey anything useful, I know what colors the Vikings are, I don't need a purple and yellow pill next to Adam Thielen's name everywhere.  It's just noise that distracts from the color-coded position tags, which are actually useful as a visual aid. 

Also agree a lot with that point. The little pill makes it difficult to glance quickly.

 

[tangfoot]

@Simon Shepherd

I sent you an email with screenshots that show discrepencies between the new and old version of MyFBG.  Long story short, it looks like the new version can't read my rosters correctly and doesn't show the same owned players as the original version.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

@Simon Shepherd

I sent you an email with screenshots that show discrepencies between the new and old version of MyFBG.  Long story short, it looks like the new version can't read my rosters correctly and doesn't show the same owned players as the original version.

ok thanks; that's weird because the rosters for classic are fed to it by the new system! I'll take a look for sure.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Oops sorry @Elevencents I saw your post as double, tried to remove one and it deleted both! You basically said that you agree there's too many colors, and stats are spilling into each other on iPad. I'll check that. Thanks

 

[Simon Shepherd]

I'll have an update for you guys tomorrow. Thanks again.

 

[Elevencents]

Oops sorry @Elevencents I saw your post as double, tried to remove one and it deleted both! You basically said that you agree there's too many colors, and stats are spilling into each other on iPad. I'll check that. Thanks

Thanks Simon. I only notice it on the season long page. The other stat pages there is no issue. 

 

[4th&inches]

I'll have an update for you guys tomorrow. Thanks again.

I too, have some of the same suggestions for the app/ new MyFBG as the rest, but do want to say it's still a valuable tool and I absolutely appreciate the constant effort by yourself to constantly make things better. 

 

[Gottabesweet]

Appreciate you being able to take the constructive criticism and try to make it appealing for your diehards over here!

 

[djjosee]

Running old vs new side by side in the same league kicks out some different results.  (Conner new #23 RB overall / Conner old #27 overall) are there different variables being factored in between the two?  I like in the old you can highlight multiple teams as well.

I use everything on the old format, including DD

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Ok; why? Specifically, how can we make it better? Or even, specifically, what don't you like about it?

@Simon Shepherd big part of it is just getting used to it like @Stompin' Tom Connors stated above. there have been many changes from last year to this year that I haven't fully digested i'm sure, so the unqualified "i don't like it" is still based largely on last year's experience. here are some of my dislikes so far using it for the last two weeks. If any of this is addressed already and I'm not seeing it, please let me know.

• The classic view is within the FBG Web site, so all weekly subscriber contents are linked right there to the left. Granted the content I'm referring to is not specific to myFBG content, but this is poor UI/UX planning. I don't want to just use FBG nor just use myFBG. I want a landing page that does it all and the classic view accomplished that albeit cluttered compared to the new. I have to come back to FBG to go to any other content if I use the new myFBG. Need a seamless navigation for subscribers to all contents, which seems like an easy enough thing to have added already.
  
• Speaking of links, there is no link to the Subscriber Contest from the new myFBG.
  
• Season Rankings, which is the Top 200 Forward (I assume), doesn't give me the option to isolate whose rankings is being used. I use everyone's rankings, but I've gotten use to a certain pattern in the way the the projections differ from David to the others, especially how quickly the projections react the what happened yesterday (yesterday in the generic sense).
  
• I was going to say the same about the weekly rankings as the last point, but I see that the three projector names and their rankings are baked into the projection as sortable columns, so this I can get use to. I may actually end up liking this part better than jumping from one projector to the next.
  
• The classic view has at least one section where you can see the last time a projection was updated by whom. This is also a valuable information that doesn't seem to be visible anywhere in the new myFBG.
  

It's what I can think of for now and in a glance covers most of what I remember from last year too. Thanks.

eta: The Weekly Ranking is not sortable after all, which seems odd. I can click on the projector's name and it draws an arrow underneath like the Excel symbol for sorted, but the link isn't updating. I'm using Firefox, haven't tried it yet on Chrome or IE. Could this be just a java or flash bug on Firefox? It sure looks like the intent is to be able to sort.

 

[loompa17]

I like some of the content that's available in the Waivers/FA section, but I feel like it's a little difficult to find it.  For one of my leagues, it shows Brandon Marshall as a "considerable upgrade".  Why is he a considerable upgrade?  It's a considerable upgrade if I drop which player?

As I click into things and explore more, I find that the system says Brandon Marshall isn't forecasted to start, but he could help my bench.  (Although some of the numbers on these reports I don't understand - like bench balance).  It seems like the system would recommend me to drop Cortland Sutton in favor of Marshall.  The problem for me is that this my WR7 on my team where we start 3.  For my WR7, I'm looking for high ceiling - something that I feel like a rookie receiver has over the 34 year-old.  Anyway, I don't mean to get too critique-y about the player evaluation because that's not the topic here.  But I'm trying to understand why Marshall got the designation of considerable upgrade.  Even when I look at the graph of Depth Before and Depth After, I'm seeing only very slight differences - so why "considerable upgrade".

