Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Talk On The Premium Footballguys Subscriptions...


Did You Purchase The Footballguys Season Long Pro, DFS Pro or All Pro Subscription Last Year?  

253 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2020 at 3:32 PM, Dacomish said:

Long time subscriber here too. 

Pros- The 2 contests are worth the price of admission, even if there wasn't tons of other content. I spend about 2 hours a week easy on just site content in-season, so other benefits include the myfbg portion with 5 second primer to help if wavering on a particular matchup start. I love the matchup analasys in the league dominator. Dynasty content has gotten better last 2 years and rankings seem to be more often updated now.  

Cons - IDP content is pretty low on the totem pole and it literally can be a league winner for many. I think if more updates were done quicker in-season especially with weekly articles coming out earlier in the week nearer waiver runs it could be the difference in scooping that weekly play or even a gem that is set to breakout. (The articles themselves are awesome and really have some great info, just need them Tues if possible.)

Overall I still advocate Subscription as it has helped me win more often than losing. But not to my leaguemates of course...lol! 

This for me.  In my league, we have 7 offensive starters and 8 IDP starters.  Good, actionable IDP info is the difference between having a good year...or not.  There are 4 different sites I visit that have far more and much better IDP coverage.  It would be nice if Footballguys was one of them.

On the pro side, there isn't a more complete fantasy football site out there that I have found.  That's why I subscribe.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loong time subscriber (most of the last 20yrs i believe). I subscribe to several services and feel obligated to support sites, podcasts etc that i use and FBG is certainly one of them. A few improvements I would like to see.

1. You have a drop down tab for DFS, you should have a drop down for both REDRAFT and DYNASTY. I find myself having to search around when I shouldn't have to, all the redraft should be under redraft and same with dynasty.

2. I like to use the original my fbg home page but I also use the league dominator which is fine. However the advertisement for league dominator takes up an inordinate amount of space on my home page. It is huge and imho redundant since i already know about it and use, you should make it much smaller or give me the option to make it go away (its been there a long time).

2. Once I go to the league dominator there should be a link to go back to my home page; perhaps there is one but I do not see it.

3. This one is more of a "somebody should be doing this, why not footballguys". I play a lot of FPC Dynasty and it is huge but I don't think anyone is doing much with a dedicated FPC Dynasty focus. I think there would be plenty of demand for content or at least a podcast focused primarily on FPC Dynasty.

Overall I think you guys do a pretty good job!   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I subscribe and have just renewed again for this year, but could not get that darn weekly lineup dominator app to load correctly on the website, would not update the proper teams even after a sync.. also a fan of front loading content to the beginning of the week before waiver moves....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mphtrilogy said:

I subscribe and have just renewed again for this year, but could not get that darn weekly lineup dominator app to load correctly on the website, would not update the proper teams even after a sync.. also a fan of front loading content to the beginning of the week before waiver moves....

I'm sorry you had trouble there. We've tweaked some things this year that hopefully solve it. If not, let our people know at www.footballguys.com/help and they'll do their best. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

Loong time subscriber (most of the last 20yrs i believe). I subscribe to several services and feel obligated to support sites, podcasts etc that i use and FBG is certainly one of them. A few improvements I would like to see.

1. You have a drop down tab for DFS, you should have a drop down for both REDRAFT and DYNASTY. I find myself having to search around when I shouldn't have to, all the redraft should be under redraft and same with dynasty.

2. I like to use the original my fbg home page but I also use the league dominator which is fine. However the advertisement for league dominator takes up an inordinate amount of space on my home page. It is huge and imho redundant since i already know about it and use, you should make it much smaller or give me the option to make it go away (its been there a long time).

2. Once I go to the league dominator there should be a link to go back to my home page; perhaps there is one but I do not see it.

3. This one is more of a "somebody should be doing this, why not footballguys". I play a lot of FPC Dynasty and it is huge but I don't think anyone is doing much with a dedicated FPC Dynasty focus. I think there would be plenty of demand for content or at least a podcast focused primarily on FPC Dynasty.

Overall I think you guys do a pretty good job!   

Thanks. Quick thought on point #3 - I'm with you 100%. We love the FFPC Dynasty and our Dynasty Podcast guys Chad Parsons and Jordan McNamara are co-owning a FFPC Dynasty team this year and I'm looking forward to what kind of content they create around it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Quick thought on point #3 - I'm with you 100%. We love the FFPC Dynasty and our Dynasty Podcast guys Chad Parsons and Jordan McNamara are co-owning a FFPC Dynasty team this year and I'm looking forward to what kind of content they create around it. 

Yes, Chad is great and recently started listening to Jordan as well so sounds good! TX

Edited by NE_REVIVAL
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chad Parsons said:

@NE_REVIVAL We will be talking about our current FFPC Dynasty Startup starting on this week's FBG Dynasty Show - can certainly have some periodic dynasty written content for the format as well. Any specific questions you want included in our format overview this week?

Just FPC in general, short rosters, te prem and maybe it is just me but ive found many are not as active as I would like. If you have anything regarding their dynasty best ball drafts that might be nice since I have already done 2 and u can let me know quickly where I blew it😬

Edited by NE_REVIVAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 6:38 PM, msudaisy26 said:

Things I would like to see, but they may not be possible or it maybe offered already and I just don't know where to look. Better help with the apps/services. For example, a few years ago I tried to use the draft dominator, but got confused and it honestly felt like I was putting in more work then the benefit I was receiving.

Perfectly stated. I have had the same issues. Even posted asking for DD help and never got a response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joe -

Thanks for the increased attention to dynasty.  Good to see.  Recommend more superflex and TE premium content, the trend is rising in these areas. 

On the online draft dominator, when one clicks on a player, a nice menu shows up.  Under the Staff tab, any content there is last years (ex. Darrell Henderson - keep close tabs on Gurley's knee!).  An update for this year would be useful.   

The number of Staff comments on draft dominator is low - mostly non existent.  For me, the staff list sets my expectations for a comment whereas the result is most often "no comment yet".  I would rename the tab "staff rankings" if staff comments are not committed to.

