Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Andy Dufresne

Members
  • Content Count

    63,103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Andy Dufresne last won the day on April 26

Andy Dufresne had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,484 Excellent

About Andy Dufresne

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Tardis

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Minnesota Vikings

Recent Profile Visitors

30,404 profile views
  1. Guys, you have to consider how much of a competitive advantage this gives the Bengals by keeping the Jaguars guessing like this!
  2. Unique in that, because of the nature of their profession, their behavior is so visible. Really, I agree with you. Players pouting their way out of their commitments are insufferable.
  3. Anywhere there's money to be made. I think Wall Street is full of those types? How about actors like Charlie Sheen?
  4. It was a joke and I don't want to. It suffices to say that, for my money, offensive line play is the biggest factor making the NFL nearly unwatchable.
  5. Assuming that you get good players with those picks, that is. That's a big assumption. By not acquiring Ramsey you gain the "opportunity cost of salary" but you also take on an increased level of risk that the talent won't be as good. There's trade offs from both perspectives. I'm not convinced that Ramsey is a selfish malcontent. He might be, but from an even larger sample size I AM convinced that Tom Coughlin is a gigantic jerk and I'm not surprised that a superstar would butt heads with him. Now that he's gotten his way, we'll truly see if he's a never-satisfied primadonna. No need to beat the horse. I get what you guys are saying. It's risky. They should definitely use the draft capital and money in other places on the roster. But I like teams acquiring elite players in an attempt to win as opposed to franchises that sit mired in mediocrity knowing they can milk the fans for money no matter the product on the field (I'm looking at you Bengals owner Mike Brown).
  6. I SAID THAT OFFENSIVE LINEMAN COMING OUT OF COLLEGE ARE NEARLY UNIVERSALLY TERRIBLE THESE DAYS SO YOU'RE NOT FIXING THAT WITH FIRST ROUNDERS ANYWAY!
  7. That's partially true. But it's not Ramsey's contact alone that determines what you can/can't pay. It contributes, of course, but it's all a shell game with 52 other contracts on the team. And there again, you're not guaranteed that the guys you want to sign will be available or can make the impact that Ramsey can. The cap will likely increase by the $10m or so more raise they're going to have to pay Ramsey. I'm no capologist so I can't get I those weeds with you but it seems to me they'll have plenty when Fowler, Brockers, and Whitworth are gone. Fowler will hurt to lose (sorta) but #2 DTs aren't hard to replace an offensive linemen coming out of college are nearly universally terrible these days so you're not fixing that with 1st rounders anyway. None of this is to say that it's not risky. Of course it is. But it's a calculated one. At the very least Ramsey puts cheeks in SoFi Stadium seats.
  8. I see what you're getting at, and there's a lot to be said about getting good players I rookie contracts, but I don't think this good deal is made bad because of other bad deals.
  9. I'm confident there were back channel conversations ensuring that Ramsey is willing to sign with the Rams long term.
  10. Jalen Ramsey is one of the league's best players. If I'm a GM I'm more than willing to say "I'm willing to sacrifice the use of my 1st and 4th two years from now because I'm nearly certain that Ramsey will be SO MUCH better than the player I can get with my 1st next year." It's reasonable. Another GM might say "I'll play the lottery and bet that I can get as good of a player with my 2020 1st as Jalen Ramsey and I'll keep my other two picks." I find that also reasonable, but less so. IMO A Ramsey on the roster is worth three birds in the draft.
  11. Because you should be. I wouldn't accept either, uh, either.
  12. There's a gigantic difference between Fight Club and the Joker. The Narrator in FC brings on his own insanity because of his personal choice in selfish acts of materialism, hedonism, and nihilism. He's pathetic because he has choice and chooses poorly. Walter White is a similar case - cancer might have pushed him in a certain direction but most of his misery was brought on by his own actions. Arthur OTOH is such a transparently manipulative character. Everything he's is is because of the fault of someone else - including you, by extension, in the audience. That's because the movie incorporates every possible way that society could cause harm, so you're ensured to be complicit in his fall. I disagree that this iteration of Joker "just is" insane and evil, as you said. Here, he "just wants to make people laugh" and take care of his mother. But for all the evils of society he'd have remained that way. But noooooo...society is evil, EEEVILLLLL! And Arthur is just the result of it. I don't find it disturbing at all - it's just one of the least subtle, ham fisted, contrived movies of all time. It's a lobotomized Taxi Driver.