"No rankings submitted within the last 14 days." (1 Viewer)

[comfortably numb]

In the off season when I search for rankings that may not be updated, i get that message.

"No rankings submitted within the last 14 days."

How do I get the rankings regardless?

I pretty sure its something simple.

Any reason why FBG has the site not bring up any rankings withing the last 14 days?

 

[trader jake]

Major flaw - It has been discussed in the IDP forum with no changes as of yet.

For now you can click on LB (and then change the settings above) to see the most recent rankings at any other position.

 

[comfortably numb]

Major flaw - It has been discussed in the IDP forum with no changes as of yet. For now you can click on LB (and then change the settings above) to see the most recent rankings at any other position.

Thanks, I had tried doin it for other positions, but had not tried LB to reach the loophole.Just seems like a minor setting change needed to allow more than 14 days.

 

[jwb]

Look at the address bar of the URL - see at the end where it says howrecent=14.... change the 14 to 200 (so it reads howrecent=200) and hit enter. That should give you the rankings for the last 200 days.

Still not the best workaround, though (it shows LT at #2). I wish it'd get updated.

 

[comfortably numb]

LOL

thanks, that is easier than going thru positions

 

[Doug Drinen]

You should now be able to get them by default.

 

[comfortably numb]

No rankings submitted within the last 14 days.

:shortbus:

:(

 

[Avery]

Look at the address bar of the URL - see at the end where it says howrecent=14.... change the 14 to 200 (so it reads howrecent=200) and hit enter. That should give you the rankings for the last 200 days.

Still not the best workaround, though (it shows LT at #2). I wish it'd get updated.

Still getting the No rankings submitted within the last 14 days but the above workaround is easy enough. I'd like to see more recent ranking from some of the staff, however, as 3/4 staff hasn't updated their dynasty rankings since JulyAugust/September.

There is no off-season for dynasty leagues and I've got offers on the table and would like to take a look at some recent dynasty ranking to bounce my thought off of.

 

[bcr8f]

Major flaw - It has been discussed in the IDP forum with no changes as of yet.

For now you can click on LB (and then change the settings above) to see the most recent rankings at any other position.

Thanks, I had tried doin it for other positions, but had not tried LB to reach the loophole.Just seems like a minor setting change needed to allow more than 14 days.

It isn't a loophole. Just type a different date in the URL to get more results. Or here.It is the offseason.

 

[comfortably numb]

Major flaw - It has been discussed in the IDP forum with no changes as of yet.

For now you can click on LB (and then change the settings above) to see the most recent rankings at any other position.

Thanks, I had tried doin it for other positions, but had not tried LB to reach the loophole.Just seems like a minor setting change needed to allow more than 14 days.

It isn't a loophole. Just type a different date in the URL to get more results. Or here.It is the offseason.

Yea loophole is a bad word.Just a way around the setting I meant.

I know its the off season, but I tend to check the rankings more so in the offseason.

I wouldn't care if they were older but I just wanted the ability to view them regardless.

Seems like an easy setting change.

But I didn't even think to change the URL.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I've just "bumped" my rankings in the past, but then I get questions as to why so-and-so is where he is and the answer really is "that's what I thought in December" - yet no one wants to hear that or understand that when the date says 1/31.

So I won't be bumping mine until I go through them again, and that's a post-free agency task right now.

Until then, just default the rankings to 200 days and you'll see everyone. (end the URL =200).

 

[Avery]

I've just "bumped" my rankings in the past, but then I get questions as to why so-and-so is where he is and the answer really is "that's what I thought in December" - yet no one wants to hear that or understand that when the date says 1/31.So I won't be bumping mine until I go through them again, and that's a post-free agency task right now.Until then, just default the rankings to 200 days and you'll see everyone. (end the URL =200).

Am I understanding you right or are you saying that in the past you've updated the date but not you're actual rankings?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I've just "bumped" my rankings in the past, but then I get questions as to why so-and-so is where he is and the answer really is "that's what I thought in December" - yet no one wants to hear that or understand that when the date says 1/31.So I won't be bumping mine until I go through them again, and that's a post-free agency task right now.Until then, just default the rankings to 200 days and you'll see everyone. (end the URL =200).

Am I understanding you right or are you saying that in the past you've updated the date but not you're actual rankings?

I did that once in a past offseason to help solve this problem with minimal changes and created a different problem - so I didn't do that again.

 

[Couch Potato]

If you're interested in an up to date set of dynasty rankings from another site, here's one (I'm not suggesting the rankings are good or bad, that's for you to decide):

http://www.fantasyfootballxtreme.com/fanta...layer-rankings/

Here's another updated in January, though they limit how much they show without subscribing (top 25 each pos):

http://nooffseason.com/player-rankings

 

[The Man With No Name]

If you're interested in an up to date set of dynasty rankings from another site, here's one (I'm not suggesting the rankings are good or bad, that's for you to decide):

http://www.fantasyfootballxtreme.com/fanta...layer-rankings/

Good grief. Michael Bush- 71st I just traded him, but that is really a ranking that is puzzling to me.

