|
RVProfootballer posted:I get how your league issue showed the implementation is broken, but even at this level, I don't get the logic. You make conditional bids because you're ordering them in a particular order, and you can't drop the same guy or fill the same empty roster spot twice. If I have one empty roster spot and one player I want to drop, and I want to bid on 3 players in order of preference of A, B, then C, I bid $x on player A and say drop no one, bid $y on player B and say drop no one, and bid $z on player C and say drop no one. Then I go through again and bid $y on Player B and say drop the bum player on my roster, and finally bid $z on player C and say drop the bum player on my roster. If I only bid more than everyone else on player C, I get player C and fill up the empty roster spot. If I bid enough to get player A and player C, but not player B, I get player A (fill empty spot) and player C (drop bum on my roster). You could probably achieve it by layering your claims well. Except.. Let's say, for example, that you wanted to fill 5 roster spots (and let's say they were all empty for the sake of argument -- they were in the case Leper is talking about because people dropped a bunch of stuff off their rosters). You could say 'I want two WRs, one RB, a DB and a QB', and then layer your bids along those lines, so you don't have to worry about the order of your bids (in terms of ending up with 5 WRs and none of the others). So you can essentially say 'here's a list of 15 WRs, bid $x-y (set on each individual player) until I win two', etc. Whereas by ordering your bids, it'll be whatever you win until all 5 are won, so even if you did 2 WRs 1 RB 1 DB 1 QB and then repeat as your bid order, if you won the first 2 WRs, and then lost the next 3, you might wind up with more than 2 WRs. alternatively, let's say you had 8 open roster spots, BUT you only wanted to fill 5 of them (because you don't want to waste FAAB to add players and then drop them to draft rookies). You can't do that with a non-conditional waiver system because if you were bidding on up to 20 players you would win until all those bench spots were full, assuming no one else bid.
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
MarquisDeCarabas posted:In a vacuum, pick three, rest of season (.5 ppr): Crowder feels over rated. He's very boom/bust. Even looking at last season's gamelogs, 4 games with 3 or fewer targets, 7 games with 5 or fewer. He's WR... 2? 3? On an offense that's still looking for it's identity. Pryor was brought in to be the WR1; Doctson is probably WR2 if healthy. Crowder's role is largely slot, but that role is overshadowed by the TEs when Reed is healthy. Even if he gets healthy and wins the WR2 job, he'll have a healthy Reed and Chris Thompson eating into his potential targets. Coleman is a much safer choice I think (concern is health), as is Davis, and they have higher upside. For the third to pick, I'd go with ceiling over floor -- Golladay or Kamara.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:I was all aboard Dalton as a low end QB1 this year, so I'm probably not recalibrated well enough to really advise on him. I doubt he continues being as bad as he has been, but who knows. He's my QB2 in multiple superflex leagues, though. Mostly I hate those salaries for most of the QBs. If I can get Dalton and Eli together for $8, I'm basically dumping all the rest of those QBs, regardless of team composition. The league is pretty crazy. There's only one team that doesn't have 2 QBs rostered. This means the WW is pretty barren: glennon, mccown, hoyer, brissett/tolzien. The cost for players goes up by 10% ($1 min) per year, with draft picks (rookies) having a flat cost, and since Leper picked them in the 2nd/3rd that means it's $8/$4. There's a total of $210 spent on QBs, with the player spending the most spending $61 on Arog+Wilson. Three teams rostering 3 or more QBs. The average team (and mode) is $14 on QBs. There's frankly nothing on the WW worth ~$30, and given we're mid season having that much in cap space would be useless, and I say that as a guy with 31 available. At this point, best to just wait for either stuff to be worthwhile on the WW or injuries and playoff desires to make older more expensive players available for picks, in which time I guess it's fine to have a bunch of cap stuffed up in QBs since you can drop them for the space later.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Hard to say. Probably Doctson for the following reasons: I lean the other way: 1) Fuller is guaranteed target volume from the time he steps foot on the field -- last season he averaged around 7 targets per game he played. Doctson has never had more than 2. 