Thx for asking for feed back - M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feedback:

1. Customers are irritating.  You can never make them all happy.  I appreciate the active solicitation of input and willingness to filter out the whining to improve your product.

2. Point 1 does not mean that I won't whine :D

3. All I care about is the free forums, year long contest and DFS content.

4. There is a void in the DFS marketplace waiting to be filled for a website to push various levels of free and LOW COST paywall based DFS modelling options *.  Huge opportunity imo.

* if you canvas the market (rotorgrinders, etc etc) most DFS website are looking for a paywall commitment of HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS to look behind the curtain.  Mistake imo.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2020 at 5:32 PM, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

Have been a faithful yearly subscriber for so long I cannot remember when I started. When DFS started spinning up and the subscriptions split into season vs DFS, went season as DFS is illegal in my state.

I'd say there was a dip in quality and quantity when that split occurred, and the first year there seemed to be more emphasis on DFS (timeliness, robustness, and breadth of content for season dropped, etc.). I don't know if there was a shift back or I just adjusted back to the norm, but I found that the subscription was still well worth it.

Over the last year or two, I am not sure it's worth the value you charge ($40) for a few reasons:

  •  the rise of fantasy news and apps diminishes what I used to get from the subscription -- both in terms of timeliness and insight. I still believe FBGs are the best in the business, but you get more timely alerts from both general SM sites (twitter, reddit), free specialty FF apps, and even the long tenured seasoned FBG staff have their own SM outlets. Simply diminishes the value of a $40 subscription.
  • You still need to pay for a mobile app like draft dominator. That's annoying to me -- should be included in the sub at that price, IMO.
  • This may be due to the need to scale the business, but I find the quality of insight has slightly suffered as more and more contributors have come on. I will say I appreciate the diversity, and it's a tough needle to thread, but one of the differentiation points for FBG has always been the quality of the content. If that starts to slip, you lose the most prominent competitive edges your site has. Used to be I knew that no matter what, I'd be better armed with fantastic and timely info, opinion, and guidance than anyone else who wasn't a subscriber. Now, not sure the spread is that large, or as meaningful.
  • As others have mentioned above, the pages and tools are still a little clunky -- functionality, customization, personalization, UX, and optimization can certainly improve. In this day an age of rapid technological innovation, FBG risks falling more quickly behind competitors.
  • In this age of uncertainty, I don't know if I will get a subscription. But your refund policy if the season is called off was fantastic. 

Again, I have a strong affinity for this site, its staff, and the content. Been here since old yeller and wouldn't have it any other way. So take the above as it's meant to be -- constructive criticism. Hope it helps, and thanks for asking for input.

Thanks, Joe, for all you and the rest of FBGs does. You and the rest of the staff (including those who oversee the apps) have always been responsive, and you hold a high bar for customer service in my experience. 

I gave very similar advice in the surveys that we took. I didn't the last time because I felt like I was wasting time since none of the points I made seemed to have been addressed although I'm sure they got tons of feedback from everyone.

The main reason that I have kept subscribing (going back to the Cheatsheet days) is because MyFBG tool helps me manage multiple leagues although I encounter quite a few issues with it. Last time, I got a DK account because I didn't think the price of a subscription was worth it. I did pay full price this year although I have only read one article so far.  I just don't get that much out of the articles anymore. I have other sites that I visit for better analysis in my opinion (although I'm a big fan of Waldman and like Bloom despite his constant Jets bashing, ha).

I have said since day 1 that as soon as FBG started doing Daily football, the quality of the analysis has suffered. The site used to have great analysis (better than most), but it has been trying to do too much ever since Daily and the quality suffers now. 

Even if I disagreed with some of the analysis in the old days, you wouldn't find the errors that you see now.  Some of the new analysts have cited stats that aren't correct and won't even correct it when notified.  The weekly cheatsheets include guys that are out for the week or guys that have been hurt for weeks. The rest of the season rankings have mistakes.  Hell, even the MyFBG has all kinds of errors.  I don't recall this lack of attention to detail in the older days.  I would have have a much more focused product like in the old days than a full site of lesser analysis and mistakes.  Just my opinion.

I also agree with the IDP comments. J Bramel had amazing IDP insights and the site's IDP coverage took a dip after he switched focus to injuries.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 7:36 PM, huthut said:

I have subscribed for the past few years and I probably will again this year, mainly because I enjoy the contest and feel like you should get something for tolerating me on the forums. The articles are nice, but by week 4-5 once the starting line up is beginning to lock down I find that I am barely reading them and often I am forgetting to check them for weeks at a time. Preseason the articles are a little more valuable, mainly to refresh my memory on what happened last year. There is such a glut of fantasy football information currently that there is nothing that unique to the paid content vs free content on tons of other sites IMO. When I do get stuck on a sit/start question there is never any advice that is so profound that it helps me make a decision, they are always projected fairly close together and I am like "well, I know that, otherwise I would not be looking around for advice". By profound I mean something beyond what myself, a non-sports writer would come up with. Granted, some players are completely interchangeable within weeks, but at that point they could probably save time and just have tier lists rather than project one player to get 8.8 and another to get 8.7.

One thing I think would be interesting is if there was some sort of "which writer is hot" tracking, both for drafting and sit/start decisions. I assume it would mainly be a bell curve where some get lucky and are making a bunch of correct picks, some are unlucky where they make a bunch of picks that are probably reasonable but they don't pan out I have never been higher on a player than Steve Slaton in 2009, and most are somewhere in-between. One of my pet peeves it that for however much confidence writers have when talking about mock drafts or sit/starts for the week, there is rarely year long to multi-year long retrospective analysis to see who is actually better than random chance at either of those things. I am not talking specifically about FBG writers, but across all sites. I assume this would be prohibitively labor intensive, especially if it pulls data in from writers on other major sites. I wouldn't want to turn it into a competition or have anyone feel bad for being near the bottom (since someone will always be last), purely just for the large data set. 

