|
It's completely academic to me, everyone you guys ever mention in your articles is already owned in my dynasty league, and generally also in the fish bowl league, due to very deep benches. I'm just joining in on the argument for the sake of it.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's completely academic to me, everyone you guys ever mention in your articles is already owned in my dynasty league, and generally also in the fish bowl league, due to very deep benches. I'm just joining in on the argument for the sake of it. I think this might be due to the philosophical standpoint on the website, which is easily digestible fantasy advice for the general populace. It's why we pared the content down to a handful of guys at each position, and why we need to make firm takes on guys like Mike Davis because he was close to the top, but not all the way there. It stems from my disdain of fantasy analysis on twitter going towards 16-team 25-man roster dyno leagues and trying to nail one-of-500 DFS lineups that week that leave Sandra in Accounting out in the cold. Out of curiosity and knowing what level of player I'm working with in that type of environment, could you post the best 5-10 players on the wire at QB/WR/RB/TE? I have only one Dyno league with the fantasypros guys and it's only twelve teams and the benches aren't huge. Also it me the fantasy guy who hates dyno leagues, AMA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
I did mention him in my FAAB writeup. For $1. So I think it is totally fair to state that I am the only one on either side of the argument who was right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:The Seahawks have the lowest-scoring aggregate RB score on the year, he's their fifth-best RB and they were going up against a top-ten fantasy rush defense. If you want us to repeat the same recommendations as everywhere else when they're lovely recommendations, then I don't know what to tell you. To be constructive, and maybe this was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's just always weird to me when I see waiver or sleeper lists and see guys conspicuously missing. I don't know if there's an industry standard waiver wire list each week that you could sort of play off, and have a short couple sentences before your recommendations with like, "Despite appearing as a popular sleeper, Mike Davis is not great, the offensive line is a joke, the offense is all passing and they are in a terrible matchup. Avoid!" Maybe even a separate "avoid" article each week if there are enough common recommendations that you disagree with, maybe one for all positions rather than split into 4 articles? Maybe that's too much work or too derivative or something, I'm not sure. But it's more useful than just not seeing a guy mentioned that half the other lists have; did you just forget about him or do you actually not like him for some credible reason?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Eh, he beat Barber marginally, and all your other waiver targets last week were ~70% owned, which probably meant a good chance of not being available in competitive leagues. There's no love for Mike Davis, there's just people who need a JAG that is a safe bet for volume and no other healthy RBs to I tend to look at my bench as people who have the potential to get me double digit points. Regardless of volume, I have no faith in his ability to do so. There are some situations I find so terrible, I just ignore them. The Seahawks running game is one of them. I genuinely believe worrying about it creates more problems than it solves. Once Carson went down, that entire situation became a dumpster fire. I've never found volume plays to be particularly valuable when bad players are involved, but I will admit my belief is purely anecdotal. Tiptoes posted:It's week 15 and Mike Davis is averaging 18 touches the last two games. You shouldn't just ignore a player like that, even if he should not have been started against the Jaguars D. What I shouldn't do is pretend to have belief in a player that I don't. To me, all those extra carries mean is that he has extra opportunities to show us all how bad he is.  I can only offer my opinions. I'm not going to just blow smoke up everyone's rear end because other articles are talking about him. So far, the evidence is that he's not noteworthy. Just like the entire Seattle running game. If something changes, I'll address it. FAKE EDIT: Leperflesh posted:Yeah exactly. FAKE EDIT: I don't have to remember him being bad on the 49ers. I have him being bad on the Seahawks now. In what world is being the 38th best good? If someone can show me how Mike Davis saved their fantasy season, I might consider changing my stance. More than likely, there was still a better option than Mine loving Davis. And to be clear, I don't have any emotional investment in this argument. I literally have no idea what you are seeing. I get the volume play argument, but nobody on the Seahawks has proven able to take advantage of volume all year. Why in God's name do you think it'll start happening now? Their amazing offensive line?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Made the playoffs. Dude I could potentially face next week that I’d rather not face had Wentz and McCown. Foles and Bortles are in the waiver wire. After that, it’s Garrapolo, Winston, and Kizer. Burning 2 of my 4 moves for those 2 QBs to cock block him hopefully... Also, I’m 4-10 in my auction league. So last week, I picked up Zeke and Aaron Rodgers
