|
89 posted:My starting WRs are Jordy & Chris Hogan. Fitz in my flex. I like that offer and it's better than what I sent to our Julio owner who is currently in last place and he's mulling it over. I offered T. Coleman & E. Sanders plus 3 spot higher waiver wire.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
89 posted:My starting WRs are Jordy & Chris Hogan. Fitz in my flex. Too rich for my blood
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
tonic posted:I made this exact trade (Monty for Dez) last week, right before Monty was injured (12 team, 1PPR). I'm happy with it and would make it again in a heartbeat, I also have Aaron Jones. Your WR core is pretty weak and you could use Dez. I also don't think this hurts your chances of winning this week--my guess is Monty doesn't play or is snap limited this Sunday based on the recent Rotoworld news. Aaron Jones has got to be taking some 1st/2nd down work from him even when his ribs do heal, right? I'm under the firm belief that Ty Montgomery is the worst starting RB in the league by a wide margin. It's not his fault, he's simply a WR that they insist on using as a between the tackles guys. He's too thin, he can't break a single tackle, and he cant make anyone miss. Again, not his fault, it's just for some reason McCarthy has drunk his own poison and insists on using a clear WR as a RB. Since this is the NFL it means that once Ty comes back he'll irrationally be given a ton of carries from Aaron Jones thus rendering both of them useless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Montgomery's career average YPC is 4.9, though, and as a former WR, he can catch on passing downs. Even if you ignore the last two years (last year it was 5.7) and just look at this year, it's 3.3 ypc, which is not great, but I'm sure it's not the worst among starting RBs. e. http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/rushing/sort/yardsPerRushAttempt Jonathan Stewart, Frank Gore and LeSean McCoy are worse so far this year. E. Ty's YPC stat is probably very low in large part because his season long rush is just 11 yards. So I'd say if he's got a big problem it's that he's failing to bust through the secondary on his carries. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm under the firm belief that Ty Montgomery is the worst starting RB in the league by a wide margin. It's not his fault, he's simply a WR that they insist on using as a between the tackles guys. He's too thin, he can't break a single tackle, and he cant make anyone miss. Again, not his fault, it's just for some reason McCarthy has drunk his own poison and insists on using a clear WR as a RB. He's not that thin anymore. Once he knew he was going to be playing RB full time at the end of last year, he put on some crazy amount of muscle. He's currently listed as 6'0 - 216 which falls in line with Fourtnette at 6'1 @ 225, Bell 6'1 @ 225, Kareem Hunt 5'11 @ 200, LeSean McCoy 5'11 @ 205
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Montgomery's career average YPC is 4.9, though, and as a former WR, he can catch on passing downs. Even if you ignore the last two years (last year it was 5.7) and just look at this year, it's 3.3 ypc, which is not great, but I'm sure it's not the worst among starting RBs. I don't care about his stats he runs up the middle and falls down immediately every play. He's a good player that's completely out of position. Alfalfa posted:He's not that thin anymore. He actually lost weight then. He was coming out of Stanford at 225. Also Stanford used him the same way McCarthys using him now which is why I guess McCarthy thought to put him there when they were completely decimated by RB injuries last year. But there was a reason why he was a WR for the Cardinal and why he was a valuable WR before getting swapped to RB. He's just too thin around the core and legs. Like he's a big guy and he's built from the top to the bottom, but really good NFL RBs have tree trunk legs and a thick core so they can drive and create more explosive power in shorter amounts of space. Ty doesn't have that. He's quick and fast butthat means all he does is see a hole, run forward, and get tackled while trying to fully extend for some extra yards. Every time he's in the play it just feels like he belongs on the line but was motioned into the backfield for a trick play or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Montgomery's career average YPC is 4.9, though, and as a former WR, he can catch on passing downs. Even if you ignore the last two years (last year it was 5.7) and just look at this year, it's 3.3 ypc, which is not great, but I'm sure it's not the worst among starting RBs. The other thing here is that the GB oline is awful. I think I saw a stat along the lines of that in the Cowboys game, the oline was 2 yards before contact better than in the prior games. That makes a significant difference. I'm sure some of that is just not being a native RB for Ty, but there's no way all of that is on him. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think Ty is an amazing RB by any means. But he's a a low tier servicable player purely as a RB, and gets an insane number of snaps and tons of targets because he's a WR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm under the firm belief that Ty Montgomery is the worst starting RB in the league by a wide margin. It's not his fault, he's simply a WR that they insist on using as a between the tackles guys. He's too thin, he can't break a single tackle, and he cant make anyone miss. Again, not his fault, it's just for some reason McCarthy has drunk his own poison and insists on using a clear WR as a RB. Paul Perkins, Alex Collins/Terrance West, Jeremy Hill, Latavius Murray, Thomas Rawls/Eddie Lacy would like a word with you! (Also maybe add 2017 Adrian Peterson, 2017 Marshawn Lynch, and Rob Kelley to this list) Fair enough if you think Montgomery is worse than some of these guys, but "by a wide margin" is lol. Also your reasoning is real dumb, even if you're right in your judgment, as Montgomery literally led the league in yards after contact last year and was third in forced tackles per touch (on just 70ish carries, though, so small sample size caveat).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