It is also very likely I am not using all of the tools optimally. 

it's like huthut is my soulmate.....the bolded is spot on and said exactly how I wish I could say it......especially the red part....at the end of the day weekly rankings across sites are going to look very similar...so anymore, to pay for something, it needs to be "game changing/week winning" advice for some reason.....consistently as possible helping me make the right sit/start decision for my weekly lineup....often just that last flex spot or something......and when it comes to filling my last flex spot I like to have somebody give me the reason that they have Curtis Samuel at 28 this week over Mike Williams at 31....the 8.8 projected points to 8.7 doesn't really mean much.....little comments after each ranking or a "confidence level" 1-10 in how confident you are that Samuel will outscore everybody ranked after him....something....I know they are close.....I'm looking for you to give me the assurance on tough calls and to hit more than you miss.....that is a tough thing to ask for....but you have more competition than you did back in the day....so that is what people are going to want in some ways....

I also like how huthut kind of touches on the accountability aspect......who on staff is killing it this year each week, and who isn't.....I am big on analyzing hits and misses.....and why you hit or miss on certain calls each week......some weekly self reflection by staff about where they got it right and where they got it wrong each week, is useful to me.....instead of just packing up and moving on to the next week....

I have been around since the yellow boards and the faxed cheatsheets......have subscribed every year I believe.....always thought FBG gave me an edge in my home leagues.....not so much anymore.....not saying that to be mean.....you guys may still be very good....but the separation is not what it used to be IMO.....in fact I don't often see any FBG staff in the "most accurate projector" rankings....not sure if you guys put yourselves out there for that or not....

bottom line....people want to win....and if they think you help them do that....they will pay.....for me, it's give me the best possible rankings before my draft....and then the best possible weekly rankings after that.....I kinda down deep want to know that if I follow those that I will at least probably be "in contention" most years....I'm not asking you to do everything for me....although the rise in competition from other sites kind of by nature could be steering you in that direction....

this is the first year I probably won't subscribe.....and it kinda hurts.....felt like I would be doing it, just to do it and because I always have....I love it here and you guys have helped me win many leagues.....but the cost isn't being justified by the separation anymore......I don't want to pay just for the contests, which I will really miss....I kind of want to see you guys stand up tall and pound your chest and really show me why I should give you my money and why you guys really are worth it and better than everybody else.....it used to feel like that around here...and it was a good ride.....not so much anymore.....:banned:

Edited by Stinkin Ref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

I kind of want to see you guys stand up tall and pound your chest and really show me why I should give you my money and why you guys really are worth it and better than everybody else.....it used to feel like that around here..

Thanks @Stinkin Ref

We feel like we do that pretty much every day with the content we produce on the website. I call it out every day in the email update and we promote it on the website. We talk about it here. 

I totally get what you're saying about it not helping when one player is projected for 8.7 points and another is projected for 8.8 points. My honest answer to that is we truly project the points we think a player will score. I don't know any other way than to honestly put out what we project. 

Quote

.and it was a good ride.....not so much anymore.....:banned:

I'm sorry to hear you feel like that. Thanks for the time you were with us. It's much appreciated and I wish you all the best in all you're doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2020 at 9:58 PM, SeniorVBDStudent said:

My feedback:

1. Customers are irritating.  You can never make them all happy.  I appreciate the active solicitation of input and willingness to filter out the whining to improve your product.

2. Point 1 does not mean that I won't whine :D

3. All I care about is the free forums, year long contest and DFS content.

4. There is a void in the DFS marketplace waiting to be filled for a website to push various levels of free and LOW COST paywall based DFS modelling options *.  Huge opportunity imo.

* if you canvas the market (rotorgrinders, etc etc) most DFS website are looking for a paywall commitment of HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS to look behind the curtain.  Mistake imo.

 

Thanks .Agree with you 100% Especially on the DFS front. We're drastically under priced there and feel like we have significant opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2020 at 3:28 PM, DA RAIDERS said:

re upped as always.  thx joe.

i don't use 90% of what you offer, but i've enjoyed this place for 20 years or more.

more idp, and regular dynasty updates would be nice.

Thanks a ton. Big dynasty article sneek peak for you here. Dynasty Buy Low, Sell High: Tight Ends - Sigmund Bloom
https://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=2020-dynasty-buy-low-sell-high-tight-ends

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2020 at 2:53 PM, miqws said:

Hi Joe -

Thanks for the increased attention to dynasty.  Good to see.  Recommend more superflex and TE premium content, the trend is rising in these areas. 

On the online draft dominator, when one clicks on a player, a nice menu shows up.  Under the Staff tab, any content there is last years (ex. Darrell Henderson - keep close tabs on Gurley's knee!).  An update for this year would be useful.   

The number of Staff comments on draft dominator is low - mostly non existent.  For me, the staff list sets my expectations for a comment whereas the result is most often "no comment yet".  I would rename the tab "staff rankings" if staff comments are not committed to.

Thx for asking for feed back - M.

Thanks for the headsup. 

Definitely something is broken there. Let us find out what's causing that. Are you also seeing all the new comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2020 at 10:54 AM, Spike said:

I have had the same issues. Even posted asking for DD help and never got a response. 

From earlier what I posted: " I appreciate the added insight. And I'm with you 100% on making the apps more user friendly. I had similar feelings and our Simon Shepherd spent a significant focus this offseason in making onboarding much more intuitive. And we're doing a completely new and redone article series on how to best use the apps. The challenge for us, is we want to make an app that is powerful to handle the often complex situations users need (like many in the Shark Pool) but also make it accessible for everyone. It's a challenge but I think we made big strides with this this year. "

Also, for sure sure, if you have trouble www.footballguys.com/help is by far the way to get assistance. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for the headsup. 

Definitely something is broken there. Let us find out what's causing that. Are you also seeing all the new comments?

Also @miqws  , when I asked our guys on this today, they said they think this was fixed earlier this week.

Does it appear to be fixed for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mphtrilogy said:

Is the draft dominator app not part of the subscription anymore?

The Draft Dominator mobile app in the App Store and Google Play Store is separate from the Footballguys Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscriptions. This was how it was from 2013 to 2018.

