Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bruce Hammond

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bruce Hammond last won the day on April 25 2013

Bruce Hammond had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

204 Excellent

About Bruce Hammond

  • Rank
  • Birthday November 8

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Walnut Creek CA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,328 profile views
  1. This is the first name I thought of. Baldwin and Lockett are mostly unaffected. Jaron Brown is a deep threat. Darboh is the guy who holds the role most similar to Marshall, and has not yet proven his worth. If he pans out, chances are Marshall either doesn't make the team or just becomes vet depth. But if Darboh struggles too much in preseason, Marshall will supplant him as #3.
  2. Definitely Dixon, not Humphries. In a few weeks you'll be very glad you own Dixon.
  3. The 200 yard game against Seattle was Week 12. In the remaining 5 weeks of the regular season he was 19-275-3 (extrapolates to 60.8-880-9.6). What he will do in 2016 has to factor in the involvement Lad Green and Sammy Coates. Hard to predict. But one thing that seems sure is that his numbers the four weeks with Bryant out last year to begin the season look irrelevant now, given that his involvement grew in the 2nd half of the season even with Bryant playing.
  4. What I'm trying to figure out is how (or whether) Hogan's signing affects K Martin. Certainly the pecking order is Edelman / Gronk then everyone else, but I was beginning to believe Martin was gaining some traction near the end of last season and could even land the Edelman role in a year or two (Edelman is 30 in May). One game last year (Edelman was out) Martin had 11 targets if I recall correctly. Does Hogan relegate Martin to just special teams? And what about Amendola. I was sort of expecting him to be released once the Hogan signing becomes official.
  5. I was agreeing with him in that I wouldn't have had him top 20 regardless of drug use risk. Sorry you don't like me "parading" my ranking, but as I said in my 1st post it was to stress the importance of looking at risk, something most ignore. Have a nice day.
  6. I didn't say that. I had him ranked #39 based on talent reduced by knucklehead risk. Wow, you seem awfully upset for some reason.
  7. In leagues I'm in with fresh 1,000 budgets (all teams have nearly their full budgets since we just began the new year), he was available in a some of them (26 man rosters, PPR) and blind bids processed last night. These are two-conference leagues and three leagues total, so he was available in 4 of 6 total places. The winning bids were 78 33 26 and 26. I was in just one of the conferences where he was available, and I bid 21 losing to the 33 bidder. I clearly underestimated the interest in him, thinking 21 would be an easy winner. Turns out it wouldn't have won in any of the conferences. Hope that helps some.
  8. It doesn't surprise me to read that from you, since I agree with the vast majority of your posts and think you have a good handle on things. I think though that if you do a survey of dynasty rankings from a number of sites you'll find that Bryant (before this news) has consistently been ranked a top-20 dynasty WR. You don't agree with it, I don't agree with it, but there it is.
  9. I guess if I owned Manziel, I might trade him for Bryant. But of course I'd never own Manziel. And I sure as hell would never flush a 2nd down the toilet for Bryant.
  10. In the latest FBG WR dynasty rankings before this came out, Bryant was ranked #14 #20 #14 #19 by my colleagues, and #39 by me. Why so low? My yellow note attached said this: "Had a 4 game suspension at the start of 2015 for substance abuse. Now one strike away from a year long substance abuse ban, holding his ranking down." That note was dated Feb. 25. This isn't to pat myself on the back (well, maybe a little) but to stress to people that we can't just look at upside when drafting or trading for players (or ranking them), we have to understand and factor in the risks. There was no way with his history he was a top-15-20 value in my mind. Remember, to get a 4 game ban last year he had to have already failed two previous times. So now he's gone for a year, and people who think they are sharks are going to 'buy low,' but consider that this is not the same as a one year injury. Nothing has indicated he will turn things around, but instead the opposite. Right now he is a lot closer to being the next out-of-football-permanently guy than a buy low value. Blackmon anyone? How many thought they were sharks buying low on him? Yes, Bryant may make it back and have value someday, but I'm not going to assume something that is the opposite of what the facts have shown so far.
  11. It was a 2 year deal that he signed. Do you think he'll play both years? For dynasty purposes, a top 12 TE for 2 years who then retires > 5 years of second rate production from someone like a Jordan Cameron or Kyle Rudolph. But if it's just one and done it's not so clear.
  12. I think he'll go to Oakland to pair with Lat Murray. They are way under the cap and have to spend. They are in a position to offer him more than most teams.
  13. Isn't this the case with most rbs, in general? Teams don't necessaily win because their rb gets a good number of carries (especially CJA). More often than not the rbs get more carries when their team is winning. There's also the matter of fitting a statistic to its intended result. The 14 carry figure was hand picked, I'm sure, because that was the next highest total above some number of carries that resulted in a loss; there's no magic concerning that number and whether it is deterministic or not.
  14. Rotoworld blurb today, FWIW: Nick Foles - QB - RamsESPN's Adam Schefter reports new Eagles coach Doug Pederson is "interested" in bringing Nick Foles back to Philadelphia. The quarterback wheels are spinning in Philly. Schefter reported Sunday the Eagles are no longer planning to franchise tag Sam Bradford, and now it looks like Pederson is gearing up for a reunion with Foles. Pederson was the Eagles' quarterbacks coach when the team drafted Foles in 2012. Foles is coming off a dreadful year in St. Louis, but the $7.75 million he'll make in 2016 is far less than what Bradford will command in free agency. It's unclear what the Rams would be looking for in a trade for Foles. The Rams benched Foles down the stretch last year, deciding Case Keenum was a better option.Related: Eagles Source: Adam Schefter on Twitter Feb 7 - 12:29 PM