0.5ppr 2rb, 2wr, w/t, t, w/t/r Give Freeman, get Hopkins He's focusing on Hopkins but perhaps I should target Evans instead? We are both willing to part with pretty much any player but couldn't agree on anything involving more than a 1 on 1 trade. Even this one has me kinda meh e: I know I just posted this but I'm sooo indecisive right now 3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:0.5ppr 2rb, 2wr, w/t, t, w/t/r I wouldn't trade Freeman for either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm under the firm belief that Ty Montgomery is the worst starting RB in the league by a wide margin. It's not his fault, he's simply a WR that they insist on using as a between the tackles guys. He's too thin, he can't break a single tackle, and he cant make anyone miss. Again, not his fault, it's just for some reason McCarthy has drunk his own poison and insists on using a clear WR as a RB.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:0.5ppr 2rb, 2wr, w/t, t, w/t/r Don't trade Freeman
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:0.5ppr 2rb, 2wr, w/t, t, w/t/r Agree with everyone else. You don't have the depth to trade Freeman, and you're currently sitting Diggs who will be a phenomenal WR2 (assuming he is banged up some + healthy and awesome some). You need Freeman more than another high end WR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
So as many of you guys know, Spoeank, Drunk Nerds and myself have started a football and fantasy football website. At the moment, our focus is fantasy football and making fun of everyone and everything. What I'm wondering is what type of content would you guys be looking for that you feel isn't out there. We have an idea of what we would want, but I'm very curious about where you might feel there is a dearth of content.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Am I nuts for starting Deshaun over Rodgers? The Browns are bad and the weather looks really crappy in Minnesota
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Thanks guys. I'm in panic mode on account of my poo poo start.RVProfootballer posted:Agree with everyone else. You don't have the depth to trade Freeman, and you're currently sitting Diggs who will be a phenomenal WR2 (assuming he is banged up some + healthy and awesome some). You need Freeman more than another high end WR. I can start a lot of WRs so that's why I was overvaluing receivers but you're right
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Is it a good idea to try and buy low on D. Murray right now? Henry looks to be phased out of the Titans offense except when they're up big.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Am I nuts for starting Deshaun over Rodgers? The Browns are bad and the weather looks really crappy in Minnesota I mean, I know I said Watson is a must start this week, but golden rule applies here. Don't Sit Your Studs
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Sataere posted:So as many of you guys know, Spoeank, Drunk Nerds and myself have started a football and fantasy football website. At the moment, our focus is fantasy football and making fun of everyone and everything. I enjoy your site, dudes. Good stuff. I think a hot take fantasy bad advice column run by a terrible person would be amazing
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Sataere posted:So as many of you guys know, Spoeank, Drunk Nerds and myself have started a football and fantasy football website. At the moment, our focus is fantasy football and making fun of everyone and everything. I feel like there's a dearth of in-depth pieces that look at stats and compare players, particularly if we're talking about start of season or midseason adds. The pieces that explain why they think you should add player x over player y usually focus on opportunity -- which is very important -- over skill. Here we are looking at Ty Montgomery's stats from PFF as we talk on SA, but I feel like in draft prep stuff you never would have found that kind of detail about why you might prefer player A to player B. Take this piece of yours for example: https://footballabsurdity.com/2017/10/12/fantasy-football-week-six-running-back-streamers-elijah-profit/ Ok. So maybe that's purely from a streaming perspective, but which of those three is better for me RoS if I'm looking for a streaming pickup that may have value past this week? Why is that the one that has the most value? Is it opportunity (Elijah/Perine), skill (Lewis), or some combination + ? https://footballabsurdity.com/2017/10/12/fantasy-football-start-sit-isaiah-crowell-duke-johnson-week-six/ Why are you talking about feet per carry? Isn't football about yards? I'm not in school, gently caress if I know the conversion (10 feet is what, 3.3 yards? Why not just say 3.3 yards..). Similarly, this is great for this week, but presumably you aren't going to write about which of those two to start in a given week each week. so what about rest of season, how should I be measuring them against eachother, and what should I be looking for in any given week's matchup to guide my decision? (The answer is that Crowell sucks and DJJ does not) -- but the way you talk about the value of each in this week would be the kind of analysis that I, as a discriminating viewer/reader would be looking for. Zauper fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:51
