Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,380 Excellent

About cobalt_27

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mount Pleasant, SC

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Dallas Cowboys

Recent Profile Visitors

11,053 profile views
  1. He posted his “source” info in a public forum. Fair to say he cares about its consideration.
  2. “Unlikely” wasn’t my takeaway. I think it was as responsible conjecture from a guy who knows the ropes that Tyreek’s situation looks more favorable than it might have a month ago but, depending on the state of numerous variables still unknown to us, he is still at substantial risk of prolonged, if not indefinite suspension.
  3. If it was one of the talking heads, sure. I don’t recall reading anything that definitive, but I would have taken it with a grain of salt anyway. What is notable is this contributor at least is a defense attorney and is at least cautious about discussing the parameters of possible outcomes, given his expertise in legal and DCF matters superimposed on assessment of Goodell’s prior history.
  4. Really strong analysis here. Lots to unpack and yet to be revealed, but near-certain expectation Hill misses time this year. And he remains at significant risk of prolonged suspension.
  5. All said while results of DCF investigation and assessment of his cooperation with league still pending.
  6. This is a really good point, one I hadn’t thought of before. Extending off that point, let’s stipulate that a team replaces their bad backup with a better backup and that results in more carries for the better backup. In the Chubb/Hunt scenario, it’s totally plausible that Hunt’s competence result in more TD opportunities for Chubb by virtue of sustaining more drives while Chubb gets a breather and then, down at the 5, he comes back in and slam dunks another TD. Multiply that by a few games/opportunities.
  7. The title of the thread and the poll are really asking two different questions. If you think the better backup would add a single additional rush over a worse backup , you’d answer ‘yes’ to the poll. But, does it matter that the backup got the 1 additional carry? I think most agree it wouldn’t. If the addition yielded 100 additional carries over what a worse backup would get, then the answer is probably ‘yes’ it would matter. At this stage, as another poster above commented, what we know now is both Hunt and Chubb are capable RBs. We also can expect Duke to get a fair share of carries. We know about injury risk for RBs, which applies to Hunt and Duke, as well. We know Hunt is out a long time. What is role will be when he returns is pure conjecture at this point. Will Hunt’s presence yield a meaningful difference in Chubb’s production? I suppose it could, but of all the factors to consider, I don’t think Chubb’s ADP is strongly tied to Hunt.
  8. I've seen said poll. Based on the phrasing of the question alone, I suspect you will yield the desired result. Science!
  9. This discussion is 100% tied to Hunt. To summarize, you have said: I believe presence of X negatively influences Y. I can't solve for X because I don't know what it is, but I really believe Hunt will eat into Chubb's production late in the year because X negatively influences Y, which I can't solve, but nevermind, let's not fill this thread with my circular pixie dust.
  10. Quite the hollow and amusing assertion that you're right and I'm wrong when you can't even operationalize the quality of a backup, let alone demonstrate that it makes a statistical difference.
  11. No. But, you've constructed a non-falsifiable hypothesis by, on the one hand, saying you do believe the quality of a backup plays a role in the starter's touches, while at the same time saying there is no way to determine the quality of a backup. I still waiting for the take-home slam dunk punchline you wanted to drop with your epic scenario. Please advise.
  12. Well, you just said there is no definitive way to determine if Hunt is a good backup. So, I think you just argued yourself out of a point.
  13. To be fair, you were eluding to the concern about Chubb's numbers of touches falling because Hunt is a good backup. But, sure, don't let falsifiable hypotheses and empirical data get in the way of a good story. What's the point you're trying to make with your scenario? I think I know what it is but want to be sure before commenting.
  14. That’s an interesting theory that I imagine has minimal empirical, historical support. If Browns are strolling into the playoffs, Chubb will get some rest the final game, regardless of whether it’s me or Hunt at backup. In the more likely scenario where the Browns are fighting for a playoff spot or higher seed, the best players will see the field as usual.