2) While you're right that Crowder and Pryor have not been good, the bulk of the targets have been going to Thompson and Reed -- and I doubt that Doctson is going to threaten their target share. Crowder and Pryor have been averaging 12 targets per game between the two of them. RB/TE crew have been pulling in about 14. Ryan grant has 12 targets over 3 weeks; his ~4 per game might be available to Doctson, but he's been performing better as well. 3) Fuller is likely to start at a full or near full snap count, while Doctson is still restricted. Fuller's role on the team is such that he would be expected to play all snaps, while Doctson is still trying to grow into that role. 4) Fuller has had several good games, showing that he has the skills to be a fulltime starter. His 7/81/2 (1 punt return TD, 1 passing) certainly showed his ceiling. We haven't seen anything close from Doctson. I don't think Doctson is *bad*, but as a In my league, in spite of the rookie QB, hopkins is currently WR12 and his target share has been declining while other WRs have been getting additional volume -- volume that is likely to belong to Fuller on his return. 7 targets per game and not getting the top coverage is a pretty solid place to exploit matchups looking at ceiling (and floor I suppose), versus unclear snap count / target share. e: last thought. Skins play KC this week, so I definitely don't expect much if anything out of the passing game. So it's probably safer to wager that Doctson would still be there after this week if you wanted to grab fuller, see how he does, and decide. Zauper fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Oct 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Sup fellow DC fan. Glad to see I'm not alone. gently caress the name. quote:I agree that Fuller could be a stud, and your post convinced me to drop John Brown for him. I'd like to go over your numbers a bit more: quote:2. Thompson getting all those targets is a very new thing and there's no guarantee it's sustainable. Reed is constantly hurt, and he can easily threaten that target share by being what he was drafted to be. Gruden also emphasized that he has no plans to change Thompson's role. quote:TBH I think this is the week to grab Doctson, because if he does well you'll get a stash and if he does poorly you can just dump him and know he'll be on the WW next week because it's a bye and he hasn't done poo poo. They're all lottery picks, of course. I just feel like Fuller is slightly more likely to pay out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:Redskins experts, what are your thoughts on Crowder? I have him in 3 leagues because I'm an idiot. I like but don't trust him, largely for the same reasons as beer. Last season he did well, and averaged about 6 targets per game - same as he's doing currently - but also was a primary red zone target, especially when reed was out. However, he inexplicably had 4(?) Ish games with 3 or fewer targets, and put up under 5 points for weeks 14-17. Some of his bad receiving weeks were bailed out by the return role he doesn't have anymore. Offense was moving again last week and he saw 6 targets, but fumbled again. He's going to have weeks he's startable. I just don't have any thoughts on how to predict them. He's also going to be fighting with Ryan Grant and doctson for targets, as the two of them approve. He's had more targets than Pryor for the last two weeks. But does he have the skills to beat the top CB if he emerges as the number one? Last year he was the number three, and fantasy performance was based on his efficiency in catching targets.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I think the Washington offense has the potential to be strong, but a huge part of that strength is because Cousins has so many weapons. He has shown a willingness to spread the ball around, which means outside of Cousins himself any start is a potential landmine. What I didn't expect was for the defense to make such a strong showing. I shouldn't be surprised given that they finally don't have any injuries and booted out their loser DC (WE COULD HAVE HAD loving WADE PHILLIPS WHAT THE gently caress GRUDEN), but the defense could also help the offense get more plays. True. The strength of the running game has also been a bit of a surprise to me, and hurts cousins fantasy value. When fat Kelley returns and is 100% he's a safe start I think. I had expected cousins to come out stronger, honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
So fuller came out with 4 receptions on 6 targets for 35 yards and two tds. So a pretty good ceiling showing. Obviously shouldn't expect beatdowns like this game often, but he got good target volume and showed his value as a difference maker that brings something no one else on the team does. His 6 targets were second in the team, I believe. And Houston passed slightly less than average as a percent of offensive snaps. He's going to be a top waiver add this week. Hopefully Doctson has as good of a showing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I think Doctson still has a high upside. That last pass should have been a game winner but he dropped it when he landed on the ground. The kid has tons of talent and I wouldn't be surprised to see his role continue to increase. I didn't watch the game, but... 2/27 on 3 targets. The offense ran about 50% of plays as passing plays which sounds about right for the redskins, and 50% of those passing plays went to the TE/RB which is consistent with what we've seen in the first 3 weeks. Crowder only got 1 target, but played 2nd most WR snaps. Doctson and Grant each got 3 targets -- and Grant got another TD. I don't have a full snap count, but I just don't think there's enough in that offense to support a WR1 