 

[Couch Potato]

If you're interested in an up to date set of dynasty rankings from another site, here's one (I'm not suggesting the rankings are good or bad, that's for you to decide):

http://www.fantasyfootballxtreme.com/fanta...layer-rankings/

Good grief. Michael Bush- 71st I just traded him, but that is really a ranking that is puzzling to me.

They have some that I thought were a little wacky. Without knowing their thinking though, it's hard to say. In Bush's case for example they may be convinced OAK will insist he remain at FB despite his big week at the end of 2008. At least it's a look at an updated post-2008 dynasty list, and those are few and far between right now. Aside from FBG's Tefertiller, and Wesseling's Sons of the Tundra blog, there's not much out there to look at that's fresh in January.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If you're interested in an up to date set of dynasty rankings from another site, here's one (I'm not suggesting the rankings are good or bad, that's for you to decide):

http://www.fantasyfootballxtreme.com/fanta...layer-rankings/

Good grief. Michael Bush- 71st I just traded him, but that is really a ranking that is puzzling to me.

They have some that I thought were a little wacky. Without knowing their thinking though, it's hard to say. In Bush's case for example they may be convinced OAK will insist he remain at FB despite his big week at the end of 2008. At least it's a look at an updated post-2008 dynasty list, and those are few and far between right now. Aside from FBG's Tefertiller, and Wesseling's Sons of the Tundra blog, there's not much out there to look at that's fresh in January.

I did update mine Jan 5th....Not much is going to change between then and now.

35 Days or less Rankings

There's also the FBG Futures articles, with the most recent back in late December:

FBG Futures

 

[Couch Potato]

If you're interested in an up to date set of dynasty rankings from another site, here's one (I'm not suggesting the rankings are good or bad, that's for you to decide):

http://www.fantasyfootballxtreme.com/fanta...layer-rankings/

Good grief. Michael Bush- 71st I just traded him, but that is really a ranking that is puzzling to me.

They have some that I thought were a little wacky. Without knowing their thinking though, it's hard to say. In Bush's case for example they may be convinced OAK will insist he remain at FB despite his big week at the end of 2008. At least it's a look at an updated post-2008 dynasty list, and those are few and far between right now. Aside from FBG's Tefertiller, and Wesseling's Sons of the Tundra blog, there's not much out there to look at that's fresh in January.

I did update mine Jan 5th....Not much is going to change between then and now.

35 Days or less Rankings

There's also the FBG Futures articles, with the most recent back in late December:

FBG Futures

Didn't mean to snub you Jeff, yes you also have January rankings. I hadn't seen the Futures article, so thanks for that too.

 

[ranglerone]

Jeff,

I am interested in knowing why you don't have either Devin Hester or Mark Clayton in your top 75?

Rangler

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Jeff,I am interested in knowing why you don't have either Devin Hester or Mark Clayton in your top 75?Rangler

I don't believe either merits it.Devin Hester won't be the WR1 in Chicago next year if they have any smart plans for the Bears, and the QB situation is unstable despite what Lovie Smith says. They're also trying to figure out if they want to have Hester emphasize one type of kick return vs. both and lower his total snaps.Long term I don't think of Hester as a Top 75 WR, but he's close. After about WR40-50, I like to look for bigger upside. Hester's never going to be a Top 25 guy IMHO so I don't see him in my Top 75.Clayton's another tough one. The Ravens need a wideout to stretch the field and Flacco needs more weapons. Joe Cool will develop further but for now the team is not a pass-happy team. Clayton is inconsistent and everyone keeps waiting for him to break out. I expect Baltimore to draft 1-2 WRs and hope that Marcus Smith or Demetrius Williams develops into a starter. I'd love to continue to think he can become a Lee Evans type or more, but I don't see it. Both Hester and Clayton are Top 100, but I don't know if I can have them above some of the other guys I have listed - but I will look again and keep them in mind the next time I review it.Thanks for the feedback.

 

[smotherhook]

calvin = 29 = head scratcher

 

[corpcow]

If you're interested in an up to date set of dynasty rankings from another site, here's one (I'm not suggesting the rankings are good or bad, that's for you to decide):

Here's another updated in January, though they limit how much they show without subscribing (top 25 each pos):

http://nooffseason.com/player-rankings

Perhaps this second one underscores why I like FBG so much. Forte #2 overall? Welker at #24, ahead of Westbrook (#25) and Randy Moss (#38)? John Carlson ahead of Housh and Santonio?

WOW.

I am going ot be sure to send that to my leaguemates...