Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

760 Excellent

About Mene

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Detroit Lions

Recent Profile Visitors

6,154 profile views
  1. I can't stand the guy, everything he pulled last year showed what a miserable bastard he is. That said, I will concede it is possible that having everything potentially taken away from him woke him up, and he's legitimately focused and going to just show up and play football. I don't know what the odds of that are, but they aren't zero. That alone makes him worth a stash as a WR5 or 6 in deeper roster leagues. If he's 75% of what he was, he could be a dangerous WR3 down the stretch. That playoff schedule of Min-Atl-Det is mighty appealing if he does settle in and find a role here with Tampa. Especially considering that Evans and Godwin have struggled with health this year.
  2. Assuming Fulgham doesn't fall on his face and lose his starting X spot, I think it's entirely possible he could end up being top 24 for the rest of the season. In PPR, he was WR5 weeks 4 - 6, and WR13 currently if you add week 7. That's with M.Williams and H.Ruggs above him having only played one game each. In that time, Ertz was healthy and had 21 targets in weeks 4 - 6, and Rodgers had 8 last night. Doubt Goedert is going to garner much more than that. Reagor coming back could slot in to the Z, which has continued to get 5 or so targets per game during Fulgham's breakout. I don't know if he will continue to average 11 targets/game, seems unlikely, but if he holds that starting X he seems to be set for enough to push top 24 fantasy production.
  3. I can only speak for myself, but I view it as mocking something beyond Biden's control. He didn't choose to be born with a stutter, and I think every one of us know it's just flat wrong to mock or ridicule someone for a disability, or something beyond their control. Calling trump a racist is accusing him of doing something by choice. It's not mocking or making fun of him for something he was born with, or cannot help or control. It also is probably not helpful if the goal is respectful conversation, but I think it's in a different ballpark. The orange thing, again, not really helping the conversation, but is also another example of something trump does by choice. He doesn't have to apply so much orange make up, he choses to. Not sure making fun of it helps, but it isn't a disability he was born with.
  4. Remove money from from politics. It's a simple response, but it fuels all of this. When you see how much more time congress members spend fund raising rather than debating and legislating, it should be pretty apparent where the problem lies. Campaign finance needs a complete overhaul, lobbying needs significantly more regulation and oversite, citizens united needs to be revisited. The outsized influence corporate interests have on our politics is madness, and fuels so much of the divide. Wedge issues are used constantly in ads by special interests as a means to support or defeat candidates when the wedge issue itself has nothing to do with the motivation of the organization funding the ads. The people are misled and used every cycle by stoking emotional responses to issues that those funding these politicians and ads could care less about. There is no honesty or transparency at all in what motivates those funding these campaigns.
  5. Serious question. You really think mockingly referencing the stuttering of Joe Biden contributes to respectful conversation?
  6. Fox News Correspondent on the emails re: Joe Biden
  7. Anyone concerned about the matchup with Bradberry this week? The targets would appear to be available again, but Bradberry shadows the #1 outside WR as I understand it? I haven't watched any Giants games this year, but looking at #1's this year against the Giants.. Week 1 - Pittsburgh: Who was the #1? Not sure who Bradberry matched up with, or if he moved around. Juju 6/69/2 on 6, D.Johnson 6/57 on 10. Week 2 - Chicago: A.Robinson held to 3/33 on 9 targets Week 3 - San Fran: Again, who was the #1 here? Aiyuk had 5/70 on 8 targets, was Bradberry on him? Week 4 - LA Rams: R.Woods held to 6/33 on 7 targets Week 5 - Dallas: A.Cooper held to 2/23 on 4 targets Week 6 - Washington: T.Mclaurin went 7/74 on 12 targets, a solid game. Looks like when there is a clear #1 outside (ARob, Woods, Cooper, McLaurin), 3 out of 4 came in well below their average against Bradberry and the Giants. I'm debating going with M.Williams and D.J.Chark over Fulgham this week, but would love to hear someone more familiar with the Giants tell me I'm crazy.
