Seriously FBG? (1 Viewer)

[BassNBrew]

Week 13 downgrade

QB Andrew Luck, IND - Jacksonville's defensive line deserves some credit, but Luck was choppy and without a long bomb to TY Hilton on the day of the wide receiver's child's birth, Luck would have been a fantasy dud. He is not looking like a member of the elite QB1 tier right now.

QB Matthew Stafford, DET - We can't blame Calvin Johnson's absence, in fact we don't really have any excuses for Stafford's drop in level of play and production. His schedule down the stretch (CHI TB @MIN @CHI) is great, but right now playing Stafford is taking a leap of faith.

QB Blake Bortles, JAX - Bortles just isn't showing enough improvement to merit fantasy starts - even in the ultra deep 2QB/QB flex leagues. It is also keeping us from trusting any part of his offense in our lineups if we can help it.

Week 14 upgrade

QB Andrew Luck, IND - After the Jaguars harassed Luck into a mediocre fantasy game (for him at least), he righted the ship against Washington. Part of the help came from a defense that kept a blowout somewhat close without Vontae Davis, so watch that situation heading into Week 14 at Cleveland. Luck has certainly led a lot of teams into the fantasy playoffs.

QB Matthew Stafford, DET - Stafford had been spooking his owners with some weak games, even with Calvin Johnson back, but they can give thanks for a strong performance against the Bears on Turkey Day. Tampa, Minnesota, and the Bears once again round out the playoff schedule for Stafford's owners.

QB Blake Bortles, JAX - (waiver wire: 5-10%) - Bortles had maybe his best game of the year, leading the Jags to a 21-point comeback and the kind of game that gives a struggling franchise hope for the future. The Texans aren't that scary, making Bortles a viable QB flex or 2QB option this week. Tennessee up in Week 16 also looks great.

The mark of a good ff website should be the number of pages of content published. What is going on here? There's really no reason to bounce the guys around week to week based solely on their performance last week. How about some doing some analysis and having some conviction in your opinions your delivering to subscribers.

I noticed this gem from this week...

QB downgrade

QB Peyton Manning, DEN - Lots of Peyton Manning teams that needed about 20 points to advance felt good on Sunday night and felt bad later Sunday night. The Chiefs have very talented edge rushers and took away the short stuff, but there are also concerns about Manning when the weather gets colder. He's still an elite QB1, but Manning's owners have to feel less secure today.

I'll go ahead and post the week 15 content for you

QB upgrade

QB Peyton Manning - After a sub par performance last week Manning delivered for his owners this week against a tough Buffalo defense. Manning is an elite QB1 and Manning owners have to feel secure that he'll deliver for them down the stretch.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Week 13 downgrade

QB Andrew Luck, IND - Jacksonville's defensive line deserves some credit, but Luck was choppy and without a long bomb to TY Hilton on the day of the wide receiver's child's birth, Luck would have been a fantasy dud. He is not looking like a member of the elite QB1 tier right now.

QB Matthew Stafford, DET - We can't blame Calvin Johnson's absence, in fact we don't really have any excuses for Stafford's drop in level of play and production. His schedule down the stretch (CHI TB @MIN @CHI) is great, but right now playing Stafford is taking a leap of faith.

QB Blake Bortles, JAX - Bortles just isn't showing enough improvement to merit fantasy starts - even in the ultra deep 2QB/QB flex leagues. It is also keeping us from trusting any part of his offense in our lineups if we can help it.

Week 14 upgrade

QB Andrew Luck, IND - After the Jaguars harassed Luck into a mediocre fantasy game (for him at least), he righted the ship against Washington. Part of the help came from a defense that kept a blowout somewhat close without Vontae Davis, so watch that situation heading into Week 14 at Cleveland. Luck has certainly led a lot of teams into the fantasy playoffs.

QB Matthew Stafford, DET - Stafford had been spooking his owners with some weak games, even with Calvin Johnson back, but they can give thanks for a strong performance against the Bears on Turkey Day. Tampa, Minnesota, and the Bears once again round out the playoff schedule for Stafford's owners.

QB Blake Bortles, JAX - (waiver wire: 5-10%) - Bortles had maybe his best game of the year, leading the Jags to a 21-point comeback and the kind of game that gives a struggling franchise hope for the future. The Texans aren't that scary, making Bortles a viable QB flex or 2QB option this week. Tennessee up in Week 16 also looks great.