In 2019, we tried making it part of the Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscriptions. And unfortunately, failed miserably there. In a completely different ecosystem of IOS or Android, we simply couldn't make it work and deliver the quality product and customer service we needed to provide. We were forced to make a decision between dropping the Draft Dominator mobile app, or allowing it to stand on its own as it had every year prior to 2019. We love the app and chose to allow it to stand on its own.
 
But we also want to bring as much value as possible to folks that purchased the Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscription. So we poured everything we could into improving the Online Draft Dominator that is included with every Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscription. https://draft.footballguys.com/. It has the same functionality of the mobile app. It is better than ever this year and the much larger screen capabilities give what most people feel is a far superior experience on desktops and laptops. You have full access to the Online Draft Dominator with your Season Long Pro or All-Pro subscription. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a subscriber for probably 15 years now.  Love the site.  I would agree with the feedback about more dynasty content, I've recently added a DLF sub to supplement in this area but would prefer to subscribe to FBG only.

On that note, I would like to see staff add more comments to their dynasty player rankings.  As it is, you get maybe one comment per 10 players (and some don't comment at all).  The added context that comments provide vs just a ranked list is the kind of thing I am looking for from a premium fantasy site.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rarely post in the SP but I paid for the premium subscription every year for many years until 3 years ago.  It definitely helped me win my league a few times so it more than paid for itself.

I stopped paying for it when my money league fell apart.  I now only play for fun (like drafting a Seahawk solely so I can also draft a song from Modest Mouse) so it's not worth the cost to me anymore but I think the information provided is well worth the cost for those playing for real dollars.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

The Draft Dominator mobile app in the App Store and Google Play Store is separate from the Footballguys Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscriptions. This was how it was from 2013 to 2018.

In 2019, we tried making it part of the Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscriptions. And unfortunately, failed miserably there. In a completely different ecosystem of IOS or Android, we simply couldn't make it work and deliver the quality product and customer service we needed to provide. We were forced to make a decision between dropping the Draft Dominator mobile app, or allowing it to stand on its own as it had every year prior to 2019. We love the app and chose to allow it to stand on its own.
 
But we also want to bring as much value as possible to folks that purchased the Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscription. So we poured everything we could into improving the Online Draft Dominator that is included with every Season Long Pro and All-Pro subscription. https://draft.footballguys.com/. It has the same functionality of the mobile app. It is better than ever this year and the much larger screen capabilities give what most people feel is a far superior experience on desktops and laptops. You have full access to the Online Draft Dominator with your Season Long Pro or All-Pro subscription. 

Thanks Joe, I enjoyed the app quite a bit and may pony up the $5,  but it was a nice perk....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please take a look at quality over quantity. We really don’t need an upgrade/downgrade list that has 90% of the nfl players and moves then solely on the prior Sunday performance or an injury. Tom Brady throws for 4 tds one week and is upgraded. Next week he only tosses one and is downgraded. Nothing else changed.  

I don’t need to know jamis Winston is an upgrade if brees blows his acl   Your injury report will have this covered.  I want to know that Barkley is an upgrade because he has two starting linemen coming back and his red zone targets have increased consistently over the last 3 weeks .  Or maybe that he just came off a tough run defense schedule and will be facing cupcakes the next month

It would be much more useful to have fewer players to focus on. I really like your preseason articles that are based on staff votes. Would love to see an in season upgrade/downgrade list where you only discuss players getting multiple votes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I upped again but dropped down just to season long. Your dfs content was lacking in several areas. 

1 When projections were updated on the main site, they didn’t automatically rolling to the lineup generator. This resulted in bad lineups and having to check the main site for the last projections. 

2 I used the heck out of the lineup generator and the return was less than 50 cents on the dollar. Numerous weeks I would flood contests with the max allowable lineups. I tried numerous settings and nothing ever generated a lineup close to winning. I did significantly better just creating a few lineups using the projections. 

3 Sorely missed Dodd’s blog. Also him leaving fanduel because the juice was to much pretty much says you can’t provided good enough product to dominate dfs like you can in the season long area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Please take a look at quality over quantity. We really don’t need an upgrade/downgrade list that has 90% of the nfl players and moves then solely on the prior Sunday performance or an injury. Tom Brady throws for 4 tds one week and is upgraded. Next week he only tosses one and is downgraded. Nothing else changed.  

I don’t need to know jamis Winston is an upgrade if brees blows his acl   Your injury report will have this covered.  I want to know that Barkley is an upgrade because he has two starting linemen coming back and his red zone targets have increased consistently over the last 3 weeks .  Or maybe that he just came off a tough run defense schedule and will be facing cupcakes the next month

It would be much more useful to have fewer players to focus on. I really like your preseason articles that are based on staff votes. Would love to see an in season upgrade/downgrade list where you only discuss players getting multiple votes. 

:goodposting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Please take a look at quality over quantity. We really don’t need an upgrade/downgrade list that has 90% of the nfl players and moves then solely on the prior Sunday performance or an injury. Tom Brady throws for 4 tds one week and is upgraded. Next week he only tosses one and is downgraded. Nothing else changed.  

I don’t need to know jamis Winston is an upgrade if brees blows his acl   Your injury report will have this covered.  I want to know that Barkley is an upgrade because he has two starting linemen coming back and his red zone targets have increased consistently over the last 3 weeks .  Or maybe that he just came off a tough run defense schedule and will be facing cupcakes the next month

It would be much more useful to have fewer players to focus on. I really like your preseason articles that are based on staff votes. Would love to see an in season upgrade/downgrade list where you only discuss players getting multiple votes. 

Thanks for the feedback there.

We try to cover a ton of the skill position players and they move solely based on how we see them going forward. Sigmund Bloom does that early in the week and it's a comprehensive look at a "stock up / stock down" type thing. It would be tons easier to focus on just a few players and leave out most of the league. We'll take a look there. 

I do love the Value Play features we do in the summer where we poll the Staff on who they see as Under and Over valued. Last night we did the Overvalued WRs https://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=2020-26-overvalued-wide-receivers.  I can't promise anything yet, but I could see something like that for inseason maybe. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

 

1 When projections were updated on the main site, they didn’t automatically rolling to the lineup generator. This resulted in bad lineups and having to check the main site for the last projections. 

