If you don't...

[keggerz]

subscribe to The Huddle's paid content would you be willing to explain why?

 

Would you be willing to say what is needed to get you to subscribe (IDP wise)?

 

If you don't subscribe would you pay for an IDP only membership? (Where you of course only have access to IDP articles etc)

 

Just curious is all and no one will be judged unfairly for saying they don't subscribe...please feel free to speak your mind and don't pull any

punches.

[bleacher]

I subscribed this year ( first year with Huddle) because I'm hoping for worthwhile IDP information here. I don't have any history with content yet but I am crossing my fingers as good IDP info. is hard to find. This is pretty much the only reason for my subscription.(no offense to the hard work put in by the guys on the other side of the ball)

[Zooty]

I do subscribe but it may help if pre-season (and in-season dynasty) rankings went deeper and had more opinons (I think Darin is the only one that does rankings)

 

For example- in a 16 team league that starts 3 LBs, going 50 deep just covers starter for all the teams

[tazinib1]

There are a few 32 team leaGues as well thAt could benefit from some very deep idp content as well.

[Savage Beatings]

I have always subscribed to the Huddle, that is up until last year. Last year I decided to pay for a Footballguys subscription instead, and it was almost solely based upon the incredible depth of IDP informaiton that they have there. I won't pay for more than one subscription for FF, so until the Huddle comes close to matching their content, I will probably continue to subscribe there. I would RATHER give my money to the Huddle. But right now, they've got the edge. I have not paid for any subscription yet this year, but am anticipating going with the other guys again when the time comes.

[MonkeyOne]

I pay, but I've had to go elsewhere for deep enough IDP coverage. The Huddle's offensive ranking and breakdowns with little bits for each are good, IDP less so.

[T_bone65]

I have always subscribed to the Huddle, that is up until last year. Last year I decided to pay for a Footballguys subscription instead, and it was almost solely based upon the incredible depth of IDP informaiton that they have there. I won't pay for more than one subscription for FF, so until the Huddle comes close to matching their content, I will probably continue to subscribe there. I would RATHER give my money to the Huddle. But right now, they've got the edge. I have not paid for any subscription yet this year, but am anticipating going with the other guys again when the time comes.

 

 

I actually pay for both the huddle and FBG. My choice was made because I can't access the huddle from work and I can get to FBG. I will say that FBG does have some great IDP info with deeper rankings for larger leagues. They also have deeper rookie rankings for drafts as well, with varying opinions on their rankings.

 

that said, I will always still pay for The Huddle and just use what I can from home, which is limited time.

 

None of this is against Darin, Keg or the huddle in general.

[Stingers]

I pay for both FBG and The Huddle. I think that FBG has pretty darn good IDP coverage that the Huddle just can't match. But I do like to read at several different sites to glean what I can. The Huddle is great and has its good points and FBG and others also have their good points too. There are lots of free sites out there as well that I go to regularly.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Scooby and I split the fee and love the content...

 

The only IDP help I would like to see would be an on-going injury report. I drafted Stewart Bradley last year right after his injury and had to waste another pick on a LB.

[Chief Dick]

Separating D-Tackle and D-end would be nice also. Separating safeties and corners would be nice.

 

And agree on the depth. Not good.

 

Edit to add: I pay for the huddle.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Chief Dick

[keggerz]

Scooby and I split the fee and love the content...

 

The only IDP help I would like to see would be an on-going injury report. I drafted Stewart Bradley last year right after his injury and had to waste another pick on a LB.

Are you referring to the pre-season or in-season? If in-season I did a weekly update on the IDP Game Breakdowns with regards to the injury report.

 

With regards to Bradley he tore his ACL on 8/2 and it was widely reported on 8/3...on 8/4 I updated the Huddle Blog with IDP HITS: PHILLY MLB where I not only addressed that Bradley was out for the season but also took the stance that Omar Gaither would end up winning the starting job, which he did...and in case you don't remember many didn't count Gaither as the favorite...sure the Eagles did then acquire 'Spoon mid-season to take over but that had little to do with the August updates and start of the season.

[Gopher]

You said not to pull punches, so I'll give you my honest opinion...

 

I subscribe, and while I do feel that the IDP content has improved over the past 2-3 years, it's obviously still not at the same level as the information that we get on the offensive side of the ball, overall. I know it's not yours (I think it's Darin's, but could be wrong), but I find the IDP rankings (1-50) to be a decent starting point (drafting in an IDP redraft league, for example), but not all that accurate/helpful on a week-to-week basis. No offense to anyone (I realize that the time involved in doing thorough analysis is pretty significant, and figuring out which DB is going to score more points is usually somewhat of a crap-shoot), but the weekly rankings seem like a shot in the dark... almost as if the pre-season rankings are just "shuffled" a bit every week, with certain obvious adjustments due to injuries.