The mark of a good ff website should be the number of pages of content published. What is going on here? There's really no reason to bounce the guys around week to week based solely on their performance last week. How about some doing some analysis and having some conviction in your opinions your delivering to subscribers.

I noticed this gem from this week...

QB downgrade

QB Peyton Manning, DEN - Lots of Peyton Manning teams that needed about 20 points to advance felt good on Sunday night and felt bad later Sunday night. The Chiefs have very talented edge rushers and took away the short stuff, but there are also concerns about Manning when the weather gets colder. He's still an elite QB1, but Manning's owners have to feel less secure today.

I'll go ahead and post the week 15 content for you

QB upgrade

QB Peyton Manning - After a sub par performance last week Manning delivered for his owners this week against a tough Buffalo defense. Manning is an elite QB1 and Manning owners have to feel secure that he'll deliver for them down the stretch.

Having conviction is good, and that's why Sig uses the "Holding Steady" designation- it's his way to single out players that might seem in line for an upgrade or downgrade, but who Bloom thinks he was right about already.

There's a difference between conviction and stubborn conviction, though. Sometimes you have to admit you were wrong. In these cases, it looks like Sig made a call and got it wrong. Better to admit it quickly than dig in your heels and compound it. It certainly looks bad (or even embarrassing) in this case, but sometimes earnestly trying to get it right is going to look bad or embarrassing. I find writing about football requires a certain willingness to look stupid in the process.

 

[BRONG]

 

[Dizzy]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

 

[Milkman]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

 

[SameSongNDance]

Downgrading Luck after one sub-par performance against a divisional opponent in which they won handily anyway? I guess I can understand trying to get ahead of a possible trend but that just seems silly given what we saw from Luck in his 11 prior games. I agree with Dizzy, I don't see the point of these articles if they're just knee-jerk reactions to single week performances.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

The weakest of any content they put out

 

[Adam Harstad]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

I think it's aimed more at people who have not yet watched the games (or read about them). The type of fantasy owner who registers and posts on a message board is likely to be someone who has Sunday Ticket or RedZone or otherwise devotes a disproportionate percentage of their Sundays to the hobby, but a substantial percentage of FBGs subscribers are much more casual about the hobby, maybe catching one or two games on Sunday, (or sometimes even maybe none) and then looking to get caught up on what they missed when they get back to the office on Monday, (on the company dime, of course ).

The game recaps are sort of a similar feature. Not as useful for people who actually watched the games, but great for anyone who missed the action and wants to be filled in on a deeper level than just a box score. In fact, in many ways I think the upgrades/downgrades report is a Cliff's Notes version of the game recaps. All the recappers email their weekly recap to Sigmund, and he enters it all into FBGs' content management system throughout the day while he's compiling his U/D report. I know he asks us to keep an eye out and include little notes for him on things he should be aware of for his column.

 

[ShamrockPride]

To be kinda fair, this stuff is mainly written for the re-drafters. They only have reason to care about week to week analyses, aka knee-jerk reaction breakdowns. The writers simply have no reason to think about the long(er)-term implications, even over the course of one season, when their main audience are people who only care about a group of players 13-16 weeks at a time before they all get thrown out.

 

[Pots]

To be kinda fair, this stuff is mainly written for the re-drafters. They only have reason to care about week to week analyses, aka knee-jerk reaction breakdowns. The writers simply have no reason to think about the long(er)-term implications, even over the course of one season, when their main audience are people who only care about a group of players 13-16 weeks at a time before they all get thrown out.

Are you seriously trying to talk down upon people who play in redraft leagues here?

 

[nirad3]

Shrug. As with any fantasy football advice online, you read, digest and form your own opinion. Seems pretty basic.

 

[shadyridr]

This is like RW analysis

 

[BeTheMatch]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

 

[identikit]

Luck scored 44+ points for me this past week.

Ultra-elite to me.

 

[blake]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

Yup, it is consistently informative.

 

[BassNBrew]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

That's sort of my point. Focus on the important stuff like the fringe players we aren't familiar with. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with an upgrade/downgrade column with 2-3 players listed per position.