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:The Seahawks have the lowest-scoring aggregate RB score on the year, he's their fifth-best RB and they were going up against a top-ten fantasy rush defense. If you want us to repeat the same recommendations as everywhere else when they're lovely recommendations, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't even know where this weird "Mike Davis costs you Theo Riddick" bit came from. Roster both if available. gently caress your opponents out of all potentially useful RBs. edit: like goddamn last week's waiver article thought Peyton Barber was the #3 get for the week but Mike Davis is a bridge too far? Tiptoes fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:To be constructive, and maybe this was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's just always weird to me when I see waiver or sleeper lists and see guys conspicuously missing. I don't know if there's an industry standard waiver wire list each week that you could sort of play off, and have a short couple sentences before your recommendations with like, "Despite appearing as a popular sleeper, Mike Davis is not great, the offensive line is a joke, the offense is all passing and they are in a terrible matchup. Avoid!" Maybe even a separate "avoid" article each week if there are enough common recommendations that you disagree with, maybe one for all positions rather than split into 4 articles? Maybe that's too much work or too derivative or something, I'm not sure. But it's more useful than just not seeing a guy mentioned that half the other lists have; did you just forget about him or do you actually not like him for some credible reason? We are actually already planning on implementing this next season with pieces called "absurdity checks." Sataere did a couple already but I'm going to do one each week but I was looking for a hook. Waiver wire pickups is probably it. Thanks boss 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
89 posted:
Fuckin' Yahoo, I set it to "lock eliminated teams," but apparently there is anconsolation bracket so no one is ever eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
This will be the third year in a row I finish top 2 in regular season and go out in the semi-finals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Is Greg Olsen going to do something this week?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
dphi posted:Is Greg Olsen going to do something this week? Honestly, with the season on the line, I don't know how you can trust him to, even if he does
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
dphi posted:Is Greg Olsen going to do something this week? Yes. He’s going to run a few routes. Then hobble a few routes. Then call it a day and go join the announcers up in the booth to provide color commentary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:To be constructive, and maybe this was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's just always weird to me when I see waiver or sleeper lists and see guys conspicuously missing. I don't know if there's an industry standard waiver wire list each week that you could sort of play off, and have a short couple sentences before your recommendations with like, "Despite appearing as a popular sleeper, Mike Davis is not great, the offensive line is a joke, the offense is all passing and they are in a terrible matchup. Avoid!" Maybe even a separate "avoid" article each week if there are enough common recommendations that you disagree with, maybe one for all positions rather than split into 4 articles? Maybe that's too much work or too derivative or something, I'm not sure. But it's more useful than just not seeing a guy mentioned that half the other lists have; did you just forget about him or do you actually not like him for some credible reason? I think the real disconnect is that I just assume that if I didn't list him, you guys will assume that I don't like him. There is a limited amount of time for me to produce content. And I will readily admit to not even looking closely at Seattle's running game for weeks now. Because why would I want to subject myself to that? It's terrible. I will point out guys that I find interes hiting plays. The only thing I find interesting about Mike Davis is how many pages on this thread have been devoted to him. This is classic late season fantasy football discussion. But just because we can discuss the minutiae of a player, doesn't mean we should. Spoeank posted:We are actually already planning on implementing this next season with pieces called "absurdity checks." Sataere did a couple already but I'm going to do one each week but I was looking for a hook. Waiver wire pickups is probably it. Thanks boss Agreed. This is a perfect avenue for that. Tiptoes posted:If you are writing a waiver wire article at this point in the season and flat out ignoring a dude getting drat near 20 touches a game, you are giving bad advice. Like it just seems that simple to me. Lol, there was nothing about my Barber pick that was a ringing endorsement. I addressed speculation he could take over as the starter. That gives him way more upside than Mike Davis. Why? Well, Mike Davis had 19 of his 37 carries this season are for one yard or less. For his career, 45 of 91 carries went for one yard or less. And I'm supposed to recommend him because he's a volume play? According to our own Forever_Peace's research, that rate is twice