Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Voice Of Reason

Members
  • Content Count

    1,877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Voice Of Reason

  1. The UFC wants Joanna on the undercard for Rousey, and Gadelha is injured and won't be ready for Nov. 14th. UFC probably doesn't think Joanna is enough of a draw to put on the Jan 2nd cards as a co-main to Lawler-Condit.
  2. Payton lies to reporters for the sake of lying to reporters. I'm pretty worried as a Graham owner as I was told by a friend of a friend, reliable I know, that Jimmy bought a bunch of beginner music equipment at a local shop and said that he'll "have a lot of free time now."
  3. Not sure about this. He was comparable, if not better than, Arian Foster the past few years in Houston. No he wasn't. Yeah, Tate was definitely not better than Foster the past few years. 2013: Foster with better YPC and Success Rate (4.5 vs 4.3, 38.5% vs 37.8) 2012: Tate with better YPC & Success Rate (4.2 vs 4.1 & 46.8% vs 38%) 2011: Tate with better YPC & Success Rate (5.3 vs 4.6 & 45.2& vs 41.8%)
  4. Not sure about this. He was comparable, if not better than, Arian Foster the past few years in Houston.
  5. I can't see him having much value with the current coaching staff. He's a non-traditional NFL WR playing for an HC and OC who weren't innovative 15 years ago.
  6. He better have a hard shell because while Philly loves him now, let him fail on a crucial/unconventional 4&1 and there will be bombs coming from every direction. Yes of course - that's one of the reasons so many coaches are wimps (they're not all just dumb I don't think). It'll be interesting to see how steadfast he is in his approach after that does happen. There are zero fans blaming Doug Marrone for punting on 4th&1 so the wrong/bad % play is definitely a good way to keep your job longer. There are however fans complaining about not huddling with 5:50 left and a 1pt lead because ya know, Tom Brady might've run out of time if he only had 3minutes to get in FG range. My God, football fans are the worst. It isn't because they would face criticism, they mostly make bad decisions because they really are just dumb, imo. Most coaches make similar, bad choices regularly in situations where they wouldn't face such criticism.
  7. The betting markets (Vegas) have his over/under on receptions set at 76. If he averages 10 a catch, low end of Percy Harvin & Welker types, that puts him at about 760 yards. Considering how likely a player of his size and on kick off/PR duties is to get hurt, that line could easily go to 85 if he had guaranteed health. So if healthy, a 850 yard season seems like the low end of the reasonable expectations for him.
  8. Fear with D Jax is that, even with an increased number of plays per game, Kelly is going to run the ball a lot more than under Reid. Eagles are also going to look to spread the field with more receivers so that when they do pass, run bubble screens, reverses, etc, there are going to be a lot of possible targets for Vick than just Jackson.
  9. Pretty sure Silva isn't retiring, but he wants bigger, higher paid fights and sees the title as a hindrance in getting those. As the MW champ, he has to defend ever so often vs lesser opponents. Now, he could move up to LHW or down to MW for Jones or GSP. Although, Dana seems to want a rematch. Silva probably comes in at 186+ for a title rematch with Weidman.
  10. He might have been but he was intelligibly defending himself. If he wanted to tap there fine.Pretty unbelievable that Sonnen may be a competent ref away from being the most undeserving champ ever.
  11. If he gets a single all defensive team vote this season, I think you can pretty much ignore the award completely. He's been completely awful on that end all season. However, I really think going forward that this is appropriate how his career should end. Kobe work ethic and drive is amazing and admirable, but it comes with a stubbornness and selfishness that are ultimately his downfall. The injury pretty much an overuse injury and he desire to play over 40 minutes a night the past month are admirable, but it's just not smart. I'm pretty sure he tries to comeback and really hope he does, but this is pretty much the end for him playing at a level that isn't going to make him incredibly frustrated. edit: basically wanted to say that I think it is appropriate that kobe basically is the reverse of the mind will quit before the body does.
  12. It would be impossible to come back from if judges kept the current system of basically only giving 10-9's. If figther A wins a single round by more than the combined output of fighter B in the the two rounds he wins, then it'd be wrong to award the fight to Fighter B, imo. Basically, I'm advocating using the tools available in the 10 point must system yield results closer to the scoring system of PRIDE or Fightmetric. There are fights where most people would agree that fighter A "won" the fight, but the they say fighter B should win because of the structure of the 10 pt must system, e.g. two close rounds that slightly favor fighter B and 1 round where fighter A is totally dominant. I'm saying those type of outcomes stem from a bad application of the 10 pt must system, not some inherit flaw in the system.Whatever happened to California trying out the .5 system? i haven't heard anything about it but that might be a solution too. I have heard a couple of good ideas, somebody recommended a 30 point system where it was something like 10 points for striking, 10 points for grappling, and i forget what the other 10 points but i am guessing some form of aggression/control/damage. i know somebody recommended a 100 point must system, but i can only imagine a judge deciding between 91 and 93 points for a roundI guess the 0.5 system in CA died, haven't heard anything about it either. I still think using the tools within the current system would basically be the same as the options you mentioned. A lot of people seems to advocate removing discretion from judges, but I'm not for it. Sure, Patrica Jarman or Cecil Peoples could royally screw up given more freedom to score 10-10's and 10-7's, but ultimately someone has to make the decision. The judge or the system creator. I'd rather it be on the judge, because they are more replaceable and burden more responsibility for their calls.
