Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Me, too. Sucks to realize by 4:45 p.m. that you're getting zero points from your QB and will definitely lose your championship because of it.
Not only haven't the Patriots done this, but of all franchises, they should know the value of the 3 seed vs the 4. In 2006, they were the 4 seed and had to play at 3-seed Indy in the AFC championship.
Yep, cost me a championship as well, ironically against the same guy I play this week and Foles is my QB (or Brady). I like Foles matchup much better, but the Romo story and the similarities in the situation are giving me pause.
Exactly and in my post above, 2 years ago the same scenario was 4 points away (and multiple bad TOs by the Saints) from happening in the NFC with the Giants vs. New Orleans. Giants playing at New Orleans might have ended a lot differently, but either way NO gets by SF, which they almost did, and they get to play at home a huge advantage for them.
I still think you're wrong. In 2009, I specifically remember rooting against Brian Hoyer in week 17 because the Bengals could be #3 seed if they lost and they weren't playing Brady. Then after Hoyer lost, the Bengals had a shot for the #3 seed in SNF and did the exact same thing and rested their starters also even though they could have been #3.
Right, I was using it as an example that teams don't care between 3rd seed and 4th, not the week number.
yes, but up until this point, the thought of Bears players sitting for any or all of Sunday nights games was dismissed. The previous tweet did nothing to change that method of thinking for fantasy players. This tweet at least, makes you consider it.
if lions lose and fall to 7-8....... and GB wins... then the sunday night result doesnt matter because if the bears win or lose to philly.. the bears would have to beat GB next week.
I kind of buy the conspiracy theory (can't remember if it was mentioned in this thread or one of the many other Shark Pool threads on this topic) that that's the exact reason starters won't sit in this game. That '09 Bengals-Jets SNF Week 17 game was a huge deal to the NFL/NBC, who hated having a team lie down in a primetime game. How much you want to bet the Bears got an angry call after Trestman's comments today along the lines of, "We didn't flex out of Tom Brady vs the defending champs so that America can watch Michael Bush and Earl Bennet!"
How can anyone speak with certainly where the Lions are concerned? When have they ever failed to fail?
Thanks for clearing this up. I was just going by Rotoworld's blurb, which seemed to only focus on if DET and GB both lost, as if that was the worst scenario.
The Giants aren't even competitive. They've lost by 23 points each of the last two weeks.
Where are all those great evaluators of NFL talent now? Det might still win but clearly it is not the easy game all here thought now is it? I said it at the start of the thread.....you never know.
Ahem...not really .... do not be mad if you suck at understanding the NFL. It is not really your fault if you have some incapacities inherently. You are a Raider fan....lol....worst franchise ever.
Bad call perhaps but I don't think you could have predicted Calvin being basically a non-factor.
What do they look like when they go half bore?
It was almost like the Bears were watching the GB game, saw them get to the 1 yard line, and were like, "Clearly GB is going to win this game, so let's just turn off the TV and assume we can tank this."