at this point. I'm also not sure it would become Doctson -- Grant (his competition for WR3) got more snaps week 1/2 and less in week 3, but has 15 targets to Doctson's 6. To me it seems (from prior games) like Crowder is losing his role from last season -- the short yardage role -- and most of that is going to Grant. I don't see anything that makes me think Doctson is going to start getting the necessary volume to support a top performer, or that he's really competing for that role. Speaking of which, let's talk about SF! Aldrick Robinson seems to have come from no where to get 12 targets this week. What's the story? Just taking over for Goodwin after he went out with an injury? Do we think Garcon's volume is safe? What about Trent Taylor, whose role seems to be growing? With Hoyer as the QB, there's probably not a ton of value there, but volume will usually return some value -- what do folks think is going to happen there?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:matt berry's tv show on espn is real bad lol doctson injured again. Head coach Jay Gruden said Tuesday that Doctson strained his shoulder during Monday's 29-20 loss at Kansas City. "We're fine with Josh and where he's at," Gruden told Liz Clarke of The Washington Post. Analysis: Doctson picked up the injury on his diving attempt at a catch in the end zone just before the Redskins knotted up the score at 20-20 with a field goal in the final minute of the game Hopefully won't cause him to miss any time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
RisqueBarber posted:I'd keep Cobb. I think he's better as long as Sam Bradford is out. Plus you have the benefit of not having two wide receiver's on the same bye. Yeah I think this could go either way. Cobb is the WR3 on an offense with a tons of mouths to feed (if Adams returns); Theilen is the WR2 but has a worse QB situation. I'm not sure how the RB situation there is going to affect him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Gorman Thomas posted:What do y'all think about this trade (0.5 PPR 12 team) I don't really like it. Assuming you're some kind of 2RB/2WR/flex situation, you're trading two of your starters to improve at one position. Except, in 0.5 PPR Hopkins has like 3 more points than Howard, and Howard has missed like 90% of one of the 4 games so far. If you think Howard is healthy and productive going forward, it feels like he may continue to outscore Hopkins. And you're giving up a replacement WR on top.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Gallman Winston is a bad person, but I'd rather have him. I feel like his team situation is probably slightly better going forward, and he's marginally better as a player.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Suave Fedora posted:Put on some motherfucking pants and show your father in law who the patriarch of the family is. I'm pretty sure I disagree. Did he mean to send it? He's not even sure. He thinks he had maybe included another WR in the trade, even though the initial line in the post was I totally didn't mean to. Getting drunk and being dumb doesn't make it an accidental mistake. To me it looks more like morning after regret about a trade. I mean sure, I'd probably be cool with rescinding it if I had been the guy who got the trade offer, but it is absolutely not like accidentally dropping someone to waivers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Butter Hole posted:You're right but was anyone really reaching on Eifert?? I actually think I disagree with this logic. Let's look at RBs! Last year, DJ was RB1 and put up 377 points in 0.5 PPR. Let's say we could reasonable expect someone around... RB24? to be on waivers? That's bottom RB2/high RB3 territory. That sounds about right, most leagues run 2RB. That's good for ~150 points last season, a 227 point dropoff (~13 points/game lost). Kelce was TE1 with 180 points. Most teams aren't rostering 2 TEs, so let's say TE13 is available on waivers? That's 120 points, a 60 point dropoff (~4 points/game). WR looks like a 6-7 point/game dropoff. You should be looking to draft the player with the highest expected VAR on your team, and part of figuring that out is determining how well you can do on replacement. If you can stream TEs and that gives you say TE6 on average, that really deflates the value of landing TE1. You can't effectively stream WR/RB, which is why I prefer to draft them over TE/etc. But ultimately the focus should be on the unique value - after say RB16 and WR16ish are taken, the next RB/WR off the board has nearly the same value as that one and value has really plateaued. You may find that if Kelce/Gronk/whoever is still on the board, you get more VAR from them than you do from another RB/WR. The dropoff being steep is a thing that says 'wow, getting an injury here sure sucks', but it doesn't make the pick worse -- it probably makes the pick better (assuming you appropriately factor injury risk and never draft jordan reed)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:Sterling Shepard was downgraded to Out for week 6, leaving the NY Giants with Evan Engram and some ham sandwiches at wideout for their receiving corps. Shane Vereen? I think he's going to see a lot of volume.