 

Hi @BassNBrew We have a few different things that generate lineups. Can you be specific on exactly what you mean there?

The League Dominator generates lineups for Season Long leagues.

The DFS Lineup Optimizer generates lineups for DFS.

Both of those tools reflect the latest Stat Projections in real time.

Our original DFS lineup tool, the Interactive Value Charts (IVC), took a bit more time to reflect updated stats. It was an infrastructure issue and this year we'll be replacing the IVC with a redesigned DFS Lineup Optimizer which is massively more powerful and better. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Hi @BassNBrew We have a few different things that generate lineups. Can you be specific on exactly what you mean there?

The League Dominator generates lineups for Season Long leagues.

The DFS Lineup Optimizer generates lineups for DFS.

Both of those tools reflect the latest Stat Projections in real time.

Our original DFS lineup tool, the Interactive Value Charts (IVC), took a bit more time to reflect updated stats. It was an infrastructure issue and this year we'll be replacing the IVC with a redesigned DFS Lineup Optimizer which is massively more powerful and better. 

 

I know for a fact that the IVC didn't get an updated projections feed, especially on Sundays numerous times.  I don't know about the DFS Lineup optimizer.  The IVC was the tool that I had success with for years.  I understand what you are doing this year basically rolling the two of them together.

Curious about your thoughts on DFS moving forward.  Based on message board volume, it seems like a fad and that season long is holding up much better.  I'll start another thread later and tag you.

Edited by BassNBrew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for the feedback there.

We try to cover a ton of the skill position players and they move solely based on how we see them going forward. Sigmund Bloom does that early in the week and it's a comprehensive look at a "stock up / stock down" type thing. It would be tons easier to focus on just a few players and leave out most of the league. We'll take a look there. 

I do love the Value Play features we do in the summer where we poll the Staff on who they see as Under and Over valued. Last night we did the Overvalued WRs https://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=2020-26-overvalued-wide-receivers.  I can't promise anything yet, but I could see something like that for inseason maybe. 

 

Funny that you posted that article.  I had read it earlier and that's exactly what I was talking about.  If the stock up / down feature looked more like that, I think it would be much more useful.  I love Bloom, but most of the stock up / down guys one week would be in the other category the next week.  I understand how getting several staffers to do this for an early week feature would be difficult.  I would be much more interested in Bloom's thoughts if it was his top five upgrades and downgrades at each position with more analysis rather than a short blurb and arrow up/down on almost every player in the league.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Funny that you posted that article.  I had read it earlier and that's exactly what I was talking about.  If the stock up / down feature looked more like that, I think it would be much more useful.  I love Bloom, but most of the stock up / down guys one week would be in the other category the next week.  I understand how getting several staffers to do this for an early week feature would be difficult.  I would be much more interested in Bloom's thoughts if it was his top five upgrades and downgrades at each position with more analysis rather than a short blurb and arrow up/down on almost every player in the league.

:goodposting:

It has been discussed in past years that - at least in the opinion of many posters - the way that report exists currently is not very useful. It is too many players in part because it is too knee-jerk based on a single week's games. If all of the players who simply had a good game or bad game but whose situations haven't really changed in any meaningful way were eliminated from the report, it would be much more useful. That would leave the report focused on guys who are trending over a larger sample of games, guys whose situations did meaningfully change (e.g., due to injuries), guys who had a legit breakout game, etc.

As Bass said, it would be much more valuable and interesting to highlight a smaller number of players, like top 5 stock up and top 5 stock down, and actually spend more time on explaining why.

  • Like 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BassNBrew said:

I know for a fact that the IVC didn't get an updated projections feed, especially on Sundays numerous times.  I don't know about the DFS Lineup optimizer.  The IVC was the tool that I had success with for years.  I understand what you are doing this year basically rolling the two of them together.

Curious about your thoughts on DFS moving forward.  Based on message board volume, it seems like a fad and that season long is holding up much better.  I'll start another thread later and tag you.

Cool. Any problems with the IVC updating in years past will be completely resolved with our DFS Lineup Optimizer solution tools this year. Real time updating is an important part of the DFS Lineup Optimizer and a reason they'll be what we offer.

For DFS, it's still a huge segment of the market. And with the increase in legal sports book offerings, these companies are just going to get stronger. It does feel to me like DFS has matured and the growth has leveled some. There isn't exponential growth there like there was early on and that's entirely expected. There hasn't been exponential growth in Season Long for a long time. But we see Season Long as a huge market and a great way to play. We see DFS as a fun way tons of fans like to play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought.

One issue we have when creating an article like Waiver Wire Upgrade / Downgrade is we have readers with a huge range of teams.

If you're in a 10 team basic scoring league starting 2 WRs, you have a very different view of the Waiver Wire than someone in a 14 team superflex league starting 3 WRs and a flex. 

When there's a smaller number of players we highlight, the chances are good that lots of people will read and their response was "Please may I play in your league where _______ is on the waiver wire. He was drafted in the ______ round in my serious league".

Or it goes the other way. We try to highlight a player that fits the 14 team super flex waiver wire league, and we omit highlighting a guy that would be a great addition to the 10 team league owner. 

The way we currently do it, it gives a stock up / stock down for a ton of players and we ensure we cover most situations. 

Just a thought and a counter. 

The fewer players method would be a lot easier to write. It's tough weighing every player and trying to determine the direction they're trending. And it's a little disheartening how some people seem quick to criticize someone as thoughtful and smart as Sigmund as just knee jerk reacting to whatever happened Sunday. I know that's not accurate at all. But that's life. With the current way, we are able to cover a lot more customers. 

I'm open to looking at it though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

A thought.

One issue we have when creating an article like Waiver Wire Upgrade / Downgrade is we have readers with a huge range of teams.

If you're in a 10 team basic scoring league starting 2 WRs, you have a very different view of the Waiver Wire than someone in a 14 team superflex league starting 3 WRs and a flex. 

