Fantasy Football Magazines Reviewed...

I know folks who have wanted to review the reviewers so to speak, well I came across a website, FFMagazineReview.com which did that very thing.  They read thru the top 13 fantasy magazines and rated them across several criteria - such as Content, Analysis, Aesthetics, Density and an overall grade.  The results are listed below. 

Rankings - for complete criteria by criteria review & summaries, go to the review

• FootballGuys Strategy Guide - A  I really like their stances, the depth & analysis
• Athlon Sports  Grade: A this one surprises me, maybe I need to take another look at this pub
• ESPN Grade: A-  This was is deep and unique but it doesn't always hit the right points (IMO)
• CBS Sportsline  Grade: B+
• SportingNews  Grade: B+
• Fantasy Sports  Grade: B+
• Beckett/Rototworld  Grade B+
• FantasyGuru  Grade: B
• Fanball.com  Grade: B
• Fantasy Index  Grade: B- This one doesn't surprise me...they were great, one of the originals but ever since they annointed Tatum Bell the second coming of Walter Payton I've lost respect for their ideas, and its simply too light (they go 40 RB's deep, 25 QB's...I need more feedback on who's NEXT).
• FantasyFootball.com Grade C+
• NFL.com Grade D

Summary: Generally I agree with all these rankings.  The NFL.com guide is terrible, and as I mention above Fantasy Index isn't up to snuff anymore.  I really like FootballGuys and the traditional media companies devote plenty of resources to make their publications thorough and worthwhile. 

Comments

[todd2006]

Good find. I'm going to check out the ESPN magazine this week, maybe today.

[Beavercat]

I like the ESPN magazine but its not in the same class as FootballGuys.

What's sad is how far Fantasy Index fell, they use to be the bible and now they're just weak.

[todd2006]

I purchased the ESPN and FBG magazines last night. I enjoy the ESPN magazine because it's very well written. There aren't any mistakes and the flow of the articles and recaps seems to be skewed toward our demographic.

I've looked through FBGs and need to give it a more devoted viewing. I've already found a few errors that simple proofreading would have taken care of. Some of their predictions / reviews of players are in conflict; for instance, they may predict Gore to have a huge season in one part of the magazine while another part of the magazine may warn you to stay away from Gore. This is a common concern when magazines have many authors. ESPN, in their intro, discussed this problem and said they all sat together and came to a common understanding. FBG obviously didn't. It's not a deal breaker, but it is a bit frustrating.

FBGs just has tons of info. I'm excited to look through it. Really poor choice for a cover athlete too... :)

[Kris]

I wanted to thank you for the mention of the site. I agree that some of my grades on summaries on the first page were somewhat inflated. The magazines come in waves and the best in the first wave weren't as good as the best in the second wave. Thus my baselines was a little off. Thanks so much.

- Kris

[Beavercat]

My pleasure...I appreciate your opinion.