the league average. He is twice as bad as the rest of the league. Who cares if he gets 20 carries when he ends up totaling 40 yards? The only volume he is producing is losses for guys desperate enough to start him. You are basing my bad advice solely on ignoring a guy's volume. As if it were some black and white thing. Personally, I think bad advice is ignoring the context of a situation and focusing on a singular detail. I'm not saying my advice isn't bad. It very well could be. But it's not bad for the reason that you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Just like how I can't stop seeing the name as "Lactavius," I also constantly see "Marking Ram"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Anyone else think Cousins might be a bust for the rest of the season? I can't start him. The matchup this week is good but his line is probably worse. Hello Blake Bortles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Liquid Banjo posted:I can't start him. The matchup this week is good but his line is probably worse. Hello Blake Bortles. Bortles has been hot the last few weeks and has such a juicy matchup. I think he might be a legitimate top five start this week and I feel dumb for saying it, much less believing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
If Rodgers clears, you start him over Bortles right? DSYS and all that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Bortles has been hot the last few weeks and has such a juicy matchup. I think he might be a legitimate top five start this week and I feel dumb for saying it, much less believing it. Is hot really the right word for his play the last few weeks. He has become a middle of the pack - higher side match up dependent streaming option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:Is hot really the right word for his play the last few weeks. Over the last four weeks, he's been a top five quarterback in fantasy. I'd call that hot, since it is Blake Bortles we are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:If Rodgers clears, you start him over Bortles right? DSYS and all that? DSYS. Start Bortles!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Superb
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Owl
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
gimme dat BORT... For like, some points. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AaronRodgers12/status/940782384127135745 guess whos back in the motherfuckin house
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:https://twitter.com/AaronRodgers12/status/940782384127135745 AWWWWWW YEAHHHHH BOIIIIIII!!!! Rodgers cleared to come back AND Roy Moore losing? This is the best day!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Between blocking Wentz-havers from getting him and now probably overreacting to Brady's week, I am so loving glad to have Rodgers as an option on my benches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
I have Rodgers in two leagues and my opponent has him in the third. I'm................................conflicted
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Well poo poo. I'm probably not going to start Jordy over Funchess... but I want to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Man I wish I had Bortles available in my league. I'm legitimately putting in a waiver for Flacco this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Need some advice here. I'm in the semifinals of my league this week, going against a guy that lost Wentz and has no backup. We each have $1 remaining to bid on players. I was planning to use that dollar to either: A. Pick up TE in case Kyle Rudolph is hurt (read reports about him leaving most recent game in walking boot) B. Bid on Saints DST to start in place of Chargers DST (who are going to Arrowhead) Is it a better use of my dollar to bid on Rodgers and play keepaway? I'm ahead of him in waiver order since I'm the lower seed. I have Wilson/Rivers on my team, so I don't need a QB. This is mostly about preserving a QB advantage since it's one of the few positional advantages I have in our matchup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
89 posted:Made the playoffs. Dude I could potentially face next week that I’d rather not face had Wentz and McCown. Count me as a vote for Chalky McGrath. edit ok here goes: Maybe you don't know Chalky McGrath. Maybe you don't know who he is. Ok. Chalky McGrath is going to win a Super Bowl ring this year, I can almost pretty much guarantee it. That's such a weird word, gaureantee. Always feels like I am spelling it wrong, and honestly I don't even know why I try and incorporate it into my writing as I can never spell it. Back to Chalk Talk. Chalky is an incredible rusher, but he doesn't have to do that much lately because he has a great young rookie to hand the ball off to. There's also a golden number two rusher on the team who is an elephant and never forgets about the defense and fool him once shame on him but if you fool him again you won't be able to. Also, there's a bunch of great wide receivers Chalk has to throw to. His best one was destroyed in a knee accident earlier in the year. Chalky can extend plays if he needs to and is always a threat to run n gun down the field with the best of `em. Christ the Lord God Jesus himself hath required such a cypher. Decypher it and you're in for the fantasy football finale where your dreams are coming to fruition. As we know, you still lose in your dreams so it doesn't matter anyway. Why did you dream that dream? Let's have a different dream. In this dream of dreams, you play Blake Bortles and its good and you win. Hop in the loving Bort Train, baby, it'll probably end up in the gas chamber but you'll have some great drinks along the way and hey maybe even get your dick sucked too. Tiptoes posted:My biggest semifinal matchup is likely to feature four Jaguars: my D/ST+Westbrook against his Bortles+Lee. CHALKY'S POWER GROWS!!! HOP ON THE loving BORT TRAIN. decypher fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