When there's a smaller number of players we highlight, the chances are good that lots of people will read and their response was "Please may I play in your league where _______ is on the waiver wire. He was drafted in the ______ round in my serious league".

Or it goes the other way. We try to highlight a player that fits the 14 team super flex waiver wire league, and we omit highlighting a guy that would be a great addition to the 10 team league owner. 

The way we currently do it, it gives a stock up / stock down for a ton of players and we ensure we cover most situations. 

Just a thought and a counter. 

The fewer players method would be a lot easier to write. It's tough weighing every player and trying to determine the direction they're trending. And it's a little disheartening how some people seem quick to criticize someone as thoughtful and smart as Sigmund as just knee jerk reacting to whatever happened Sunday. I know that's not accurate at all. But that's life. With the current way, we are able to cover a lot more customers. 

I'm open to looking at it though. 

Lots of appreciation for Bloom.  

It may not be accurate, but when I looked at two weeks last year, more than half the players down one week were up the next and vice versa (as I recall, it was about 7 in 10 players).  I really came off as buy high, sell low advice to me.

I look at upgrade/downgrades and waiver wire advice as two different subjects (yes they may overlap).  Upgrade/downgrades are more help with thinking about trades and relative values of players.  If you upgrade Mahommes, it has no bearing on anything other than trade value.  Upgrade says consider doing what you can to get this guy.  Downgrade says move him before his value falls further.  Waiver wire advice helps me decide how to to spend or priority to give up to acquire a player who might be a free agent.  As you state, players available differ by depth of league.

I think the thing you need to keep in mind is that you have a top 250 going forward feature that covers every player.  Keep the prose type articles narrow/focus and in-depth and let the stats/data articles handle the breadth.  IMO, let Dodds cast the broad net to cover all our needs and ask guys like Bloom to be hyper-focused on things that are going to be changers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Lots of appreciation for Bloom.  

It may not be accurate, but when I looked at two weeks last year, more than half the players down one week were up the next and vice versa (as I recall, it was about 7 in 10 players).

 

Yes. That's exactly what it is. Few players have smooth trajectories all year long. It's very likely they move up one week and down the next. Just like a stock might on the stock market. 

Quote

 I really came off as buy high, sell low advice to me.

I don't think Bloom has ever given buy high, sell low advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

 

I think the thing you need to keep in mind is that you have a top 250 going forward feature that covers every player.  Keep the prose type articles narrow/focus and in-depth and let the stats/data articles handle the breadth.  IMO, let Dodds cast the broad net to cover all our needs and ask guys like Bloom to be hyper-focused on things that are going to be changers.

Bob Henry does the Rankings Going Forward and they are one of the most important things we do. I keep them pretty much at the front of mind. They're also one of the most difficult things to forecast. 

We'll continue to look at this. I'm interested in the idea of what you're suggesting as it would be a ton easier to cover so many fewer players. We'll keep kicking it around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

A thought.

One issue we have when creating an article like Waiver Wire Upgrade / Downgrade is we have readers with a huge range of teams.

If you're in a 10 team basic scoring league starting 2 WRs, you have a very different view of the Waiver Wire than someone in a 14 team superflex league starting 3 WRs and a flex. 

When there's a smaller number of players we highlight, the chances are good that lots of people will read and their response was "Please may I play in your league where _______ is on the waiver wire. He was drafted in the ______ round in my serious league".

Or it goes the other way. We try to highlight a player that fits the 14 team super flex waiver wire league, and we omit highlighting a guy that would be a great addition to the 10 team league owner. 

The way we currently do it, it gives a stock up / stock down for a ton of players and we ensure we cover most situations. 

Just a thought and a counter. 

The fewer players method would be a lot easier to write. It's tough weighing every player and trying to determine the direction they're trending. And it's a little disheartening how some people seem quick to criticize someone as thoughtful and smart as Sigmund as just knee jerk reacting to whatever happened Sunday. I know that's not accurate at all. But that's life. With the current way, we are able to cover a lot more customers. 

I'm open to looking at it though. 

I'm the one who made the knee-jerk comment. I didn't mean it to be critical of Bloom, I meant it about the nature of what he is chartered with doing with the article.

I just went back and looked at the article from week 2 last season. Comments:

  1. It addressed 29 QBs, 56 RBs, 56 WRs, and 21 TEs.
  2. But it only recommended waiver bid amounts for 11 of 17 QB upgrades; 17 of 25 RB upgrades (and, bizarrely, 1 of 7 RBs holding steady); 22 of 29 WR upgrades; and 7 of 11 TE upgrades. And several of those recommendations noted for deep leagues, TE premium leagues, or other conditions. Why list 6 QBs, 8 RBs, 7 WRs, and 4 TEs as upgrades if they aren't even recommended for a 1% waiver wire bid?
  3. Beyond that, it recommended bidding 25-50% of blind bid budget on RB Malcolm Brown, WR John Brown, and TE Hockenson. Those were the highest recommended bids. Hindsight is 20/20, and to a degree this is the nature of playing the waiver wire in fantasy football, but does that seem like a possible overreaction to 2 weeks worth of games? Especially considering that Hockenson was a downgrade in the very next week 3 report and RB Brown was a downgrade in the week 4 report...

Looking at a few weeks' worth of reports, naturally there are many more misses than hits, which is to be expected. But could the hit rate be improved if focusing on a small number rather than 160+ players every week?

Speaking of hit rate on this stuff, do you pay attention to it, and what would you consider a good hit rate?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

I'm the one who made the knee-jerk comment. I didn't mean it to be critical of Bloom, I meant it about the nature of what he is chartered with doing with the article.