|
|
Zauper posted:The other thing here is that the GB oline is awful. I think I saw a stat along the lines of that in the Cowboys game, the oline was 2 yards before contact better than in the prior games. That makes a significant difference. I'm sure some of that is just not being a native RB for Ty, but there's no way all of that is on him. According to Football Outsiders GB has straight up the best run blocking O line in the league, with 5.05 Adj. Line Yards, a good Power success, and a very low Stuffed%. This is even with all the injuries to their tackles and guards. Their pass protection however is subpar.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Sataere posted:So as many of you guys know, Spoeank, Drunk Nerds and myself have started a football and fantasy football website. At the moment, our focus is fantasy football and making fun of everyone and everything. I'm sure some of us would like to see you making fun of Doltos more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:52
|
|
Elotana posted:Am I nuts for starting Deshaun over Rodgers? The Browns are bad and the weather looks really crappy in Minnesota Completely nuts. 1) Aforementioned Stud Rule 2) Minnesota plays in a dome 3) CLE is sack happy (edit: rather, good enough), and HOU has the worst pass protection in the league. AnacondaHL fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Am I nuts for starting Deshaun over Rodgers? The Browns are bad and the weather looks really crappy in Minnesota Don't the Viking's play in a dome? I like Watson, but still would play Rodgers over him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Am I nuts for starting Deshaun over Rodgers? The Browns are bad and the weather looks really crappy in Minnesota DSYS, minne is a dome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Am I nuts for starting Deshaun over Rodgers? The Browns are bad and the weather looks really crappy in Minnesota I'm in the same situation and staring at 1-4 and 0-4 in my division but am still starting Rodgers. DSYS. E:F,B like Watt's knee 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Zauper posted:I feel like there's a dearth of in-depth pieces that look at stats and compare players, particularly if we're talking about start of season or midseason adds. The pieces that explain why they think you should add player x over player y usually focus on opportunity -- which is very important -- over skill. Here we are looking at Ty Montgomery's stats from PFF as we talk on SA, but I feel like in draft prep stuff you never would have found that kind of detail about why you might prefer player A to player B. This is way better than my dumb idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
IllegallySober posted:I'm in the same situation and staring at 1-4 and 0-4 in my division but am still starting Rodgers. DSYS. Don't draft a QB high so you never have to make this decision imo e: oops that was not an edit
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:This is way better than my dumb idea What handcuffs (or non starting RBs on a team) are the most valuable and why? (e.g. % of games injured for the starter, % of snaps played while healthy, skillset -- run/pass blocking, catching). Similarly, which WRs without tons of volume are most valuable and when do I consider starting them over a volume play? I enjoy the style of writing, these are just suggestions for the kinds of content that I think are gaps in (easy to find) existing fantasy writing that could carve out a niche.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Can I move on from Tyrell Williams at this point or what? I keep running this guy out there for absolutely nothing except one single 75-yard TD a couple weeks ago. He's killing me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Popero posted:Can I move on from Tyrell Williams at this point or what? I keep running this guy out there for absolutely nothing except one single 75-yard TD a couple weeks ago. He's killing me. Yes. Pick up Mike Williams instead
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Sataere posted:So as many of you guys know, Spoeank, Drunk Nerds and myself have started a football and fantasy football website. At the moment, our focus is fantasy football and making fun of everyone and everything. I've been reading all your articles that get linked-to from this thread, and here's my feedback. Bear in mind that I don't read a lot of other sites, mostly just rotoworld for snippets on players, so I don't have a good sense of what else is out there. I don't like the way your site is organized. I'll lay out a bunch of things that bug me: From the home page, I see six articles with uncertain posting order at the top, and then if I scroll down, I see other articles in no order I can discern. Why is the top article about cam newton from 6 days ago immediately followed by the jared goff article from 4 hours ago? The articles have category tags (comedy, fantasy, the browns) but if I click on a category (comedy, browns) the results include lots of articles that aren't carrying that tag (second and third articles in the comedy filter are tagged AFC). Are there invisible secondary tags? Basically