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:Extra targets, but probably not too many more receptions, as Denver is particularly good at stifling passes out of the backfield, and "just average" at covering TEs. Play at your own risk. Maybe not this week, but going forward. Even if Shep comes back, there's going to be a lot of available volume. Vereen has averaged 4.5 targets/game (on the back of one 10 target game) and 3.5 carries/game. I'd suspect his average ~7 touches per game will go up. He won't get more carries, he'll get more targets with 2 of the top 3 WRs out -- Eli is going to throw to someone other than Shep/Engram. To clarify -- there's lots of discussion about the increasing value of Shep and Engram ROS. Vereen needs to be in that conversation as well, he should benefit a lot from the extra available volume. Zauper fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Sataere's 100% guaranteed, money back guaranteed, week seven waiver wire targets: Suggestion: put the links to the other WW articles at the bottom rather than the top of the article the person is reading. I scrolled right past them 2 times before I noticed they were there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Big night for Doctson. He played 54/57 snaps, out snapping Pryor. Not sure about Grant still. However, 40 passing attempts and again we see the TE and RB soaking up targets. 15 TE targets (10 reed, 4 Davis, 1 Paul), 7 RB (5 Thompson, 2 Kelley). Leaves 18 for the WR. 6 Crowder, 5 Doctson, 4 Pryor, 3 grant. It's trending in the right direction, but until the rb / te contingent lose targets, I don't feel like the WRs will be consistently fantasy relevant. Especially given we usually see closer to a 50/50 run pass split.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
IllegallySober posted:Who would be in your list of top 3 or so targets for dynasty moving forward? At 1-6 I'm pretty well done for this year. I have Aaron Rodgers on IR and plan to keep Deshaun Watson but am looking to package up some of the rest of my useful players for future considerations. Who do you have on your team currently? Generally you want to look for either picks (meh) or young players you're high on, preferably WRs. Maybe there are young injured WRs you have faith in (Coleman?) with competitive owners. Honestly, it's entirely situation dependent. But in most leagues, the answer is picks and young WRs with opportunity. I mean, I assume that a Michael Thomas isn't attractive because he's contributing now to the winning team. Someone like Fuller may or may not be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:So here's my team at the moment. Half PPR, 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1FLX. Guys in bold are currently starters. Plus, we're skins fans. So.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:You think he can survive given his offensive line injuries? I do. He's done it before.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:1-7 team traded his Aaron Jones to a 5-3 team for Jay Ajayi. Jay Ajayi has a bye next week, and sort of a bye this week. Aaron Jones has no byes remaining. I don't hear anything here that suggests collusion. People can have different player valuations. It is not vetoable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Looks like Ingram might be getting phased out? What's your thought on cousins going forward? I'm still tentatively positive on him. He did put up 250ish yards with a 66% completion rate, just no TDs this week.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I traded Dalton plus a second round pick for Gio back in early October and I've been increasingly regretting it ever since. I was near to dropping Dalton but the 2nd round pick was not worth it. Hey! Yeah, it sucks the way the CIN backfield has gone. It feels like the new OC has been minimizing Gio's role. It wouldn't surprise me if he bounces back to a 6-8 touch kind of role (he's still a good receiver and blocker), passing downs could certainly benefit him. In a quick think, it feels like Gio isn't going anywhere. His contract is through 2020, and he can't be cut until 2019 really. Hill is a free agent at the end of the year, seems more likely he walks and Gio becomes the #2 in all situations. Not sure where Hill will wind up, feels like he will be behind a few other UFA RBs: Bell, Charles, West, McKinnon, Williams, Hyde, Crowell, Gore, Blount, Vereen (and others) -- he likely won't be behind all of these, but the upcoming contract season is going to have a lot of RBs that could either be bellcows, or 2+ down backs. There aren't going to be tons of teams looking, either -- probably more players looking for that bellcow job than teams looking for a bellcow. Not sure a team would pay a lot to acquire Gio from CIN either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:Played the #1 team in BML last week and he put up literally the lowest point total anyone has scored all year (57) Hey, Thing I hate: when I'm on a website, I click a link that is internal to that website, and it opens in a new tab. Please have your links within your articles not do this poo poo (e.g. when I'm looking at your QB WW article and click 'RB' it opens in a new tab)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:Do not listen to this man. Clicking on links should open tabs. This is proper and right. No other link on their site behaves this way, including if you scroll down and click on the same link at the bottom where it has a picture. This is terrible, inconsistent, and dumb. I'm on your site, keep me in the tab I'm in. e: my company's internal A/B testing has also shown that link->new tab reduces pages/session and appeared to have a negative impact on return. https://www.oncecoupled.com/internal-link-tab/ Internal links should open in the same tab. Zauper fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