As the system evaluates my current roster against possible free agents, maybe some player-specific customization options would be nice?  I've got one league that has an obscure keeper rule that makes it valid for me to hold Derrius Guice on my roster.  Or, what if I just really loved Cortland Sutton (like, what if he were a cousin or something)?  I don't need the system to continually evaluate the free agent against Guice or Sutton.  And yet, I expect every week it's going to tell me there are a plethora of players who represent considerable upgrades over a guy like Guice/Sutton.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

It’s a considerable upgrade to marshall’s stock, not necessarily your team. 

Im reading all of these and making notes and action points , keep them coming!

 

[loompa17]

It’s a considerable upgrade to marshall’s stock, not necessarily your team. 

Im reading all of these and making notes and action points , keep them coming!

Oh!  Yea, that changes the perspective on my comment.  Thanks

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

@Simon Shepherd, thanks for the patient listening and taking your customer's comments and needs to heart. Solid CS and product management, here.

A suggestion: 

In the 10 Second Primer, it's super clear where the FBG staff see better plays by position -- you see the suggestions of starting players in either WR/RB/Flex positions.

In the MyFBG, all you get is a list of players that a staffer thinks should start or sit, but not by position. You lose a HUGE piece of granularity as you don't know if Dodd's thinks, say, Golladay is a better play as a WR2 over your choices there or over your flex selection.

In this way, the Classic is far superior, and there is clearly room to match that format in MyFBG.

 

[Forte Yard Dash]

Add me to the list of those who still prefers classic.  I'm sure part of it is that I'm used to classic, it's simple and easy to use, and the new one looks too "busy" or something.  Maybe I'll get used to it through trial and error.  In any case, I just spent some time clicking around, and here's an issue I just found.  I'm looking at the matchup tab.  For one of my leagues, when I go to the "by position" tab, it lists players on my team that aren't even on my team, when it is calculating my projected score.  Apparently free agents who are projected to score higher than my current player for that week are listed as if I already owned them.  In this case it's a defense who has a good matchup this week, but I don't want to own long term and so won't be making that change.  But it's calculating my score as if I have that team.

Edit:  OK, now I see how to "fix" that. There's a tab in settings that I have to uncheck, "include FA."  Took a while to find it.  This seems like it could be cool, but it gets complicated quickly when I have to figure all of this out on the fly.  When there are a number of leagues to manage, I just default to classic to avoid all of this.

Also agree about the free agent stuff, the "huge upgrade" needs more context.  Upgrade to what?  To my worst player at that same position?  To the worst bench player but maybe at a different position?  Sometimes I have flexibility, so that I could drop my worst rb to pick up a better wr, is any of that taken into account?  Etc.

 

[rick6668]

On the classic version the thing that jumps out most (black font) is "the players on my roster that I should start this week" which is primarily what I come to this page for.  Then in clear blue font, "free agents that would be an upgrade this week" which is a useful secondary purpose.  I'm not really coming to this page to get advice on free agent pickups, but it's useful to see here.  And both are placed into larger context by listing them in order among other players (both those on my roster and free agents) in a much lighter font, so the info is there but isn't distracting.  On the new version, the thing that jumps out most (bold full color font) is "the combination of your players and available free agents that you should start" which is, again, a secondary purpose of this page.  I'm usually not actually going to pick up all the free agents this page recommends.  Meanwhile a player I actually own is now in normal weight light gray font.  Font weight / color should be used to effectively communicate info and I feel like that's being done worse in the new version.  For example I just looked at at the TD position in one of my leagues I see:

Falcons (8.73), Cowboys (8.72), Jets (8.31), Titans (8.26), Patriots (8.16)

I own the Patriots and without making any free agency moves, that's who I should start this week, yet I can barely see them.  Meanwhile, the Falcons and Cowboys are both "teams I don't own that would be an improvement over my best starter" yet they have different font weight/color.  Sure, you're recommending the Falcons as a (infinitesimally) better start than the Cowboys but they are basically the same category, they should be the same font.  

And I get the thinking behind the condensed "David Dodds agrees with this lineup," "Maurile Tremblay would start this guy and sit this other guy" but for me that loses the context that the original version provided.  For each projector I can see all of my players and a decent number of the available free agents which is useful.  The new version is telling me that Tremblay would start Philip Dorsett at WR3 and sit Tyler Lockett, but I have no idea if he thinks Lockett is WR4 or WR20, and who else he might have ranked between them.  And I don't know where Dodds has Dorsett ranked at all.  All of that info is available at a glance on the classic version.  I agree that 10-second primer should be as condense as possible, but it feels like the new version has lost useful info for the sake of being more condense.  If making it short is the goal you could make it even shorter by just showing "here's who you should start this week" but you didn't because that would be less useful, so clearly there's a tradeoff and I think it went too far. 