if I was a regular visitor to your site, I'd just want to see articles in chronological order, or, filtered by type, or, with more valuable/longer/prominent articles up top and less important stuff down below, the way a newspaper does it. Something. Also the very first topmost article on the main page doesn't show the byline or time stamp thing. Oh, and you're doing the same thing tons of other sites do with team categorization, where you have to know what conference and division a team is in in order to find it. I hate that, not everyone has memorized that entire chart, so when I'm trying to click through to e.g. the kansas city chiefs and I'm like, wait, north, south, east, west? They're in the middle of the country, ugh. Just list all 32 teams in the dropdown, maybe? Or, I've seen pickers that just show an image map of the team logos, which is easier to fit in a smaller space. This is a fairly small gripe, though. Plus, search! If I click through to the Chiefs using the navigation bar, the top article is your week 4 AFC West review from five days ago. If I search for Kansas City Chiefs... it's a month-old article about the Chiefs. It always bugs me when search tools don't recognize tags and then list content with that tag at the top of the results. The only way to filter by writer is to click the writer's name in the byline. When I go to About Us, you list your contributors, but I can't filter by writer from there. Maybe have a dropdown of your writers in the top menu, so I can easily list all the articles by someone who doesn't happen to have one near the top of the page? Also, you have the thing where content just eternally loads the more you scroll down. I know that's the thing everyone does now but it's awful. It's OK to just have, say, the last 30 days of content on the page, and then have more pages to click through for older content. Your site is called "football absurdity" and you have a category for fantasy football and a different category for comedy, but actually it seems like 100% of the articles are comedy articles, and most of them are also about fantasy football. In other words, "comedy" isn't a category, it's the whole site. OK, as for feedback on the actual content: You need a copy editor. A lot of articles have grammatical errors that are probably just typos but could be cleaned up with a 5-minute copyedit pass. For example, your running back streamers article has an incomplete sentence as the second sentence. I like the generally humorous writing style, but it makes it hard to separate clearly-intended-as-parody content from intended-to-be-taken-seriously advice, sometimes. I actually think I'd prefer the comedy? Frankly, fantasy football is stupid and absurd, and if you just went ahead and made fun of it without reservation, I'd appreciate that more. I wanna be delicate here, but uh, your writers are... varied... in talent. Like... this is not comedy. Most of those facts are boring, a few are slightly interesting, and as an aside, constantly citing (the same) source for widely-available information is repetitive, jarring, and unnecessary. The only humor is in the image captions, and it's pretty lame. A quick survey of this probably very nice person who I would really like in real life is that all of his articles are unfunny and mostly also boring. I'm sorry evanhoovler if you're reading this but maybe you can be the guy who writes the serious articles for the site? Basically a site with ten contributors can carry one who is struggling for a while, but when it's a third of your content, you're in deep trouble. As for what I'd personally want... well, I am mostly focused on my dynasty league, and it's hard to write dynasty FF content because leagues seem to be more divergent in their rules, so it's tough to predict what any given dynasty player needs to know. But maybe that's a market opportunity. I'd also love to see more IDP content, since that's neglected, especially IDP that dives deeper than the leagues that just dabble with maybe one or two IDP guys per team. A bunch of people have to figure out what defensive end to pick up for rest-of-season with J.J. Watt out... so who is the best #13 DE on the waiver wire? What if your league has 6-point sacks, but only .75 point tackles? Etc. I'd also like to see analysis of contrarian advice. We all can see the consensus views from lots of fantasy sites, and we can also find contrarian opinions that exist in part just to not be the same poo poo as the main sites. Articles that take those contrarian opinions seriously, examine them carefully? Maybe follow up in a week or two, see how that worked out? Anyway like I said I'm probably not the typical reader. I think you've made a good start of things, and in particular I'm impressed by the sheer volume of content you're churning out on a weekly basis. Keep at it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