RCarr posted:I'm in a Dynasty league for the first time ever this year. I was offered two trades today and I need some Do you not have to be compliant with the cap? I have you currently at $249 in cap hit. If you added someone worth $50+, you don't need to drop corresponding salary immediately? If not, sure, buy AB and try to sell him over the offseason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 20:13
|
|
advice
|
RCarr posted:Is this something you implemented this season? I remember asking in the pre-season what happens when an elite talent gets dropped into the pool because the first 4 overall picks only come with a salary of $20, and you guys (you are in the same league as Leperfish, yes?) said you didn't have a contingency plan for something like that. Yeah, it's new -- I pushed for it after joining and taking over a team. The issue I had was exactly that -- I had pick 1.01, and three insanely expensive WRs ($49, $45, and $56). All it did was create a world where 1.01 should drop their best expensive player (if appropriate) and pick them up for a severe discount that makes them holdable. Realistically, I didn't feel like I had an option -- I had to drop Julio and pick him up for $20 unless it was fixed. And yes, that's exactly what it means; it eats into your FAAB for the season. But apparently they hadn't used their full FAABs in past seasons either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
RCarr posted:I like it. I'll have to bring that up to the league. Thanks for the info. We wound up with Lamar Miller, Gronk, and Dez getting dropped in the pre season of the big names. All of them were picked up at similar salaries, which made it surprising to me that none of them moved via trade. We also had an injured OBJ get dropped mid season and picked up at a ~$10-15 discount vs his old salary. But it makes the $100 FAAB more usable with a $250 cap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
RCarr posted:In a vacuum... No one? I mean, I guess Darkwa is the 'best' player there? He and J Stew have similar opportunity, but he's doing more with it. Gio has a 3rd down / change of pace role. I don't have much faith in any of them this year or future.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
RCarr posted:This is the last time this season I'm going to bother you all with a trade advice question, as the deadline is tommorrow. Jamaal Williams is a short term solution at best for you I think. Playoffs start in 3 weeks, Jones is out for 3-6, Ty Mont will probably be back before then. Plus the GB offense is a bit of a dumpster right now. Don't think I'd start him over Ingram/CJA and you only have 2 RB starter slots right? Amari is probably a better flex than Jamaal. I feel like you should be able to get more for Amari. Also not sure I prefer cousins ROS to goff. Neither of them have great playoff schedules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:MY ARM TAPED SON Russel Wilson, 2014. 118 carries for 849 yards (7.2 YPC). The Saints o-line is doing work, with the primary back at 5 YPC (most of anyone with 100+ carries). But we also know that elite change of pace backs tend to do better on a per-carry basis than the primary back. That's essentially what Kamara is serving as in this offense, in spite of his higher than average carries for that role. He's a great player having a great season, but I wouldn't expect him to perform at this level next season or the season after -- I don't think supporting two RBs at this level of performance is sustainable, and if they lose Ingram it will change his role.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
the_american_dream posted:Lol y'all are so ready to leave leagues CONSTANTLY I'd assume this is a standings tiebreaker. Those happen a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:News: Reed has still played more games than Gronk in that window.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Spoeank posted:How is that cherry picking? Everyone jerks off about those 3 gsmes but he's been mostly garbage and injured since then ...Because you're including 1 game from 2015? That's cherrypicking. It looks a lot different if you add all of 2015: quote:12.3 Like... cherry picking is when you selectively build / ignore evidence to support a position (e.g. saying 'well starting from when he had 3 big games). Including 1 game from 2015 is an incredibly arbitrary cutoff, that you chose specifically to deny contrary evidence. That's.. the definition? I don't even know why you're trying to say it's not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 18:15
|
|