 

[BassNBrew]

Week 13 downgrade

QB Andrew Luck, IND - Jacksonville's defensive line deserves some credit, but Luck was choppy and without a long bomb to TY Hilton on the day of the wide receiver's child's birth, Luck would have been a fantasy dud. He is not looking like a member of the elite QB1 tier right now.

QB Matthew Stafford, DET - We can't blame Calvin Johnson's absence, in fact we don't really have any excuses for Stafford's drop in level of play and production. His schedule down the stretch (CHI TB @MIN @CHI) is great, but right now playing Stafford is taking a leap of faith.

QB Blake Bortles, JAX - Bortles just isn't showing enough improvement to merit fantasy starts - even in the ultra deep 2QB/QB flex leagues. It is also keeping us from trusting any part of his offense in our lineups if we can help it.

Week 14 upgrade

QB Andrew Luck, IND - After the Jaguars harassed Luck into a mediocre fantasy game (for him at least), he righted the ship against Washington. Part of the help came from a defense that kept a blowout somewhat close without Vontae Davis, so watch that situation heading into Week 14 at Cleveland. Luck has certainly led a lot of teams into the fantasy playoffs.

QB Matthew Stafford, DET - Stafford had been spooking his owners with some weak games, even with Calvin Johnson back, but they can give thanks for a strong performance against the Bears on Turkey Day. Tampa, Minnesota, and the Bears once again round out the playoff schedule for Stafford's owners.

QB Blake Bortles, JAX - (waiver wire: 5-10%) - Bortles had maybe his best game of the year, leading the Jags to a 21-point comeback and the kind of game that gives a struggling franchise hope for the future. The Texans aren't that scary, making Bortles a viable QB flex or 2QB option this week. Tennessee up in Week 16 also looks great.

The mark of a good ff website should be the number of pages of content published. What is going on here? There's really no reason to bounce the guys around week to week based solely on their performance last week. How about some doing some analysis and having some conviction in your opinions your delivering to subscribers.

I noticed this gem from this week...

QB downgrade

QB Peyton Manning, DEN - Lots of Peyton Manning teams that needed about 20 points to advance felt good on Sunday night and felt bad later Sunday night. The Chiefs have very talented edge rushers and took away the short stuff, but there are also concerns about Manning when the weather gets colder. He's still an elite QB1, but Manning's owners have to feel less secure today.

I'll go ahead and post the week 15 content for you

QB upgrade

QB Peyton Manning - After a sub par performance last week Manning delivered for his owners this week against a tough Buffalo defense. Manning is an elite QB1 and Manning owners have to feel secure that he'll deliver for them down the stretch.

Having conviction is good, and that's why Sig uses the "Holding Steady" designation- it's his way to single out players that might seem in line for an upgrade or downgrade, but who Bloom thinks he was right about already.

There's a difference between conviction and stubborn conviction, though. Sometimes you have to admit you were wrong. In these cases, it looks like Sig made a call and got it wrong. Better to admit it quickly than dig in your heels and compound it. It certainly looks bad (or even embarrassing) in this case, but sometimes earnestly trying to get it right is going to look bad or embarrassing. I find writing about football requires a certain willingness to look stupid in the process.

Adam you make some good points. Actually I have been seeing things like this all year in this column. Quite honestly this feature comes across as if the writer is getting paid by the length of the article.

eta - I may be in the minority, but I don't take the approach of reading everything and trying to sort out what's useful from what's not. When a writer is consistently wrong, I lose faith in all of the information. If you tell me the sun is orange rather than yellow then I'll read on about you comments regarding the color of the moon. When you tell me the sun is blue on several occasions, I'll tend to disregard your thoughts on the moon regardless of how well thought out they might be.

 

[Ever Present Lurker]

I look at it as a "heads up" for players I may not have been aware of who are becoming viable fantasy players. Definitely a useful tool for me!

 

[BassNBrew]

I look at it as a "heads up" for players I may not have been aware of who are becoming viable fantasy players. Definitely a useful tool for me!

I agree with this. I wish they would stay focused here which is my main point and not try to flood us with marginal information.

 

[Dizzy]

Luck scored 44+ points for me this past week.

Ultra-elite to me.

Upgrade!

Hey, this is easy.

