Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is one I mentioned as a maybe earlier in the thread. Skimming Cardinals box scores last year, it was rare for more than one receiver to blow up on them, but common for at least one guy to have a big day. Is that all Peterson shadowing the low-performer? For example, Boldin destroyed them in week 17 while Crabtree was quiet, while VD wrecked them while Boldin was quiet in their earlier meeting. Perhaps a Cards fan or a more diligent NFC West watcher can provide some more insight.
Peterson had 93 and 2 td's week 1, Asiata went for 115 week 17, Lacy went for 99, Forte 95/1td. Yes they also were stout in other games but don't say they can't be run on.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Wait, Non Sequitur is MOP? OHHHH
if only we had MINISTRY OF PAIN to create these types of threads.... This Non Sequitur guy pales in comparison
LOL! Yay, I know...unheard of. But it may be better off to play the matchups in week 1. Defenses are usually ahead of offenses earlier in the season. And a lot of the supposed "studs" haven't looked very studly...lots of question marks out there.
Agreed. Plus, because Sherman always plays the same side and doesn't move around to shadow the best WR, I doubt the Packers will just throw Nelson over there all game. They'll do what the Broncos did with D. Thomas in the Super Bowl and move him all around so he has a chance to make plays. Granted, I don't think Nelson and Cobb are gonna have big games, but I think they'll both be good enough. I don't see a 2-10-0 stat line out of either.
That's funny, I have often thought that the offenses have the advantage early in the year. That is why you see some #3 receivers have a huge week and then disappear.
I didn't say they couldn't be ran on at any point of my post, I was just pointing out that they were rather effective in stopping the rungame against superb RBs. And yeah Peterson blew them up week 1, this is AP we're talking about, not Rashad Jennings. And if you remember correctly or were watching the game, AP had like a 60yd+ rusTD on like his first drive of the season. Asiata had a fluke 3 tds that game in week 17 which doesn't matter to almost anyone for fantasy's sake. The players other than Asiata that you mention are all within the top6 RBs in the league PPR/not. I still stick with my expectation.
No but you did say that only 1person broke 100 on them and then listed other players like they did horrible. I cpuntered with a list of players including 3 you listed that faired pretty well even though they didn't break 100. And you cannot just discount Asiata because it was week 17 and didn't matter to fantasy. I have tempered feelings about Jennings but i am willing to bet he approaches 80 yards and a td. Just fine for me from a rb2. And that doesn't count the receptions.Hoot McGoot said:
you sound pretty terrible at FFNero said:
I'd suggest the opposite. First of all, they are studs for a reason. Also, every year defenses that are supposed to be great end up bad and defenses that are supposed to be bad end up great. You can't play the match-up if you don't know what the match-up is.Warpig said:
Yeah, let's forget about defensive YTY turnover for a second and just look at the history. PIT/CLE games are almost always extremely low scoring affairs, you do not start Big Ben vs. CLE.
The guy said he was thinking of playing match-ups week 1 and I told him why I thought it was a bad idea.
Big Ben an option vs Cleveland?JFS171 said:
Whatever you do, just make sure things are color coordinated. I can't decide what to do unless it's in green or red, or maybe amber.
The crack team of sharks in here has an unbelievable imagination. I couldn't piece the MOP thing together but I see what they are trying to say. That's terrible, no one wants that kind of notoriety.SameSongNDance said:Wait, Non Sequitur is MOP? OHHHH[icon] said:
if only we had MINISTRY OF PAIN to create these types of threads.... This Non Sequitur guy pales in comparison
Wasn't even a tough decision. Ben is a good QB with a much better matchup.
Let's see..
Morris is the Redskin I'm least worried about against Houston. The Redskin O-line isn't good at pass blocking but they're pretty good at run blocking on the move, and Morris is great at reading his blocks.
The last time we saw the Seahawks defense, they were holding Peyton Manning to 280/1/2 on a neutral field. Rodgers faced them in Seattle in 2012 and went 223/0/0. Give me Ben in this scenario.
You're looking for people to point out the misinformation that is the basis of your OP? Don't you think it might be better to just get it right in the first place?
I don't think the Seahawks can contain both of those guys. Rodgers/Cobb/Nelson is a monster trio; I'd say that you bench your Packers WRs only if you have clearly better options. One of them is very likely to do some damage.
Andre Johnson, TY Hilton and Demaryius Thomas all had big statistical games against Seattle's D last year. And they didn't face Megatron, AJ Green, Dez Bryant, Julio Jones, the Chicago WRs or Antonio Brown last year, so while it's true that Seattle's defense is beastly, big time WRs can get theirs against them.
Per the article the reason Seattle was able to get to Rodgers because Seattle didn’t think that the Packers were going to run the ball or stick to the run. The Seahawks got 8 sacks in the 1st half but the Packers were able to slow them down in the 2nd half by running the ball more
Especially for week one.
I agree he may be the "least" worrisome player but I still don't think he's a good play this week.