KissingSuzyKolber but with Fantasy Football pls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Actually if you guys need an IDP contributer, I'd like to take a crack at it. I loving love defense so much every league I play in uses IDP or D/ST with IDP style scoring. No promises that I'd be good at it but I'm willing to try! e: Have a super serious Calvinball article series but never explain Calvinball, ever 3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Agree with what some other posters say. An emphasis on ROS rankings is a niche that most sites don't do. I'd also like more content on guys who you think are droppable. As an example, I know every website is telling me Taylor Gabriel is a good play this week, but is it worth it to drop Tyrell Williams for him? All the waiver wire articles tell you who to add but not who to drop. Another thing I find myself wanting frequently is comparing last week or 2 weeks ago's waiver pickups to now. A lot of these guys get added then dropped, but even though Rashard Higgins was a "must add" no one ever mentions him again after he's the hot pickup. Like if someone drops the hot pickup from two weeks ago, is he worth it over this week's hot pickup? Obviously I can judge for myself and drop him, but having a bit of retrospective analysis on waiver guys, opinions on guys who are droppable, and ROS outlook vs immediate outlook is useful information to me that is not always easy to find.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:snip Holy moly I think you put more thought into this post than we did when we put the site together. Thank you. Thanks for the input on the organization. I've actually been playing around with the front page template to try to find one that sticks. This is absolutely a work in progress (we aren't even really advertising/promoting it yet outside this thread, a twitter handle and a facebok page). The front page is organized chronologically in order of posting, with certain articles pinned. You're right, it doesn't make sense from a flow standpoint and I am happy that is something I'm not crazy for already wanting to fix. We aren't really HTML or CSS guys so we are stuck with the vagaries of wordpress templates. One day I'm hoping to have multiple different areas and have the content filtered into those areas on the front page. The menus are confusing for the 32 teams, you're right. I'm going to clean that up tonight. I will look into search this weekend as well. We hoped the categories would be sufficient, but it seems that isn't the case. I know... I think rotoviz(?) has that same problem. You search a player and get an article from 4 seasons ago at the top. The copy editor thing... yeah. We're doing our best and I'm going to own that. I was wranging with SEO to get it to pass before work this morning and I didn't do a once-over once I was done getting the light green. Usually I do three passes to make sure, but that slipped through the cracks. lol there are three writers and Evan is the only real writer among us. The funnier stuff is all him. Dynasty content and IDP unfortunately are not areas we can fully explore right now, but we do have plans to reflect after this season . We can see about expanding content but we don't want to bring more writers on without being able to pay, so we're churning with what we have. Quick question about the contrarian thing... any examples? To pull back the curtain, the start or sits are usually pulled from players outside of where fantasypros expert consensus ranking is telling you to start them. Also, this conflicts directly with the umbrage you took with Sataere telling us to not use FAAB or waiver priority on TEs. You said that wasn't helpful. Thank you for your input, Leperflesh. It's appreciated and I hope you don't think I was getting defensive at any point in the response. Edit: Butter Hole posted:Agree with what some other posters say. An emphasis on ROS rankings is a niche that most sites don't do. I'd also like more content on guys who you think are droppable. As an example, I know every website is telling me Taylor Gabriel is a good play this week, but is it worth it to drop Tyrell Williams for him? All the waiver wire articles tell you who to add but not who to drop. I'm thinking of paring back the "start or sit player x" for something like the reviewing hot pickups or players to drop this week. The start or sit ones are the only ones really generating organic traffic right now through twitter searches though. Thank you! Double Edit: I don't know if we can pull off ROS ranks given we all have full time jobs and families, but maybe ranking the players with the best matchups over the next four weeks might be helpful? Spoeank fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
How bad is Det's run defense going to be with Ngata?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Missed these3 DONG HORSE posted:Actually if you guys need an IDP contributer, I'd like to take a crack at it. I loving love defense so much every league I play in uses IDP or D/ST with IDP style scoring. No promises that I'd be good at it but I'm willing to try! hey now. When we are ready to bring people on, we'll have our people call your people Matt Zerella posted:KissingSuzyKolber but with Fantasy Football pls. trying but being painfully unfunny is a hinderance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Holy moly I think you put more thought into this post than we did when we put the site together. Thank you. Hey, you're welcome. For background, I'm a technical writer. I'm accustomed to writing for enterprise software developers and administrators, so I feel a bit out of my depth talking about a humorous fantasy football blog. quote:The copy editor thing... yeah. We're doing our best and I'm going to own that. I was wranging with SEO to get it to pass before work this morning and I didn't do a once-over once I was done getting the light green. Usually I do three passes to make sure, but that slipped through the cracks. I've seen similar errors in a lot of articles. Peer review passes might help, if you can pass off your articles to one another for quick copyedits - it's always way more effective to get a second pair of eyes on things, since some types of errors are stylistic habits, and others (like a missing word) are