I guess I'm never surprised by customer feedback but I have a hard time believing anyone cares about or uses those colored team boxes for anything.  What possible purpose do they serve?  "I need to pick up a player this week, but I only want someone from the Giants or Texans, so let me look for players with a blue and red tag next to their name.  But also I don't want any Patriots so..."  The colors don't convey anything useful, I know what colors the Vikings are, I don't need a purple and yellow pill next to Adam Thielen's name everywhere.  It's just noise that distracts from the color-coded position tags, which are actually useful as a visual aid. 

You are nailing it in this thread.  I agree with all your points. (Especially the font/color part above)

 

[Simon Shepherd]

@Simon Shepherd, thanks for the patient listening and taking your customer's comments and needs to heart. Solid CS and product management, here.

A suggestion: 

In the 10 Second Primer, it's super clear where the FBG staff see better plays by position -- you see the suggestions of starting players in either WR/RB/Flex positions.

In the MyFBG, all you get is a list of players that a staffer thinks should start or sit, but not by position. You lose a HUGE piece of granularity as you don't know if Dodd's thinks, say, Golladay is a better play as a WR2 over your choices there or over your flex selection.

In this way, the Classic is far superior, and there is clearly room to match that format in MyFBG.

Thanks for the feedback! on the Golladay as a WR2 or a flex: does the listing of who Dodds would sit to make room for Golladay not help there?

I own the Patriots and without making any free agency moves, that's who I should start this week, yet I can barely see them.  Meanwhile, the Falcons and Cowboys are both "teams I don't own that would be an improvement over my best starter" yet they have different font weight/color.  Sure, you're recommending the Falcons as a (infinitesimally) better start than the Cowboys but they are basically the same category, they should be the same font.  

Got it! I'll fix this. Thanks. I agree this one is a tiny thing in terms of coding or whatever but a huge one for usability.

I could just add a tab that is a classic primer view. exactly. But this is the 10 second primer. The point is to be as condense as possible. Where you want more detail, the Matchup screen comes in.

When you guys are asking for all the projections for your league, and to know the exact ranking of each player for each projection: ultimately, there's a trade-off between info that the 10 second primer provides, and whether or not it's a 10 second primer or a 20 second primer.

Perhaps our mistake here is to name it exactly equivalently. The new one really is a 5 second primer. It just tells you what to do if you have less than no time. Here's all our projections condensed down into a starting lineup - go! And by the way, if you want to do some free agent pickups to help this week, these are the guys to add.

MyFBG Classic didn't have an equivalent to the new Matchups screen.

Really what we've done here is take the old 10-second primer - which we love just like you guys - but observe that a lot of people are using this for a lot of different tasks, and ultimately because of that, it's not quite as good as what it originally set out to be - a screen to get you advice as quickly as possible.

What I'd ask you guys to do is take a look at the Matchups screen. I ask that because when we're going into the detail of things like, "I want to know how Dodds ranks Dorsett versus Golladay and how Bloom ranks him versus Hyde", we are well out of the situation where you need to look at multiple leagues at a time. At that point you're drilling into a specific league and out of what the primer was/is built for.

The matchups screen does a ton that I think you guys are asking for in the primer, and some other stuff you may not even know about:

•  gives you a column for every projector. Super neat. All the info you need in a table right there. You can change projections under settings > Projections Used very easily to see what each staffer would suggest as a lineup.
  
• you can easily toggle free agents on and off
  
• the advice is fully contextualized to your opponent. It looks at things like, you have Eli and your opponent has OBJ. Does that increase/decrease the value of starting Eli? (answer: depends on if you're the favorite or the underdog and by how much!)
  
• switch from our best recommended lineup to your actual lineup set on the host site
  
• the orange analysis button (once we know your opponent this week): there's just so much cool stuff here. Charts showing you your chances of winning. More math-analysis of the Eli/OBJ problem. Comparison between you and your opponent by position, and how your scoring will play out over time. Free agents you might want to pick up that could otherwise help your opponent. I hate for you guys to miss out on this stuff because the primer isn't formatted exactly as it always was!
  

One final thought here. We are asking a lot. You guys love the old stuff, and so do we. But we think we can do better. And we think we can get it displaying on multiple devices, while supporting a much higher percentage of your scoring rules too. We also think it's important to play to beat your opponent, not just maximize your score.