  8. I thought just the opposite. He seemed to be pounding it right where it was designed most of the night. I didn't notice much of him trying to do more than was there, or trying to break inside runs to the outside. Overall, aside from the drop, and general lack of passing game involvement, it was a pretty encouraging night for Drake. It was against a weak run D, but they stuck with him, even after the slow start, and it really allowed him to chew up some yardage in the second half when Dallas D was tired and probably a bit demoralized.
  9. Since I'm a Lions homer and will be watching the game, I am certain Chark will go off and make me regret this, but I am sitting him for D.Henderson, T.Fulgham, and P.Williams as of right now. I've got 3 hours to swing back and forth wildly on this however.
  10. I'll readily admit, I don't watch enough Philly to say for sure what either of these guys have left. I can however look at the numbers, and I don't see what it is that makes them such sure things to just step in and take over the WR snaps when they do get healthy. DJax is 33, missed a ton of games over the last 5 years, and has only been productive in spurts when active. Alshon has missed his share of games, and has also just been moderately productive when active. I have no idea how much staying power Fulgham has, but I do wonder if DJax and Jeffrey are truly destined to relegate him to the bench when they can finally hit the field.
  11. I think you would agree that your projections, and viewing him as a WR4, would be on the conservative side. He was pretty universally ranked as a WR3, and most projections had him doing a bit more than 50/750/5. Typically, your WR3 is either a high upside/low floor guy like Gallup, or a low upside/high floor guy. You've gotten really lucky if your WR3 is a weekly stud. If you go the high upside/low floor like Gallup, you just have to be patient. You can play the match-ups, if your depth allows. However, benching those type guys strictly due to a bad game, or a couple bad games in a row, is arguably the wrong approach for that type of player. You should have expected the bad games, hope to be able to offset them with the rest of your lineup, and know that the good games will likely make you tough to beat that week.
  12. Just my opinion, but I think this is the wrong approach with Gallup. He's likely your WR3, possibly your WR2, but he is a guy that should have been drafted expecting some inconsistency. If you sit a guy like Gallup after he has a stinker, you really risk missing his big games. Especially this week, with Atlanta up next.
  13. I agree with Hines, love him as a ppr value pick. The Colts had 399 RB rushing attempts last year. I think it's reasonable to expect something similar, if not more if you buy in to them being better this year than last year. There is plenty of room (perfect world here, not projecting injuries) for 250 for Taylor, 100-125 for Mack, and 25-50 for Hines. They also had 56 rushing attempts by Brissett, which we can safely assume with Rivers will be greatly reduced, and likely account for some of the increased RB receptions. If Taylor truly surpasses Mack, with that OLine, would something like... Taylor 250/1200/12 & 20/150/? Mack 125/550/3 & 10/80/? Hines 40/190/1 & 75/575/? all that shocking, and still produce your predicted Hines PPR value, while still allowing Taylor to be plenty valuable in PPR? None of those numbers, as far as total carries, yardage, or TD's are far from last year, and again, they are expected to be improved as a team this year. The RB receptions are boosted, but that is expected, with the change in QB's. Again, not necessarily trying to convince anyone, but just kinda laying out my optimism for Taylor, assuming he does overtake Mack, and showing numbers that are reasonable that make it worth it.
  14. I get why I'm in the minority, but I really want shares of Taylor. Mack has improved statistically each of the last 3 years, but Waldman had an article recently breaking down RB's relative to Oline reliance, and he has Mack as one who is line dependent. I read an article elsewhere that kinda made it sound like Mack is a guy who gets what's there, but nothing special. When I read how good that OLine is, and figure that behind it Mack has been getting what is there, and then imagine what a guy like Taylor might get... I am on board with those who think that once that genie is out of the bottle, there will be no returning it. It's a gamble, but where Taylor is going, most of those RB's start to have question marks. I'll bet on the great Oline, the immense skill, and the good but not great RB he has to surpass to become to primary ball carrier.