 

[Hoot McGoot]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

I think it's aimed more at people who have not yet watched the games (or read about them). The type of fantasy owner who registers and posts on a message board is likely to be someone who has Sunday Ticket or RedZone or otherwise devotes a disproportionate percentage of their Sundays to the hobby, but a substantial percentage of FBGs subscribers are much more casual about the hobby, maybe catching one or two games on Sunday, (or sometimes even maybe none) and then looking to get caught up on what they missed when they get back to the office on Monday, (on the company dime, of course ).

The game recaps are sort of a similar feature. Not as useful for people who actually watched the games, but great for anyone who missed the action and wants to be filled in on a deeper level than just a box score. In fact, in many ways I think the upgrades/downgrades report is a Cliff's Notes version of the game recaps. All the recappers email their weekly recap to Sigmund, and he enters it all into FBGs' content management system throughout the day while he's compiling his U/D report. I know he asks us to keep an eye out and include little notes for him on things he should be aware of for his column.

Adam has a solid point. Most of us that use these forums, regularly, (I have to assume) spend most of Sunday watching the games on Redzone or similar. People that have other responsibilities for the day, and don't get to watch the games in full, or at all, likely find value in Bloom's short weekly window into most player's +/- value/devalue. I don't really care for the short info because I watch the games, but I do enjoy looking at Bloom's values/devalues to confirm my thoughts for the week on each player's performance.

I understand many people find it useless, but since there are so many different types of leagues/rules with an unbelievable variety of FF players (22 college kid, 70yo gpa, 30yo business woman, etc.) it's hard to flat out say what's worthless and what's not, imo.

 

[McGarnicle]

Thanks Sig, I picked up Bortles and I'm starting him over Kaepernick.

:hawkscreech:

 

[TDorBust]

I don't understand why your upset?

Luck had a sub-par outing for elite passer game against Jacksonville! I mean is that not something to be worried about? The writer also never said he wasn't fantasy elite just that he wasn't LOOKING like it.

On Stafford do you have a link on this forum where you thought he would snap out of his somewhat crappy year on a short week against the Bears?

On Bortles that seems a little off but I dropped my 2QB league this year so haven't been following him likely a flip flop.

On Manning I don't see an issue, he still is said to be fantasy elite by the author but late season cold weather will give owners pause. Again this doesn't state to drop him or bench him or even trade him if you had the option. Manning also had a season low in points with 2 cold weather potential games coming up home against Buffalo and week 16 at Cincinnati which is a lot of FF championships.

Again seems like your knit picking here as there nothing over the top with action items. I would also bet there is plenty of times he spot on the money as well. FF for all intensive purposes is gambling and people brag about being right 50%+ of the time so that's saying something.....

Edit - one other thing you forget part of the target audience for those articles are people who choose not to or don't have the time to watch the games for the week. Comes in real handy when on vacation and looking to get caught up in 10-15 mins on all the players.

 

[TDorBust]

Also what are you putting on the line if your wrong about Manning this week and he doesn't deliver? Since you are picking apart the writer then your standing behind your post right?

 

[Dizzy]

I think the title sends the wrong message. Upgrade/Downgrade sounds (to me) like a recommendation or warning based on analysis, or "staying ahead of the trend" as one poster put it.

If it was called, "Monday Morning QB" or "This Is What You Missed" the message is completely different IMO.

 

[ratbast]

I find it the most useful tool anywhere on the net at the beginning of the week. I look at it early and often when making roster moves.

 

[Garrett]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

I'd like to rename it.

"Who Scored a TD Sunday" clickhere

Edit to add fairness, writing up a blanket statement about potential FA options every week in fantasy football is pretty much just asking for failure. It's honest and valuable input, but if you base your season on it; you are done. This is the same stuff that had Eli Manning as the #1 QB addition early quarter this year.

 

[Van Dyman]

The Upgrade/Downgrade article could be useful to the audience it's aimed at. Fair enough. A more "fringe player" oriented article, aimed at a more knowledgeable audience, would be great but who decides where the fringes are? What they have there casts a wide net, and it's not for everyone. It does contain some useful info...but you'd have to filter out a lot of other stuff to find it.

Their "custom waiver wire report" is sort of like that. It's basically a sub-slice of information from that same Upgrade/Downgrade article but it only includes upgraded players that are available in your specific league. It is great for its intended purpose (waiver/FA additions) especially the first waiver run of the week.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I take this weekly article as quick updates about how the players did each week. I mostly am on top of things, but maybe I'm not very plugged into what Vincent Jackson did this week or I'm looking for a bite-sized reason as to why Fred Jackson didn't put up decent numbers, things like that.