So I will put together after today's release a guide for everyone that helps moving from Classic to New. We'll put that up on all the Classic pages. And I'll post it here too.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on this. Obviously, we can't implement every idea or it becomes a frankenstein monster but you've given us a lot of great feedback and helped us understand what you're seeing. Thanks.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

reading a lot of this and thinking about some of my league mates and what they might like here, i bet if you marketed this stuff to the general public majority would prefer the new interface. straight forward, just the basics. as it stands, though, your audience is far from the average joe and you guys made us into more of a stat geek than most of us were already, so now you gotta deliver.  average joe would hate the old stuff imo and probably call it tmi.

thanks for the updates and the efforts to improve your product, gents. love that you cater to the "sharks."

 

[Kenag122002]

I liked the old MyFBG, but I also like the new one.  Once you get used to navigating it isn't hard.

One request, when comparing matchups, the new MyFBG assumes I will make the waiver moves it suggests.  But often I'm low enough in waiver order that I have no chance to make the pickup suggested.  I wish it would just use the current rosters in the Matchup analysis instead.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

I liked the old MyFBG, but I also like the new one.  Once you get used to navigating it isn't hard.

One request, when comparing matchups, the new MyFBG assumes I will make the waiver moves it suggests.  But often I'm low enough in waiver order that I have no chance to make the pickup suggested.  I wish it would just use the current rosters in the Matchup analysis instead.

There's a checkbox above the Matchup analysis that says "FA" = Free Agents. Just uncheck that and you're good to go.

 

[loompa17]

A request from me on the comparing matchups screen - can the positions be re-ordered so that the flex spot is not at the bottom?  As it is, my RB, WR, and TE show on the screen and the RB/WR/TE flex is below where I need to scroll to see it.  More than once I've wondered - where did this player go?  Only to figure out you've got him sitting in the flex spot.

 

[loompa17]

Another thing on that screen - every game, other than Monday night, has a "Early Start" indicator.  I don't think that's the way that's meant to work.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Another thing on that screen - every game, other than Monday night, has a "Early Start" indicator.  I don't think that's the way that's meant to work.

fixed!

A request from me on the comparing matchups screen - can the positions be re-ordered so that the flex spot is not at the bottom?  As it is, my RB, WR, and TE show on the screen and the RB/WR/TE flex is below where I need to scroll to see it.  More than once I've wondered - where did this player go?  Only to figure out you've got him sitting in the flex spot.

I'll add this to the list. Thanks.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Ok all.

There's a new version today.

A ton of changes.

• more compact view for player lists so more fit on the screen at a time
  
• the "pill boxes" are dead and gone
  
• there is now a button called "Teams" next to settings that allows you to highlight teams
  
• free agents are now blue text across their whole row, not just their name
  
• 10 second primer renamed to 5 second primer (more on that in the article linked at the bottom of this post)
  
• more compact navigation menu so it should fit on everyone's screen vertically without a nasty scrollbar
  
• Altering consensus projection balances not immediately saving
  
• column spacing increased for some columns that needed it
  
• a lot of people misunderstood that "considerable upgrade" on the waiver wire screen does not mean a considerable upgrade to their roster but to the stock of the specific player. I changed the wording.
  
• although we don't support multi-player pool leagues, I can set the user's team ownership last, which at least means their own roster displays correctly. That'll now happen.
  

And here's the promised article on moving from Classic to MyFootballguys: https://sportsguys.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009344133

And the link to try it out: https://my.footballguys.com 

If you don't see the changes listed above, please refresh the page, close and re-open your browser, and try again. The current version number is 1.4.X.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Thanks for the feedback! on the Golladay as a WR2 or a flex: does the listing of who Dodds would sit to make room for Golladay not help there?

No.

It lists guys across multiple positions, and not specifically for whether they are suggested to start/sit for a WR, RB, or FLEX position. This is laid out perfectly in the classic, showing preferred starters at each position.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

No.

It lists guys across multiple positions, and not specifically for whether they are suggested to start/sit for a WR, RB, or FLEX position. This is laid out perfectly in the classic, showing preferred starters at each position.

Ok; I respectfully disagree here. If it says sit Golladay just look above to where Golladay is listed in the consensus lineup.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

eta: The Weekly Ranking is not sortable after all, which seems odd. I can click on the projector's name and it draws an arrow underneath like the Excel symbol for sorted, but the link isn't updating. I'm using Firefox, haven't tried it yet on Chrome or IE. Could this be just a java or flash bug on Firefox? It sure looks like the intent is to be able to sort.

i had edited my post and just so it doesn't get lost, can you let me know if those columns with Dodds, Bloom and Tremblay's names are intended to be sortable? They are grayed out as a column header, but i can click on each and there is an arrow indicator that looks like a sort indicator.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

i had edited my post and just so it doesn't get lost, can you let me know if those columns with Dodds, Bloom and Tremblay's names are intended to be sortable? They are grayed out as a column header, but i can click on each and there is an arrow indicator that looks like a sort indicator.

Thanks; they should be and this is in the list of things to sort here.