 

The one thing I would like to see, in terms of IDP rankings, is a more extensive list (maybe top 100-150, instead of just 50), and possibly tiered rankings as well (like we see for offense). Maybe even a way for us to do customized IDP rankings, based on scoring, like we have for regular (offensive) cheatsheets now. The second thing would be this... rather than just shuffling the list of 50 DL/LB/DB's ever so slightly on a weekly basis, how about a brief explanation for anybody in the top 50 (or better yet, 100) who is moving significantly (this could be defined as three or more spots, or whatever) up or down? Similar to what we've seen for offensive content... when a player drops or rises in the positional rankings, they get coded in red/green with a brief explanation as to why. I'm not asking for anyone to state the obvious (when a guy goes down for the year, for example), but rather a justification as to why players are moving in the rankings, in what otherwise appears to be nothing more than a random "weekly shuffle."

 

In terms of weekly information, the weekly game breakdowns that you did last year were a significant improvement, in terms of substantial information that is actually backed up with a certain amount of reasoning/statistics, compared to what we had before (which didn't go into nearly as much depth, in my opinion). In fact, I would liken it to the weekly offensive "Start/Bench" list, but I actually think the IDP version was much more well done (again, I'm not trying to hurt feelings... just calling them like I see 'em).

[keggerz]

You said not to pull punches, so I'll give you my honest opinion...

 

I subscribe, and while I do feel that the IDP content has improved over the past 2-3 years, it's obviously still not at the same level as the information that we get on the offensive side of the ball, overall.

Glad that you feel the content is improving and we too hope to get it to the same level as info for the offensive side of the ball....keep the feedback coming because that will help us to continue to improve.

 

 

 

You said not to pull punches, so I'll give you my honest opinion...

 

I subscribe, and while I do feel that the IDP content has improved over the past 2-3 years, it's obviously still not at the same level as the information that we get on the offensive side of the ball, overall. I know it's not yours (I think it's Darin's, but could be wrong), but I find the IDP rankings (1-50) to be a decent starting point (drafting in an IDP redraft league, for example), but not all that accurate/helpful on a week-to-week basis. No offense to anyone (I realize that the time involved in doing thorough analysis is pretty significant, and figuring out which DB is going to score more points is usually somewhat of a crap-shoot), but the weekly rankings seem like a shot in the dark... almost as if the pre-season rankings are just "shuffled" a bit every week, with certain obvious adjustments due to injuries.

You are correct that Darin does the weekly rankings and you are also correct in that predicting what a DB is going to do on a weekly basis is a crap-shoot, much more so than other positions...it seems like I have been saying this forever but I am pretty close to being able to unveil an IDP tool that will hopefully be able to make predictions much, MUCH more accurate...now I just have to hope we (i enlisted the help of a huddler with data base/programming background to help)can get it completed in time for the season.

 

 

In terms of weekly information, the weekly game breakdowns that you did last year were a significant improvement, in terms of substantial information that is actually backed up with a certain amount of reasoning/statistics, compared to what we had before (which didn't go into nearly as much depth, in my opinion). In fact, I would liken it to the weekly offensive "Start/Bench" list, but I actually think the IDP version was much more well done (again, I'm not trying to hurt feelings... just calling them like I see 'em).

I am glad that you noticed a "significant improvement" as you put it in the weekly IDP Game Breakdowns...I really poured myself into that weekly piece to try and put out one of the best IDP weekly articles on the net and in doing so it would take me between 8-12 hours to write each week (if someone looks back at just the first few weeks of the season they will think you are crazy but I think it was week 2 that the format started to change and I think took its final form in week 6)....As far as it being likened to the weekly "Start/Bench" I actually thought it was more like DMDs Predictions & Projections with regards to format...but I do appreciate that you thought it was well done.

 

Thanks for the feedback as it is really appreciated.

Edited July 15, 2010 by keggerz

[keggerz]

Separating D-Tackle and D-end would be nice also. Separating safeties and corners would be nice.

 

And agree on the depth. Not good.

 

Edit to add: I pay for the huddle.

http://www.thehuddle.com/x9/season/w17/idp-rank.php

 

Darin does have it notated next to the players name when they are a DT or a CB....the ones not notated would be DEs or Safeties.

 

Is there another way you are referring to having them separated out?