I don't think it's meant to indicate that you should literally downgrade Andrew Luck because he didn't have a good game against the Jaguars. Maybe they just need to call it something else, "Week 13 Trends" or something.

 

[Dragon1952]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

I think it's aimed more at people who have not yet watched the games (or read about them). The type of fantasy owner who registers and posts on a message board is likely to be someone who has Sunday Ticket or RedZone or otherwise devotes a disproportionate percentage of their Sundays to the hobby, but a substantial percentage of FBGs subscribers are much more casual about the hobby, maybe catching one or two games on Sunday, (or sometimes even maybe none) and then looking to get caught up on what they missed when they get back to the office on Monday, (on the company dime, of course ).

The game recaps are sort of a similar feature. Not as useful for people who actually watched the games, but great for anyone who missed the action and wants to be filled in on a deeper level than just a box score. In fact, in many ways I think the upgrades/downgrades report is a Cliff's Notes version of the game recaps. All the recappers email their weekly recap to Sigmund, and he enters it all into FBGs' content management system throughout the day while he's compiling his U/D report. I know he asks us to keep an eye out and include little notes for him on things he should be aware of for his column.

Adam has a solid point. Most of us that use these forums, regularly, (I have to assume) spend most of Sunday watching the games on Redzone or similar. People that have other responsibilities for the day, and don't get to watch the games in full, or at all, likely find value in Bloom's short weekly window into most player's +/- value/devalue. I don't really care for the short info because I watch the games, but I do enjoy looking at Bloom's values/devalues to confirm my thoughts for the week on each player's performance.

I understand many people find it useless, but since there are so many different types of leagues/rules with an unbelievable variety of FF players (22 college kid, 70yo gpa, 30yo business woman, etc.) it's hard to flat out say what's worthless and what's not, imo.

re: the bolded........yeah but they certainly see the results fantasy-wise in their own line-ups and in their opponents line-ups week in and week out. I'm not taking one side or the other but I'm not sure even the more casual player can't tell when a player like Luck or Stafford might have just had an off week. What exactly is it supposed to mean to even the guy who just started playing FF last week to downgrade Luck or Stafford? I mean, even to the dumbest of dumbest what does it mean? To possibly start considering another option at QB?

 

[GreenNGold]

I like reading the weekly upgrade/downgrade email, and really it should not be based on anything other than a recap of the most recent weeks performances, as that is the entire purpose of the article, and the only thing it could logically be based on.

My only suggestion for improvement with it would be the waiver wire bidding percentages, as every hotshot of the week is given the recommendation to blow half your budget or more on him, while realistically, you can only make 1 or 2 high bids per year (and the ones you do make can make or break your season), so if you follow this article, you will have a really hard time differentiating between players that are truly worth a high bid as opposed to those who are just a one week wonder, but of course, that is extremely difficult to differentiate in real-time, so you have to give them some slack there too.

 

[rockaction]

I guess the further into fantasy I get the less I use the Upgrade/Downgrade report, but you can be darn sure I read it every week and have begun to take the FAAB budget things more seriously as a gauge for how seriously Sigmund Bloom is taking his own analysis. It's one more piece of info I take and sift through because I don't get DirecTV and don't have time to watch all my guys on Game Rewind anymore like I used to. I only have RedZone, whose editing I have begun to utterly not be able to stand. I need to start going to bars again, I guess, or getting Game Rewind.

Anyway, I concentrate more on sifting out FBG info, Roto info, and Shark Pool stuff for my guys. But Upgrade/Downgrade is the FBG email in my inbox that I actually read. I never check the rankings.

I understand the gripe about the spliced cut and pasted, though. Out of context, it looks bad, but upon further reading, nothing about it seems inconsistent. He seems very attuned to both scheduling, the QBs trends, and roster size/make-up.

I dunno. I've always thought it's a valuable piece of information. Maybe listening to The Audible again (like I also used to) to complement it would also make it more useful. I always found the tone in the voice and the context to be important. Regardless, I hope that FBG keeps this feature. I also know that there's no substitute for actually watching the guys you're interested in weekly. I mean the weather, the defense, etc. I mean, I think Peyton's game this week hit 15 MPH on the wind chart, which is when it begins to affect the performance of the offensive guys. IOW, It takes so much work for such a minimal return for people like me. The Upgrade/Downgrade helps.