  13. It would be impossible to come back from if judges kept the current system of basically only giving 10-9's. If figther A wins a single round by more than the combined output of fighter B in the the two rounds he wins, then it'd be wrong to award the fight to Fighter B, imo. Basically, I'm advocating using the tools available in the 10 point must system yield results closer to the scoring system of PRIDE or Fightmetric. There are fights where most people would agree that fighter A "won" the fight, but the they say fighter B should win because of the structure of the 10 pt must system, e.g. two close rounds that slightly favor fighter B and 1 round where fighter A is totally dominant. I'm saying those type of outcomes stem from a bad application of the 10 pt must system, not some inherit flaw in the system.
  14. The worst of the Round 1's between Maynard and Edgar?10-7's are in the rules. They should be used, imo.
  15. a) Yesb) "any judge" - yes. I would hope they would remember how the fight got to the mat. Given my experience with judging, however, I would not expect the average judge to reward the guy on bottom.Didn't expect answer A. Most people prioritize absolute position vs the way the fighters got there. So Condit could've won a round by flopping back and pulling Hendricks down as Hendricks shot for a takedown?
  16. Why?After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.Takedowns dictate where the fight takes place. That's pretty important. And yes - so does getting up, but as stated before, I believe getting up is easier. Plus, being on the offensive should be more highly rewarded than being on the defensive. It really amazes me that this is questioned regarding grappling as it never is regarding striking.Is pulling guard offensive or defensive?Offensive. It's a huge risk in MMA though because it's common to get busted up while someone is in your guard.So in an otherwise even round, a) would you score the round for the guard puller and b) would you expect any judge to score it for the guard puller.
  17. Why?After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.Takedowns dictate where the fight takes place. That's pretty important. And yes - so does getting up, but as stated before, I believe getting up is easier. Plus, being on the offensive should be more highly rewarded than being on the defensive. It really amazes me that this is questioned regarding grappling as it never is regarding striking.Is pulling guard offensive or defensive?
  18. Why?After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.I'm talking about how fights should be judged, clearly. Otherwise there would be little to no discussion of judging, rather reporting what the judges scored it.Huh? You could still discuss why the fights were judged the way they were. its not robots we're talking about. there's frequently fights where one judge scores it completely opposite from another. and i still think they have it right for their rewarding take downs and not escapes. that's how both freestyle and greco roman score it. they even used to award escapes, but took that away. i think they may be on to something. I was off, forgetting the discussion of why fights are judged how they are. But how often does discussion go into how judges actually score fights (Cecil People's leg kicks don't count) vs what someone thinks the judges should have done.
  19. Why?After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.I'm talking about how fights should be judged. Otherwise there would be little to no discussion of judging, rather reporting what the judges scored it.There is nothing in the unified rules that prioritizes wrestling, it's just an ad hoc rule of how judges score fights. Octagon control is the the closest, but I've never seen a judge score a round for a fighter because he controlled where the fight took place by stuffing takedowns.
  20. Why?After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
  21. Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.I guess my personal scale is10-10 close round, could make an argument for either guy10-9 one guy clearly gets the better of another10-8 fighter clearly wins round and is twice as effective as the standard for 10-910-7 fighter is completely overwhelmed for the entire round, fight could have been stopped, some Frank Edgar 1st rounds and a round of Velasquez vs Rothwell come to mind.I don't remember a 10-7 round ever being scored in the UFC. Have there been any?I think Starnes-Quarry had one. Forest Petz vs Sam Morgan as well.
  22. A 25-22 striking advantage is quite small. A 4-0 takedown advantage is almost unheard of.After seeing the numbers (a small striking edge with another 4 takedowns), I'm even more convinced that Hendricks took the 2nd round. Easily. Would the numbers have been less impressive if Condit were content to strike from the bottom for the whole round and Hendricks' takedown count were 1-0?The takedown count is 4-0 because Hendricks couldn't keep him down effectively. Is that really a big positive for Leonidas? Interesting point as most judges have a hard time giving a round to the guy spending most of it on the bottom even if he's more effective.The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though. I know this isn't a BJJ match, but in a BJJ match, a takedown is worth 2 points while getting up isn't rewarded. If Condit would have been able to sweep (3 points in BJJ) Hendricks four times and then get up, I would have awarded the round to Condit. I don't think the average MMA judge would agree with awarding sweeps to heavily, but they are extremely difficult. This fight would be extremely interesting if Condit could sprawl effectively. Of course, it's hard to deny the takedown to someone with Hendricks' wresting, but I don't remember seeing Condit sprawl once. Why?
  23. Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.I guess my personal scale is10-10 close round, could make an argument for either guy10-9 one guy clearly gets the better of another10-8 fighter clearly wins round and is twice as effective as the standard for 10-910-7 fighter is completely overwhelmed for the entire round, fight could have been stopped, some Frank Edgar 1st rounds and a round of Velasquez vs Rothwell come to mind.
  24. I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8? edit: realizing that I very much alone as I see takedowns as a means to an end, not as a goal itself