I just went back and looked at the article from week 2 last season. Comments:

  1. It addressed 29 QBs, 56 RBs, 56 WRs, and 21 TEs.
  2. But it only recommended waiver bid amounts for 11 of 17 QB upgrades; 17 of 25 RB upgrades (and, bizarrely, 1 of 7 RBs holding steady); 22 of 29 WR upgrades; and 7 of 11 TE upgrades. And several of those recommendations noted for deep leagues, TE premium leagues, or other conditions. Why list 6 QBs, 8 RBs, 7 WRs, and 4 TEs as upgrades if they aren't even recommended for a 1% waiver wire bid?
  3. Beyond that, it recommended bidding 25-50% of blind bid budget on RB Malcolm Brown, WR John Brown, and TE Hockenson. Those were the highest recommended bids. Hindsight is 20/20, and to a degree this is the nature of playing the waiver wire in fantasy football, but does that seem like a possible overreaction to 2 weeks worth of games? Especially considering that Hockenson was a downgrade in the very next week 3 report and RB Brown was a downgrade in the week 4 report...

Looking at a few weeks' worth of reports, naturally there are many more misses than hits, which is to be expected. But could the hit rate be improved if focusing on a small number rather than 160+ players every week?

Speaking of hit rate on this stuff, do you pay attention to it, and what would you consider a good hit rate?

Thanks. Not sure how accusing Sigmund of Knee-Jerk picks is anything but critical. But that's ok. That's part of the game. And yes, hindsight is of course 20/20. Knowing what we knew then, I wouldn't say that was an over reaction at all. But it also illustrates how it's so tough to give advice to people who have massively different circumstances. If you're loaded at those positions, you may not want to go 20%. If you're league is conservative on how people work the waiver wire, you may not want to go that high. If you're in a league where people are hyper aggressive on waiver wire, you likely need to go more if you want the players. 

And for sure, if we cherry pick a handful of players we feel super confident in, and exclude the masses, it'll be much easier to be accurate. A "hit rate" is difficult to score as it's rarely a binary thing. Much more on a moving scale based on what they do and also when they deliver the needed stats. You may pick a WW player up and not need him for 4 weeks. His "value" that that team is different than a team that needs the player right then. Lots of variables in play and we'll try to continue to improve there. 

Thanks for the feedback and criticism on this. We're just trying to get better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Not sure how accusing Sigmund of Knee-Jerk picks is anything but critical. But that's ok. That's part of the game. And yes, hindsight is of course 20/20. Knowing what we knew then, I wouldn't say that was an over reaction at all. But it also illustrates how it's so tough to give advice to people who have massively different circumstances. If you're loaded at those positions, you may not want to go 20%. If you're league is conservative on how people work the waiver wire, you may not want to go that high. If you're in a league where people are hyper aggressive on waiver wire, you likely need to go more if you want the players. 

And for sure, if we cherry pick a handful of players we feel super confident in, and exclude the masses, it'll be much easier to be accurate. A "hit rate" is difficult to score as it's rarely a binary thing. Much more on a moving scale based on what they do and also when they deliver the needed stats. You may pick a WW player up and not need him for 4 weeks. His "value" that that team is different than a team that needs the player right then. Lots of variables in play and we'll try to continue to improve there. 

Thanks for the feedback and criticism on this. We're just trying to get better. 

Again, my point is that you ask him to have a knee-jerk reaction with a stock up/down take like the daily stock market. It's not about him, it's about what you ask him to do with the article.

IMO fantasy value volatility is not like stock market volatility. My entire point is that the players who are truly volatile are the ones we need a report on. We need a report on the 10-50 volatile players, not the 100+ players who aren't actually volatile. 

As for the "if you're loaded, you may not want to go 20%" comment, the articles state that the blind bid amounts given are the proper way to rank the priority of the recommendations. So it doesn't matter if a given fantasy owner wants to take the advice to go 25-50% of budget, it is a relative priority.

To me, you are just blowing off the feedback and saying what you have been doing is what you want to do and plan to keep doing. That is your prerogative. But call it what it is.

I don't mean this to be confrontational. In my first post in this thread, I stated that I have been a subscriber for however long subscribing has been a thing. I like FBG a lot. I am trying to provide constructive criticism, which is my perspective on what you are asking for.

Edited by Just Win Baby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

 

To me, you are just blowing off the feedback and saying what you have been doing is what you want to do and plan to keep doing. That is your prerogative. But call it what it is.

Sorry to hear you think that's what I'm doing. I can tell you for a fact that's not what I'm doing and I'm talking to Sigmund and the team about how we might improve. It's disappointing for me trying to clarify and spend time here talking about how and why we do things be seen as "blowing off the feedback and saying what you have been doing is what you want to do and plan to keep doing".

But that's life. I do think we can have a difference in opinion without it becoming me ignoring your opinion. Thanks for the feedback and we'll keep trying to improve what we do. Whether you believe me there or not. And I'll keep trying to engage people on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Joe Bryant,

I am putting this here since you asked how FBG can serve us better. I've been having an issue with MyFBG league sync for over two weeks now. During the first week, I took the time to follow the troubleshooting guide, delete, re-sync, retrace my steps, etc. No luck. Last week, I placed a ticket with your support team. The response I got to my ticket was as follows: "We went through some planned server maintenance recently and are ironing out some issues that occurred as a result. One of those issues is with MyFBG Classic syncing not functioning properly. Our development team estimates they should have syncing up and running as normal within the next few weeks. I will keep you updated as soon as I hear something from them as far as a solution and timeline." 

So, good to know the issue isn't with me. Wouldn't it have been prudent to tell your subscribers what is going on, so they didn't waste time like I did troubleshooting? Especially if it will take "weeks" to fix? Furthermore, given the history of issues with MyFBG / league import/syncing, shouldn't there be more quality control on changes you make? "Planned server maintenance" should not blow up your product. Finally, the response is mistaken in that MyFBG classic is what is broken - I am using the default online version of MyFBG - classic seems to imply its some older alternative and I have another way to sync the teams - I do not.

I know its off-season and even though I could use the league sync to evaluate wavers/FAs and trades, it isn't as bad as if this happened during the season. The fact that we STILL have communication issues on a core feature like this and I still don't know when the resolution date for this issue will be bothers me. This could all have been addressed with simple transparency - even a simple message on the import/sync page saying there are known issues and you're working on them would have been OK. 

Edited by Genester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sorry to hear you think that's what I'm doing. I can tell you for a fact that's not what I'm doing and I'm talking to Sigmund and the team about how we might improve. It's disappointing for me trying to clarify and spend time here talking about how and why we do things be seen as "blowing off the feedback and saying what you have been doing is what you want to do and plan to keep doing".

