DRAFTAGEDDON discussion

Submitted by A2toGVSU on July 10th, 2017 at 2:08 PM
Since no one appreciates a blue screen of death, I'd like to discuss Draftageddon here. I don't understand people complaining about original, thoughtful football content in the middle of July.
A few thoughts:
-I was surprised to see the early run on QBs, since I believe a fourth QB (Thorsen) is going to have an excellent year.
-Barkley makes sense at number one, but I thought for sure we'd see Akrum Wadley in the top 10 as well.
-No Spartans? DISRESPEKT! I bet their first player gets drafted between rounds 3 and 9.

Comments

mGrowOld

July 10th, 2017 at 2:12 PM ^

Sure let's talk about it.

It's been my observation that folks around here generally dont like the feature very much and by the later rounds wish it would go away.

Do we have more to discuss?

A2toGVSU

July 10th, 2017 at 2:32 PM ^

Its four football nerds getting nerdy about football. Look, I understand it can get tedious, but I genuinely enjoy learning about these players, especially the guys I havn't heard of. It makes me feel like a more informed fan. I created this thread to discuss the article and provided three distinct thoughts to start discussion. If you don't wish to participate in this discussion, kindly GTFO. If you feel the need to bitch about draftageddon, go start an "I hate draftageddon" thread.

bronxblue

July 10th, 2017 at 2:38 PM ^

You do realize this whole site basically exists to analyze teams that virtually nobody on this site have ever played on/against and whose main connection is one-sided fandom? 

To me, it's guys who know a lot about this conference's best players sort of previewing those players and teams for the rest of the fanbase, in a unique way that inevitably gets people angry because it's hot and July and people want to bitch about something.

As always, you don't need to read it.  It's free content you can skip over if you want.  But then again, the fact someone dove deep into a board thread about a front-page topic they don't seem to enjoy probably says something. 

DCmissingAnnArbor

July 10th, 2017 at 2:28 PM ^

it's definitely better than the soccer coverage!

Being totally serious, I actually have come to really enjoy the Draftaggedeon features. They lead to interesting discussions between the drafters, and help make me aware of players to watch on other teams I may not have been very familiar with. Also, almost any content is welcome in the offseason.

kevin holt

July 10th, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^

to all who may read these letters, Greetings:
 
I am a Draftageddon Convert and so can you be. Keep in mind when you read the Preview (and then UFRs) of the Purdue game---and you wonder how on earth Ace/Brian can possibly prepare and research that much in the short span between games---that they gained much of their knowledge while researching for Draftageddon. Then realize that it'd be way more difficult to force themselves to research Purdue in the offseason if they didn't have something to make it fun, competitive, and not-fucking-boring-as-hell.
 
This is primarily not a fantasy draft, so no, they can't just draft then have one or two posts about it. They need to actually write paragraphs about each player in order to gain the above-mentioned knowledge about the players; if you had to write a paragraph or more about all your fantasy picks, it would take a lot longer too. If they were just drafting players, there would be no point. This is a fundamental misunderstanding: Draftageddon isn't for your entertainment NOW; it's for the content during the season when things actually matter.
 
Given all that, if anyone still doesn't understand Draftageddon enough to at least withhold the complaints, I'm not sure what I can do to help you other than the timeless retort: "don't click on it if you don't like it." It's either this or nothing during the offseason, and nobody's forcing you to read it. But Draftageddon is a win-win because it enriches the content during the season while providing you thirsty bastards with actual words in the off-season.
 
P.S. I feel like I somehow made the site glitch when I posted this in the comments on Draftageddon but I have no idea why; my bad if so.

Michael

July 10th, 2017 at 2:25 PM ^

Every year, the same group of people lodge the same complaints, so thank you for pre-empting them in a well-reasoned defense of Draftageddon.

I personally love Draftageddon and appreciate that the mgostaff sees its continued utility regardless of the silly complaints it generates.

wile_e8

July 10th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^

I posted something like this on the Draftageddon comment section, but since that got nuked: 

There are ways to accomplish everything you say Draftageddon accomplishes that are still readable for readers. It would be better if they switched the preview format to something that was interesting to readers instead of reading about someone else's fantasy draft. Since there's a limited amount of content the writers can produce, I think some constructive criticism to improve the content for us thirsty bastards would be useful for the site. 

blue in dc

July 10th, 2017 at 7:38 PM ^

It is the most interesting way to write about who the best olayers are. What I think you (and others) are saying is that it's farf from the most interesting way to read about them.

I'd agree. The mgoblog staff could even still do the draft and have the discussion themselves. Just right it up in a more reader friendly format. Sure, its free content and I don;t have to read it, but if the idea of the site is to get hits, why not listen to the readership and do something more readable?

blue in dc

July 10th, 2017 at 8:13 PM ^

Did I say it drove readership away? I think (and clearly I'm mot the only one) that you could provide the same information in a more readable/enjoyable format. That might actually increase readership. But maybe between the people who like the feature and all the posting that gets done about disliking it, they get more hits.

redwhiteandMGOBLUE

July 10th, 2017 at 5:45 PM ^

 

This is primarily not a fantasy draft, so no, they can't just draft then have one or two posts about it. They need to actually write paragraphs about each player in order to gain the above-mentioned knowledge about the players; if you had to write a paragraph or more about all your fantasy picks, it would take a lot longer too.

Yes they can. Put ALL OF THE GATHERED INFO that you're speaking of into a couple of posts and be done with it. Write the paragraphs, list the stats, rip on each other, hell write chapters for all I care, just keep it to a couple of posts and call it a day.

There is no need to have 10 front page posts to disseminate the information.

bronxblue

July 10th, 2017 at 2:24 PM ^

It is free content.  I don't quite get the anger toward it, but then again I don't get half of the stuff that is a big/small deal around these parts.  

That said, I don't like the overlords trying to silence the dissent with this "BSOD" malarky.  

M-Dog

July 10th, 2017 at 2:28 PM ^

Draftageddon is the Nickleback of MGoBlog features.

It gets way more hate than it really deserves.  It's meh at worst.

Not really worth all the fuss one way or the other.

 

Stringer Bell

July 10th, 2017 at 2:39 PM ^

As you mentioned, its football content in a vast desert of OT posts. I'm perfectly fine with it, especially since most football content in the offseason generally consists of Jim Harbaugh's wacky antics (which I love) and whether or not we made a high schooler's top 20.

MGoNukeE

July 10th, 2017 at 2:39 PM ^

Draftageddon isn't the same when no one drafts 6 quarterbacks to play wide receiver, running back, tight end, center, and linebacker before Brian takes his starter.