near-impossible to see once you already know what the sentence was supposed to say. quote:lol there are three writers and Evan is the only real writer among us. The funnier stuff is all him. Well, I was 0 for 4 on his articles being funny to me, but that's a very small sample size, so fair enough! quote:Quick question about the contrarian thing... any examples? To pull back the curtain, the start or sits are usually pulled from players outside of where fantasypros expert consensus ranking is telling you to start them. Also, this conflicts directly with the umbrage you took with Sataere telling us to not use FAAB or waiver priority on TEs. You said that wasn't helpful. Ah. Yeah, in my case, I needed a tight end, and I play in a dynasty league where there is no free agency, only FAAB. I suppose most people have free agency periods weekly, but it'd still be useful to tell folks "don't spend FAAB or a waiver priority on a TE, but here's who to grab in your free agency period" rather than just "don't get a TE, nevermind if you have injuries or whatever." But for "contrarian" advice, I guess I'm thinking of stuff like Doltos' post up above about Ty Montgomery. Even if I disagree with him, it's useful to hear someone say "actually no Ty isn't good even when he's healthy" and then say why. But, there are sites that do that, I guess, so what I was thinking was like the way the thread responded to Doltos - OK, is Ty good, or not? Let's look at his points (size, running style, inability to break tackles, quality of GB's o-line for run blocking, etc.) and figure it out. I like articles like that, even if they don't come to a really satisfactory conclusion like "definitely stick with Ty all season if he's healthy" or "definitely trade Ty away while he's still got some value" (my conclusion right now is to keep Ty, but watch him closely as he comes back into the mix and see how he's running as well as his usage). quote:I'm thinking of paring back the "start or sit player x" for something like the reviewing hot pickups or players to drop this week. The start or sit ones are the only ones really generating organic traffic right now through twitter searches though. Thank you! Yeah people have to make immediate decisions about sit/start. The traffic in the sit/start thread bears that out... a lot of owners have to pick two guys out of four on their roster, so I imagine searches on stuff like "sit/start Isaiah Crowell" is gonna get you eyeballs. I would not dump articles like that entirely if they're generating traffic. quote:Double Edit: I don't know if we can pull off ROS ranks given we all have full time jobs and families, but maybe ranking the players with the best matchups over the next four weeks might be helpful? Yeah I wouldn't try to do data-driven stuff yourselves until you can afford to actually do it - it has to be time consuming - but you could maybe reference other sites' rankings and do critique where you find them to be absurdly dumb or something? I'll reiterate that the world doesn't need just another fantasy football site, so I really like that you're coming at it from a humor angle, but still taking the analysis seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Spoeank posted:I'm thinking of paring back the "start or sit player x" for something like the reviewing hot pickups or players to drop this week. The start or sit ones are the only ones really generating organic traffic right now through twitter searches though. Thank you! From my perspective, it's less ROS (or even next 4 weeks); while those are helpful, to me it's more about the logic. 'Start this player if... playing against a run defense that gives up lots of rushing TDs; a game plan that is likely to lead to lots of passing; whatever. For the next 4 weeks, they play A B C and D. Using this logic, we would start him at A and D, but not B or C. If that makes sense. Some other comments -- Current nav structure actually forces me to scroll left/right if I'm looking for teams. The category tags are distinctly unhelpful -- when I went into 'draft prep' only one of the articles was listed as draft prep. Edit some of your older articles, holy poo poo. https://footballabsurdity.com/2017/08/26/fantasy-football-is-jordan-howard-underrated-in-2017/. quote:Everyone knows Ezekiel Elliott led the NFL is rushing last, but What are absurdity checks as compared to start or sits? Is it literally just that one writer does start or sits and the other does absurdity checks? Is there a purpose to the naming convention? Is it that absurdity checks respond to general start or sits with 'except in this one specific case you should not hold to this advice'? Why are there a bunch of quarter season reviews (by division -- which is not a very helpful organizing tool) in the 'team preview' section? I'd assume that a review is not a preview, and a division is not a team. Why is the AFC West one tagged AFC, but the NFC West tagged Arizona Cardinals? Why do some of the absurdity checks have 'pingback links' from the start or sits, but not vice versa? Why don't all of them have pingback links in the comments? I assume these are just little attention to detail things that could be improved. quote:Yeah people have to make immediate decisions about sit/start. The traffic in the sit/start thread bears that out... a lot of owners have to pick two guys out of four on their roster, so I imagine searches on stuff like "sit/start Isaiah Crowell" is gonna get you eyeballs. I would not dump articles like that entirely if they're generating traffic. Zauper fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:59
|
|