But that's life. I do think we can have a difference in opinion without it becoming me ignoring your opinion. Thanks for the feedback and we'll keep trying to improve what we do. Whether you believe me there or not. And I'll keep trying to engage people on it. 

Joe, I wrote 5 paragraphs in my post and you quoted one... the one that allowed you not to actually address the issues I mentioned. 

I am much more interested in your response to the first 3 paragraphs than the one you quoted. Are you interested in real discourse here? Doesn’t seem like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2020 at 4:22 PM, Joe Bryant said:

Also @miqws  , when I asked our guys on this today, they said they think this was fixed earlier this week.

Does it appear to be fixed for you?

Not fixed for me.  I have been working with Matt Carey, it seems to be something with my computer.  He pulls up my account and all is good on his end.  For me, it is bizarre as other sections are 2020, but not the staff section.  I have not tried clearing caches, etc. or tried on a different computer/browser yet.  Without the ability to replicate, this one will be hard to fix.  Should not be using the work computer anyway 🙂!    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Joe, I wrote 5 paragraphs in my post and you quoted one... the one that allowed you not to actually address the issues I mentioned. 

I am much more interested in your response to the first 3 paragraphs than the one you quoted. Are you interested in real discourse here? Doesn’t seem like it. 

 

When you write three points and sum with you just think I'm "blowing off the feedback and saying what you have been doing is what you want to do and plan to keep doing" it doesn't seem like there's much interest in discourse. :shrug: That's a bummer as that's why I've been spending time posting here and asking for feedback. If I don't have any interest in discourse or am just blowing off opinions, I'm pretty dumb for spending time here with lots of other things that need to be done. I don't think that's the case. 

If you care, for the points:

Quote

Again, my point is that you ask him to have a knee-jerk reaction with a stock up/down take like the daily stock market. It's not about him, it's about what you ask him to do with the article.

Again, my thought is it's not knee-jerk at all. It's updated weekly and it's current as of that point in time, but it's far from "knee-jerk" in my opinion. If I can be honest, I think that was a poor description on your part of what Sigmund does. 

 

Quote

IMO fantasy value volatility is not like stock market volatility. My entire point is that the players who are truly volatile are the ones we need a report on. We need a report on the 10-50 volatile players, not the 100+ players who aren't actually volatile. 

We just disagree. I think fantasy value and outlook is very much like a stock. It's not a purely linear path. There are ups and downs. Some certainly have bigger movements than others. Some hold steady. We try to relate that movement. 

 

Quote

As for the "if you're loaded, you may not want to go 20%" comment, the articles state that the blind bid amounts given are the proper way to rank the priority of the recommendations. So it doesn't matter if a given fantasy owner wants to take the advice to go 25-50% of budget, it is a relative priority.

Not sure how to better say it than I did. How much a GM should bid is wildly dependent on lots of situations. Sigmund and have talked about removing this number entirely as it's just so difficult to have a one size fits all. We may wind up removing it after all as this is a good illustration that sometimes it seems to hurt more than it helps.

 

Bottom line, is some folks are asking for a different report than what we're doing. We're doing a weekly update on a "stock up / stock down" type report trying to cover a ton of players. We get a lot of feedback that we don't cover a broad enough section of players. "Why don't you ever talk about __________" is common feedback we get. That believe it or not, we listen to.

What I hear others talking about is they're less concerned about a stock up / stock down on each player and would prefer to see more detail on a much smaller number of the biggest movers. That could be cool too. As I said, would certainly be much easier to write. And it's something I've already talked to Sigmund about today and we're kicking it around how that might work and look. 

And yes, it's very possible we keep things the same. That doesn't mean we're blowing off anything. That means we've weighed things out and tried to listen as best we can and will make the decision we feel is best to best serve the customers. That's how we've done everything since day one at Footballguys. Again, I don't expect you to believe that but all I can tell you is that's how we do it. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Genester said:

Hi @Joe Bryant,

I am putting this here since you asked how FBG can serve us better. I've been having an issue with MyFBG league sync for over two weeks now. During the first week, I took the time to follow the troubleshooting guide, delete, re-sync, retrace my steps, etc. No luck. Last week, I placed a ticket with your support team. The response I got to my ticket was as follows: "We went through some planned server maintenance recently and are ironing out some issues that occurred as a result. One of those issues is with MyFBG Classic syncing not functioning properly. Our development team estimates they should have syncing up and running as normal within the next few weeks. I will keep you updated as soon as I hear something from them as far as a solution and timeline." 

So, good to know the issue isn't with me. Wouldn't it have been prudent to tell your subscribers what is going on, so they didn't waste time like I did troubleshooting? Especially if it will take "weeks" to fix? Furthermore, given the history of issues with MyFBG / league import/syncing, shouldn't there be more quality control on changes you make? "Planned server maintenance" should not blow up your product. Finally, the response is mistaken in that MyFBG classic is what is broken - I am using the default online version of MyFBG - classic seems to imply its some older alternative and I have another way to sync the teams - I do not.

I know its off-season and even though I could use the league sync to evaluate wavers/FAs and trades, it isn't as bad as if this happened during the season. The fact that we STILL have communication issues on a core feature like this and I still don't know when the resolution date for this issue will be bothers me. This could all have been addressed with simple transparency - even a simple message on the import/sync page saying there are known issues and you're working on them would have been OK. 

Thanks. We definitely made a mistake not letting folks know it would take a while on that issue. I apologize. 

We hope to have it resolved soon as Matt said. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, miqws said:

Not fixed for me.  I have been working with Matt Carey, it seems to be something with my computer.  He pulls up my account and all is good on his end.  For me, it is bizarre as other sections are 2020, but not the staff section.  I have not tried clearing caches, etc. or tried on a different computer/browser yet.  Without the ability to replicate, this one will be hard to fix.  Should not be using the work computer anyway 🙂!    

That's super weird. I don't know what on your computer would cause it to not to work and those are tough to fix as you said if we can't replicate it. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...