And holy ####, did I ever just have a ton of coffee.

 

[FUBAR]

I appreciate the weekly Upgrade/Downgrade article. I take it for what it's worth. I mean nobody is downgrading Aaron Rodgers and you can't really upgrade him anymore than he already is. Still it's good to read their take on some of the fringe players some of us aren't as familiar with.

Absolutely agreed. I use it to check my waivers and make sure I didn't miss someone. But very few of these players ate available in leagues of substantial depth.

It would be much more beneficial if they stuck with fringe players and went deeper.

 

[FUBAR]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

When you publish as much content as they do, some won't be as useful as others.

But this is one that could be done much better.

 

[mbrasi]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't understand why your upset?

Luck had a sub-par outing for elite passer game against Jacksonville! I mean is that not something to be worried about? The writer also never said he wasn't fantasy elite just that he wasn't LOOKING like it.

On Stafford do you have a link on this forum where you thought he would snap out of his somewhat crappy year on a short week against the Bears?

On Bortles that seems a little off but I dropped my 2QB league this year so haven't been following him likely a flip flop.

On Manning I don't see an issue, he still is said to be fantasy elite by the author but late season cold weather will give owners pause. Again this doesn't state to drop him or bench him or even trade him if you had the option. Manning also had a season low in points with 2 cold weather potential games coming up home against Buffalo and week 16 at Cincinnati which is a lot of FF championships.

Again seems like your knit picking here as there nothing over the top with action items. I would also bet there is plenty of times he spot on the money as well. FF for all intensive purposes is gambling and people brag about being right 50%+ of the time so that's saying something.....

Edit - one other thing you forget part of the target audience for those articles are people who choose not to or don't have the time to watch the games for the week. Comes in real handy when on vacation and looking to get caught up in 10-15 mins on all the players.

Let's see what Dodds and Norton have to say on this looking at the top 200 forward from week 12/13/14

Luck - 1/1/3 Dodds didn't downgrade Luck after the poor game but actually dropped him after the good game last week. According to Dodds the writer should have maintain his conviction from the prior week. Either way we are splitting hairs and there are better places to focus our attention.

Stafford - 12/13/11 Dodds supports the writes viewpoint with his rankings, that said one to two position movements don't warrant a call out in a feature article.

Bortles - 20/27/27 Dodds agrees with the Bortles downgrade and apparently has a stronger conviction as he hasn't wavered this week.

Manning - 2/3/2 Once again, probably not worth a discussion but Dodds actually covered the Manning hiccup from last week and now has him back at number two.

 

[BassNBrew]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

 

[BassNBrew]

Also what are you putting on the line if your wrong about Manning this week and he doesn't deliver? Since you are picking apart the writer then your standing behind your post right?

Sure I'll come back. Actually, should I pick two and demonstrate that this advice is no better than a coin flip?

The reason I started this thread is that it's a feature article that hits my inbox. Like others, I like reading it to make sure I haven't miss anything over the last week. I've just noticed week after week I see a player downgraded/upgraded only to see the reverse designation the next week. I've also found the article extremely long many weeks. My suggestion to the writer is to drop the noise or marginal upgrades/downgrades and focus on the information that is going to make a difference.

 

[matuski]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

Seriously.. it is a volume piece meant to be part of the larger message "look how many emails we can send you!"

This is literally nothing but a list of players that had good games and bad games. Can't get more useless.

 

[FUBAR]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

Weekly games - whether to buy or use them this week.

 

[matuski]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

Weekly games - whether to buy or use them this week.

I had not considered weekly games, but how does this help you there? Peyton has a bad game (only threw for 2 TDs)... and gets downgraded. Now what? You won't consider Peyton next week?

 

[ebsteelers]

you know if you dont like the content in the article you dont have to read it

 

[FF Wiseguy]

I echo those saying that renaming/rebranding the report is in order. Early on in my subscription, seeing a player in the upgrade/downgrade would trigger a knee jerk shift in my view of them. Part of this is was my fault for being lazy, but with all FBG's content, I was not yet savvy enough to know which content was most pertinent for me. As I read it more and more, I realized the context of the article, I started skipping most of the established players. Now, I skip the article altogether.