Edited July 15, 2010 by keggerz

[Gopher]

I am glad that you noticed a "significant improvement" as you put it in the weekly IDP Game Breakdowns...I really poured myself into that weekly piece to try and put out one of the best IDP weekly articles on the net and in doing so it would take me between 8-12 hours to write each week (if someone looks back at just the first few weeks of the season they will think you are crazy but I think it was week 2 that the format started to change and I think took its final form in week 6)....As far as it being likened to the weekly "Start/Bench" I actually thought it was more like DMDs Predictions & Projections with regards to format...but I do appreciate that you thought it was well done.

 

Thanks for the feedback as it is really appreciated.

You might be right. Either way, it was well done... and I think you are correct in saying that it was one of the best (maybe THE best) weekly IDP articles on the net.

[Gopher]

Something else I wouldn't mind reading would be an "update" to the Scheme Matters article... in other words, how it pertains to the 32 defenses in this year's NFL.

[keggerz]

and I think you are correct in saying that it was one of the best (maybe THE best) weekly IDP articles on the net.

fwiw, I didn't say it was...but that is what I aspire for it to be ...and thanks for the kind words with regards to the article as I very much appreciate them.

[Ziachild007]

Like Gopher, I am going to give you what you asked for and hope it comes across as constructive criticism and doesn't hurt any feelings.

 

You know you and Darin are two of my closest "huddle friends" and I think I do a great job with what you guys do. But with that being said the biggest advantage that FBGs has over the huddle IDP area is just the amount of content. I think there are two things that limit the huddle from being able to compete on that level and they actually tie together. The powers that be at FBG realize that a big market of the "serious, diehard" fantasy football folks play 16 to 32 team, IDP and dynasty leagues, because they are so mouch more in depth. I honestly think there is a resistance on the part of the higher ups at the huddle to seriously jump in and make an impact in these areas of the hobby. They see fantasy football for the most part what it was 15 years ago and that is primarily a 10-12 team redraft league, with standard scoring, 7-9 offensive players a, kicker and a defense. They might get a little "wild" with some ppr scoring and flex players. But for the most part it is what I would call "vanilla" fantasy football. The same stuff that can be played by the 20 year vet or the receptionist at work who decided to join her first office league this year. And I am not saying there is not a place for that, because that is what your average fan still plays. But for a lot of the more serious people (like the ones who frequent the boards) they want more. If the site owners do not want to expand and give them that then there is not much else you can do.

 

The second thing ties directly into the first. That is the fact that since there is not much desire to devote significant attention to IDP, you are going to be limited by your numbers. Again using FBGas an example (because that's the one most of us are familiar with) they devote at least 6-8 writers to the IDP content alone. So while you and Darin do great with what you do, they are going to be able to put out more and get a little more in depth, just because they have the staff to do it. Same can be said for Sarge when he was doing it. At the time he was doing a lot by himself, while even then they had 4-5 guys at least doing the same thing. So even if you guys are giving 100%, you will not be able to compare to what they do unless add staff to put out more.

 

So in a nutshell the IDP content here will never be as expanded and in depth as some of the other sites until the commitment to do so is made by the folks that own the site.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Are you referring to the pre-season or in-season? If in-season I did a weekly update on the IDP Game Breakdowns with regards to the injury report.

 

With regards to Bradley he tore his ACL on 8/2 and it was widely reported on 8/3...on 8/4 I updated the Huddle Blog with IDP HITS: PHILLY MLB where I not only addressed that Bradley was out for the season but also took the stance that Omar Gaither would end up winning the starting job, which he did...and in case you don't remember many didn't count Gaither as the favorite...sure the Eagles did then acquire 'Spoon mid-season to take over but that had little to do with the August updates and start of the season.

it was pre-season ... but I wasn't checking much either. I was in the middle of the draft (draft took weeks) when he was injured and was not keeping up with the news on defense. I am not blaming thehuddle for my mistake. But I would like to see a list of defensive starters who are injured and missing time. A list that is maybe in the pinned section and updated throoughout the preseason.

[Chief Dick]

http://www.thehuddle.com/x9/season/w17/idp-rank.php

 

Darin does have it notated next to the players name when they are a DT or a CB....the ones not notated would be DEs or Safeties.

 

Is there another way you are referring to having them separated out?

 

I was thinking separate columns for DT, DL, S, and CB. And I'm referring mainly to the preseason cheatsheets.