I am expecting Foles to be good since apparently every other Jeff Fisher QB was secretly good and just being being held back by 7-9.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 06:18
|
|
You are receiving this broadcast as a dream...We are transmitting from the year one nine... nine nine ...You are receiving this broadcast in order t
|
My biggest semifinal matchup is likely to feature four Jaguars: my D/ST+Westbrook against his Bortles+Lee. Fuckin' 2017, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
In the semis against my nemesis, who has knocked me out of the playoffs in the semis 4 out of the last 6 years, always on some weird bullshit aberration. His Philly-heavy team took a hit though. My QB dilemma- Stafford or Bortles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I think the real disconnect is that I just assume that if I didn't list him, you guys will assume that I don't like him. There is a limited amount of time for me to produce content. And I will readily admit to not even looking closely at Seattle's running game for weeks now. Because why would I want to subject myself to that? It's terrible. Look, let's make this simple. Let's pretend for a moment that you have a random browser from the internet -- presumably something y'all, as the creators of a FF site want -- find your page and read your waiver suggestions. They notice that a consensus add player -- Mike Davis -- isn't mentioned on your waiver page. Do they assume that Davis -- who is in essentially every other waiver article -- is not listed because you dislike him, or because you forgot him? Seriously, google 'waiver wire week 14 RB' and every article in the top 5/10 talk about Davis. The more logical answer is because you forgot him. After all, you expanded the criteria to 75% owned exclusively to be able to list more players. Not acknowledging that he's being talked about by saying 'YES PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HIM BUT HE'S BAD' is dumb and a glaring omission. Now pretend that I'm not a random FF browser, and I know you guys. I read the article and the first thing that jumps out to me is that he's missing -- not because you think he's bad -- but because you missed it. (As you said, you don't pay attention to Seattle's RB situation). No, this shouldn't be in an absurdity check article - it should be in your loving WW article, because that's what people are going to be reading when they're looking for WW players. That's where you should mention the player that all of your competition is talking about, even if it's just in passing to say 'others think you should add this person, but don't.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
illcendiary posted:Need some advice here. I'm in the semifinals of my league this week, going against a guy that lost Wentz and has no backup. We each have $1 remaining to bid on players. I was planning to use that dollar to either: Who is the next best QB on the wire? You should probably be picking up Rodgers. Also, can you make moves for free? Or are you stuck if you spend that dollar and then Rudolph ends up not playing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
illcendiary posted:Need some advice here. I'm in the semifinals of my league this week, going against a guy that lost Wentz and has no backup. We each have $1 remaining to bid on players. I was planning to use that dollar to either: Outside of Rodgers who else is on the WW for qb? Don’t spend a buck on a TE and I’d try to grab NO as FA if the other teams left in playoffs aren’t streaming. So after typing all that out, yes I’d grab Rodgers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:Outside of Rodgers who else is on the WW for qb? Gobias Ind. posted:Who is the next best QB on the wire? You should probably be picking up Rodgers. Unfortunately, my league doesn’t have FA, otherwise the decision would be much easier. You literally have to have $1 to make any move, so I have to weigh the possibility of this still biting me in the rear end next week even if this week goes well. My 12-team 1 QB league skews a tad hoarder-ish when it comes to QBs. According to FantasyPros consensus rankings, Bortles is next-best available, followed by Foles and then Tyrod/Kizer/Gabbert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
illcendiary posted:Unfortunately, my league doesn’t have FA, otherwise the decision would be much easier. You literally have to have $1 to make any move, so I have to weigh the possibility of this still biting me in the rear end next week even if this week goes well. So you can literally only make one more move for the rest of the year? And Rudolph is your only TE? Unfortunately I think that means you can't be making moves to block your opponent. Too much risk there. (And Bortles is a solid play for the next 2 weeks, so it's not like you'd be sticking him with utter trash)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 15:25
|
|