Changing it from upgrade/downgrade to "Weekly Rundown" or "In Case you Missed it" gives new context to the article, and may alleviate some of the confusion. Yes, over time, we have learned what can be gleaned from the report, and what is not as useful to the serious player. But for new subscribers, they make moves based on a misinterpretation of the purpose of the article that unfairly colors their perception of FBG.

 

[habsfan]

The upgrade/downgrade lists are akin to the weather app on your phone that tells you what's happening instead of what's going to happen. I do think there's an attempt at some predictive value with the FAAB budget content that's added. I think it provides a proxy of "conviction" as to whether a player's arrow will continue pointing up or not.

 

[BassNBrew]

you know if you dont like the content in the article you dont have to read it

Novel idea. Maybe I should try telling that to my customers in my business and see how that works out for me. I suspect Joe and David as business owners will take the feedback as constructive criticism and look at whether or not fine tuning the content benefits their customers.

Personally I think the weekly list could be trimmed by 50%. I rather they miss one or two players each week and be on point for a larger percentage. Technically speaking 80% of the players in the league could be included on the list if there's no definition to the size of the movement. There's no benefit to that unless the author is getting paid by the word. Reducing the amount of content in this feature article to the most critical upgrade/downgrades will make it much more impactful in my opinion. When you have 2/3 of the starting QBs on the list, I have no idea if I should be weighing the impact on Bortles more than the impact on Brees. There are numbers associated with the list but I have no idea what they mean. Is the Manning downgrade the 3rd most important downgrade and where does it relate to Hoyer at one and Carr at eight?

 

[FUBAR]

The weakest of any content they put out

Ooooh, that's a tough one. There's a lot of weak content. This is bad but there are so many other worthwhile candidates for this honor.

I enjoy reading the article. It's one of the 5-6 articles I read every week. It's not meant to be taken as bench Luck, Rodgers, and Forte because they underperformed expectations. I enjoy reading the article because sometimes it gives me a different perspective also good that he calls out waiver wire opportunities.

Please explains what it means regarding Luck, Rodgers, etc if your not benching them? Trade them for someone else one week and then try to reacquire them the following week?

Weekly games - whether to buy or use them this week.

I had not considered weekly games, but how does this help you there? Peyton has a bad game (only threw for 2 TDs)... and gets downgraded. Now what? You won't consider Peyton next week?

consider everything. but if he should be downgraded for a week, you might not want to use him that week.

FWIW, I agree with most of what you're saying.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I like reading the weekly upgrade/downgrade email, and really it should not be based on anything other than a recap of the most recent weeks performances, as that is the entire purpose of the article, and the only thing it could logically be based on.

My only suggestion for improvement with it would be the waiver wire bidding percentages, as every hotshot of the week is given the recommendation to blow half your budget or more on him, while realistically, you can only make 1 or 2 high bids per year (and the ones you do make can make or break your season), so if you follow this article, you will have a really hard time differentiating between players that are truly worth a high bid as opposed to those who are just a one week wonder, but of course, that is extremely difficult to differentiate in real-time, so you have to give them some slack there too.

I definitely struggle with the best way to communicate with the percentages. On the waiver wire show I talk about how they are more about ranking players priorities within and across positions than a specific suggestion for how much to bid. You know a lot better than I do what kind of bids work and how coveted that player will be in your league based on depth/position value, etc.

definitely open to suggestions to how I can make this more useful for y'all - the "one size fits all" nature of it makes it difficult to assume much about the readers leagues

 

[BassNBrew]

What is the point of Upgrade/Downgrade? Isn't it just a summarized knee-jerk reaction to the player's very most recent on field performance? Seems like anyone that watched the games (or read about them) could write these same summaries.

Honestly, I have no idea what the message is supposed to be.

That's kind of the point. If someone wasn't immersed in the games on Sunday and wanted a quick overview of who exceeded expectations or underperformed, it provides that. It's not meant to have nuanced takes because it isn't based on intense study.

So you're saying the point of this article is to cover past performance, not future expectations?

I honestly assumed by the title they it was mean to cover nuanced takes on future expectations. I would much prefer that you go that direction or breaking this into two articles…"What you need to know overview" and "Going forward upgrades/downgrades"

 

[Keerock]

Thanks Sig, I picked up Bortles and I'm starting him over Kaepernick.

:hawkscreech:

Kap sucks... I wouldn't poopoo that choice.