[Rovers]

DMD has stated before that IDP is not a significant part of the FF market on the whole. FBG has made a big commitment to IDP, while the Huddle seems to drag it's feet. Sometimes, I think some of the IDP content is occassionally inaccurate. Mistakes are bound to happen, but frankly, are the Huddle IDP staff anymore qualified than I am to rank players? Not really knocking anyone, but you guys do this part time. Yes, last year I did get info that was indeed very helpful, so I'm not saying the content doesn't offer some insights I might have missed either. I have to say that sometimes the various rankings have left me scratching my head at times, but that happens at FBG too.

 

I subscribe to FBG for the IDP content. The Huddle has two IDP writers, FBG has what, 4 or 5? They simply have more content, and the content goes deeper.

 

I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I will subscribe to the Huddle again, and really, primarilly for one reason. It is because the site hosts my league forums. For that I feel I need to support the site.

 

I'm not saying a Huddle subscription isn't worth it, some of the content on both sides of the ball is very good, and it's nice to have a "second opinion", and I like to compare rankings, etc. I particularly like the DMD/j2v weekly installments. That one feature is worth a script. Maybe you guys could do something like it for IDP?

[Gonkis]

I am quite pleased with the IDP content here at the Huddle, appreciate the improvements, and value the opinions. For background, I stumbled across the Huddle 7 years ago when I joined a local. I am not in any locals now, only BOTH leagues, and never even look at other FF sites. I guess I get some info from ESPN as it is my main source of sports "news" in general, but I don't subscribe to or look at other sites. This is merely a reflection of the fact I can only dedicate a certain amount of time to FF over the course of a season. I know there are guys that put a lot of time in each and every week setting lineups and working the waiver wire. I have never been able to do so... life with 4 kids and a career, I guess.

 

So, while I would undoubtedly take advantage of significant changes in content, format or amount of data, I may represent a larger portion of the IDP playing public.

 

The funny thing with the huddle is that because of the forums and BOTH leagues, I actually feel like I know a bunch of the guys active on the site and contributing to the content. Other sites may "feel" the same way, but DMD would have to call me an idiot personally for me to even look elsewhere.

[kpholmes]

Like Gopher, I am going to give you what you asked for and hope it comes across as constructive criticism and doesn't hurt any feelings.

 

You know you and Darin are two of my closest "huddle friends" and I think I do a great job with what you guys do. But with that being said the biggest advantage that FBGs has over the huddle IDP area is just the amount of content. I think there are two things that limit the huddle from being able to compete on that level and they actually tie together. The powers that be at FBG realize that a big market of the "serious, diehard" fantasy football folks play 16 to 32 team, IDP and dynasty leagues, because they are so mouch more in depth. I honestly think there is a resistance on the part of the higher ups at the huddle to seriously jump in and make an impact in these areas of the hobby. They see fantasy football for the most part what it was 15 years ago and that is primarily a 10-12 team redraft league, with standard scoring, 7-9 offensive players a, kicker and a defense. They might get a little "wild" with some ppr scoring and flex players. But for the most part it is what I would call "vanilla" fantasy football. The same stuff that can be played by the 20 year vet or the receptionist at work who decided to join her first office league this year. And I am not saying there is not a place for that, because that is what your average fan still plays. But for a lot of the more serious people (like the ones who frequent the boards) they want more. If the site owners do not want to expand and give them that then there is not much else you can do.

 

The second thing ties directly into the first. That is the fact that since there is not much desire to devote significant attention to IDP, you are going to be limited by your numbers. Again using FBGas an example (because that's the one most of us are familiar with) they devote at least 6-8 writers to the IDP content alone. So while you and Darin do great with what you do, they are going to be able to put out more and get a little more in depth, just because they have the staff to do it. Same can be said for Sarge when he was doing it. At the time he was doing a lot by himself, while even then they had 4-5 guys at least doing the same thing. So even if you guys are giving 100%, you will not be able to compare to what they do unless add staff to put out more.

 

So in a nutshell the IDP content here will never be as expanded and in depth as some of the other sites until the commitment to do so is made by the folks that own the site.

 

Agree with this in it's entirety. I've had conversations with both Keg and Darin about this over the years, but the fact of the matter is this:

When I started playing in strictly dynasty+IDP leagues, ranging in sizes from 12, 16 and 32 teams, the Huddle was no longer able to give me the content depth I felt I needed to stay knowledgeable and competitive before and during the season.

 

Keg and Darin do a great job with what they are asked to do, but the fact of the matter is that IDP is publicly not a priority for the Huddle. 10-12 team re-draft, team-D leagues are their audience - and when I stopped playing in those leagues two to three years ago, I also stopped paying for The Huddle.